Violence in the Bible vs. violence in the Quran

Ali Sina

Ali Sina is the author of Understanding Muhammad and Muslims.

248 Responses

  1. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “Your false comparisons are still fallacious no matter how many times you repeat them, unless you can prove that mental events have spatio-temporal properties.” We use the term “person” to indicate a thing or being which experiences the world from a particular location in space (and also has certain physical and mental characteristics). In fact, consciousness itself is dependent on the experience of time and space from one perspective at a time. If there were several perspectives at a time, and several experiences at a time, then we would actually have several different consciousnesses, or human beings.

    “That explains nothing. First, the information you mention is not material and neither is the result necessarily material such as values/goals.” How is information “immaterial”?

    “So I’m left with; either beyond the physical must still be physical (circular) or if it’s not physical then it’s magic (poisoning the well). The demand to produce physical evidence for a non-physical entity remains a Category Mistake fallacy. Three fallacies that sub paragraph.” The laws of reality or metaphysics are not physical. For example the law of identity is not physical or 1+1=2 is not physical. These laws apply to all things in the physical world but themselves are not physical.

    “A false dilemma fallacy. Either the ontology is a monist ontology of materialism or I’m invoking magic. ” You either believe that mind is somehow fundamental to reality (which so far you haven’t given an argument for) or you you believe it’s some magical thing which exists and functions independent of the physical world.

    “You have failed to demonstrate any of my beliefs equate to magic. In fact, it is the belief that minerals can become alive which is actual magic. A firm materialist belief and superstition.” You believe mind exists independent of causality and the physical world this is the very definition of magic. “Life” is just a particular collection of atoms that does certain things, believing that “life” is a property independent of the matter is superstition and magic.

    “I demonstrated a meaning without referencing any physical objects and you respond with a red herring. You did not even address my point.” You didn’t have a point, meanings only exist in relation to some other thing. For example your computer has meaning for you, the only purpose is the one your mind gives it. Things don’t have “inherent purpose” and the whole universe (everything that exists) certainly doesn’t.

    “It’s magic when minerals give birth to consciousness” When ice melts and becomes water it’s not “magic” and neither is the material world “giving birth” to consciousness magic. It’s the result of a natural process. A mind which exists outside of reality is magic.

    “Evolution contains no evidence which has been tested experimentally under lab conditions which could have been replicated by an independent party. None. It is purely inferential storytelling. I attack Evolution because it is the Atheist’s sacred tenet. No one who is skeptic of Evolution must be tolerated. It is the only science which demands protection from government and has brigades of lawyers for its defense.” Nonsense evolution is accepted by all scientists regardless of there religion or worldview. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    “So the purpose of science which is to provide a naturalistic explanation for the natural world is NOT objective but subjective? This poses huge problems for your position don’t you think?” Science is about facts -it doesn’t tell you what to value.

    //A Believer in such an alien could also claim if you find that a flat/faulty battery caused the car breakdown this doesn’t disprove the “hypothesis” of the aliens and their disabling beam – since they just sent a signal to the battery which caused it to malfunction.//
    “If you believe in aliens (which are physical beings btw) then give me rational justification for your beliefs, until then your analogy remains a false comparison fallacy” I don’t believe in such aliens. I was just making the point that hypothesising the existence of aliens to explain your car breakdown is completely unnecessary and useless – just like believing brain is a “receiver” is unnecessary, useless and adds even more complications. Also you can change “aliens” to “spiritual beings” or “spiritual aliens” if you want.

  2. Phoenix,
    “I’ll keep it short and skip over your unnecessary juvenile antics and repetitions.”
    —-Repitition occurs when you do not grasp the answers I have given you so I repeat the information in somewhat different words. This is a time tested educational technique. The fact you find it somehow juvenile only reflects on your unwillingness to learn.

    //–Ok, please provide equations of mind/brain similar to equations of matter/gravity.//
    “Of course not, there’s no mathematical model of the brain”
    —-I didn’t ask you for a mathematical model of the brain, just a set of equations that describe how soulstuff acts upon brainstuff, analogous to the equations that describe how gravity acts upon matter.

    But you are just making up soulstuff out of your imagination, so of course you cannot describe it.

    Further, there are a great many mathematical models of how the brain works. Neural networks, artificial intelligence, Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, chemical formulas, and the equations of physics that describe so much of how the brain works.

    There is not now a comprehensive model of the entire brain in minute detail, any more than there is a comprehensive model of every star, planet, and bit of gas in our galaxy. We just don’t have that much modeling capacity.

    Yet, I can give you a very great deal of detail as to how the various objects in the galaxy interact, and how the various objects in the brain interact, but you give me absolutely zero about how your soulstuff interacts with the brain.

    Zero description yet you attribute our intelligence to it. And you call me juvenile?

    ========

    //–What counter example? The symbols are themselves material. If you use words to describe that relationship the words themselves are material. I can program a computer to make decisions based on that relationship and as those decisions are being made dynamically in a tiny fraction of a second the process is entirely material.//
    “What are you talking about??? How can symbols be material? “
    —-The symbols themselves are material. The ink, the graphite, the orientation of the liquid crystals, whatever the symbols are made of they are material.

    “Is this symbol (∅) referring to an empty set material?”
    —-It represents something to you, I don’t know what. To me it just looks like a square. If you mean it represents a zero quantity of something, fine, that is a mathematical concept in my brain, which is material. When my brain rots that concept will no longer reside in my brain.

    “ What does it weigh, measurement, etc?”
    —-The photons passing through the LCD have some mass equivalent, which you can calculate using E=m*c*c

    “ Does describing something with words make it material? Therefore pink unicorns and santa exist because I can describe them using words. Is that correct?”
    —-Your words are material but are not themselves the thing they describe. It is possible to describe an imaginary entity that has never been shown to exist outside of the description, like god or the mind or unicorns, for example.

    //–Working on it. That’s a very difficult scientific problem. But some progress has been made. There are presently a number of self replicating molecules that have been synthesized, so humans have already been able to make living things out of non-living things.//
    “So you still have zero proof that life was born from chemicals.”
    —-Science doesn’t do proof. Science is provisional. Science does evidence. There is much very good and powerful evidence that life is chemistry and that the first living chemicals arose some 3.8 billion years ago.

    //Traditionally intuition has been described as part of the subconscious. Very obviously the brain continues to function even when we are unconscious. Intuitions are simply the conclusions of the subconscious portions of brain function communicated to our self awareness brain functions in the form of a*** feelings***.//
    “You have just used attempted to physicalize intuition by assigning it to another non-physical event…FEELINGS. “
    —-Feelings are just signals inside the brain. Why do you suppose they have some mystical origin?

    “Which sense do we use when we are feeling emotions? PS: Don’t equivocate feeling with touching.”
    —-Touching is sensing an external object or force or energy, heat, for example. Vision through the eyes is the conversion of electromagnetic radiation into nerve signals that connect directly to the brain from the eye. Hearing is the conversion of air pressure variations in the ear to nerve signals to the brain.

    These nerve signals are then processed by the brain using pattern correlation algorithms, and the results of such processing can lead to nerve signal outputs from the brain to our muscles.

    We think of our 5 senses in terms to the types of external energies and entities that are detected (electromagnetic radiation for the eyes, chemical substances for taste and smell, etc)

    But, our senses are not only external detection systems, we also have internal monitoring systems. We can feel internal conditions such as pressure build up in the bladder (I feel like I gotta go), reduction of internal body temperature (I feel cold). These internal body senses are easily recognized as essentially the same as our external senses, but applied to our own bodies.

    Now, to answer your question, we also sense signal traffic within our own brain. The brain is a distributed massively parallel network of subnetworks.

    Self awarness is a sort of wire tap. As signals are sent from place to place in the brain our self awarenss networks monitor those signals, which we describe as feelings.

    To say our external world sense feelings, our internal body sense feelings, and our internal brain sense feelings are all precisely the same thing, and then to haphazardly interchange them would indeed be an equivocation.

    However, they are very closely related. In all cases we have a terrible difficulty in describing any of these feelings to others. As a child I often wondered how I would describe a particular color, or a beautiful sunset to a person born entirely blind. I still have not solved that problem and I am not aware that anybody ever has.

    So, we make the postulate that we all feel these senses basically the same. Over time we have used words to describe situations that lead to certain feelings in ourselves, and called that feeling by some name, describe the situation to another person, and postulate that the other person feels basically the same thing in that situation. Our language of feelings has been developed and is recognized broadly by this process.

    Senses are the detection and processing of signals in the brain.

    Some signals are converted from external energy sources or chemicals or objects.
    Some signals are converted from internal body conditions.
    Some signals are monitored on internal data pathways in the brain.

    =====
    //–Just like a robot can avoid driving itself off a cliff. The robot has no ultimate control because it is pre-programmed to act deterministically. Yet, the control algorithm is written in the form of making decisions in response to sensory information.
    The robot has no free will, yet it makes decisions to avoid harm.//
    “Yes, the sensory information in the robot is pre-programmed. Now…how exactly does this relate to humans? Are we also pre-programmed? If so, from where was this programme downloaded?”
    —-It’s the old nature/nurture question. Even plants have hardwired sensory responses. Animals display complex instinctive behaviors. Humans also display instinctive behaviors. Over some 3.8 billion years these hard wired mechanisms have developed bit by bit. Those with beneficial instincts live and reproduce preferentially.

    Animals also have learned behavior, as do certain machines. More complex data processing and memory allows animals and machines to learn beyond hardwired algorithms. Humans are simply the most advanced form we know of.

    =====
    //The author has one intended purpose, the reader a different intended purpose, the burner another different intended purpose. There is no objective purpose to the book, and thus no paradox in my position.//
    “A reader is by definition, one who reads books. If he uses books for firewood then he has contradicted himself and is no longer a reader but an arsonist. Thus your paradox still persists.”
    —-No paradox, an individual can change intentions. First he intended to read the book, then he intended to burn it. How is that difficult to understand?

    =====
    //–Oh well, in the grown up world things are complex and unpredictable. To deal with that we make laws//
    “If we are totally conditioned, we have no choice in what we do and it makes no sense to speak of moral action springing from choices and values, or action being worthy of praise or blame and reward or punishment. “
    —-Right, I have no interest in punishing people for what they think, only if they inflict harm by my definition of harm.

    “This proves that determinism is untenable and impractical. We can’t be held morally responsible over something we cannot control, namely the laws of nature which influences our behaviors.”
    —-Laws are made by consensus in my country. It is a messy process, but I prefer it to dictatorship or theocracy. The absolute morality of harm is of no interest to me in making and enforcing laws. We have established criteria for evaluating and dealing with harmful behaviors. I don’t need absolute morality to arrive at this consensus.

    //–On the contrary, self monitoring brain processes are sufficient to explain self awareness.//
    “Give me a link to an article I can look at.”
    —-Seriously? You don’t know how to enter key terms into google? There are thousands of sources, I am not going to list them for you. This is really elementary stuff, but here is something for starters

    “Impaired self-awareness is commonly seen in patients with brain impairment, and is prevalent in patients with frontal lobe damage and associated executive dysfunction”
    http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/109/

    In other neurological conditions, symptom-specific insight has been noted, with behavioral symptoms appearing especially vulnerable to reduced insight. Different components of insight, self-awareness and self-monitoring, are also often considered separate phenomena.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697661/

    Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.[1] It is not to be confused with consciousness in the sense of qualia. While consciousness is a term given to being aware of one’s environment and body and lifestyle, self-awareness is the recognition of that awareness.[2]
    Contents
    1 Neurobiological basis
    1.1 Animals
    1.2 Cooperation and evolutionary problems
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness

  3. Phoenix says:

    Stardust,

    I’ll keep it short and skip over your unnecessary juvenile antics and repetitions.

    //–Ok, please provide equations of mind/brain similar to equations of matter/gravity.//

    Of course not, there’s no mathematical model of the brain.

    ========

    //–What counter example? The symbols are themselves material. If you use words to describe that relationship the words themselves are material. I can program a computer to make decisions based on that relationship and as those decisions are being made dynamically in a tiny fraction of a second the process is entirely material.//

    What are you talking about??? How can symbols be material? Is this symbol (∅) referring to an empty set material? What does it weigh, measurement, etc? Does describing something with words make it material? Therefore pink unicorns and santa exist because I can describe them using words. Is that correct?

    //–Working on it. That’s a very difficult scientific problem. But some progress has been made. There are presently a number of self replicating molecules that have been synthesized, so humans have already been able to make living things out of non-living things.//

    So you still have zero proof that life was born from chemicals.

    //Traditionally intuition has been described as part of the subconscious. Very obviously the brain continues to function even when we are unconscious. Intuitions are simply the conclusions of the subconscious portions of brain function communicated to our self awareness brain functions in the form of a*** feelings***.//

    You have just used attempted to physicalize intuition by assigning it to another non-physical event…FEELINGS. Which sense do we use when we are feeling emotions? PS: Don’t equivocate feeling with touching.
    =====
    –Just like a robot can avoid driving itself off a cliff. The robot has no ultimate control because it is pre-programmed to act deterministically. Yet, the control algorithm is written in the form of making decisions in response to sensory information.
    The robot has no free will, yet it makes decisions to avoid harm.//

    Yes, the sensory information in the robot is pre-programmed. Now…how exactly does this relate to humans? Are we also pre-programmed? If so, from where was this programme downloaded?

    =====
    The author has one intended purpose, the reader a different intended purpose, the burner another different intended purpose. There is no objective purpose to the book, and thus no paradox in my position.//

    A reader is by definition, one who reads books. If he uses books for firewood then he has contradicted himself and is no longer a reader but an arsonist. Thus your paradox still persists.

    =====
    –Oh well, in the grown up world things are complex and unpredictable. To deal with that we make laws//

    If we are totally conditioned, we have no choice in what we do and it makes no sense to speak of moral action springing from choices and values, or action being worthy of praise or blame and reward or punishment. This proves that determinism is untenable and impractical. We can’t be held morally responsible over something we cannot control, namely the laws of nature which influences our behaviors.

    //–On the contrary, self monitoring brain processes are sufficient to explain self awareness.//

    Give me a link to an article I can look at.

    –If an electronic device is programmed with self diagnostics routines then it has rudimentary self awareness.//

    Same applies here. Link to an article.

  4. Phoenix says:

    Steve,
    //Because evolution has made us good at avoiding things which are harmful to us. For example if someone throws a brick at your head it helps if you have the ability to see it coming and move out of its way to avoid being hit by it.//

    Invoking more magic. Evolution predicts everything, therefore it’s not falsifiable. Evolution contains no evidence which has been tested experimentally under lab conditions which could have been replicated by an independent party. None. It is purely inferential storytelling. I attack Evolution because it is the Atheist’s sacred tenet. No one who is skeptic of Evolution must be tolerated. It is the only science which demands protection from government and has brigades of lawyers for its defense.

    //Purposes are given to things by a mind, there is no such thing as “objective purposes”.//

    So the purpose of science which is to provide a naturalistic explanation for the natural world is NOT objective but subjective? This poses huge problems for your position don’t you think?

    //Killing or capturing a serial killer or a rapist is having “unpredictable morals”?//

    Huh???

    //A Believer in such an alien could also claim if you find that a flat/faulty battery caused the car breakdown this doesn’t disprove the “hypothesis” of the aliens and their disabling beam – since they just sent a signal to the battery which caused it to malfunction.//

    If you believe in aliens (which are physical beings btw) then give me rational justification for your beliefs, until then your analogy remains a false comparison fallacy.

  5. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    //Their is no need to hypothesise a separate mind, brain function accounts for the mind, if you damage the brain you damage the mind/personality. A “soul” is not needed, it is redundant and unnecessary. It’s no different to “hypothesising” that the brain is controlled by aliens. There is no need for it, their is no evidence for, it is highly complex and raises even more questions.//

    Your false comparisons are still fallacious no matter how many times you repeat them, unless you can prove that mental events have spatio-temporal properties.

    //It’s not an extraordinary claim, it’s obvious to anyone who has thought about it. We take in information and then give a result based on our goals/values. This explains the so called free will.//

    That explains nothing. First, the information you mention is not material and neither is the result necessarily material such as values/goals.

    //Anything beyond the physical is either metaphysical or magical. If it describes the principles of everything within reality, it’s metaphysics. If it tries to go beyond the principles of reality, then it’s magical. It’s that simple.//

    So I’m left with; either beyond the physical must still be physical (circular) or if it’s not physical then it’s magic (poisoning the well). The demand to produce physical evidence for a non-physical entity remains a Category Mistake fallacy. Three fallacies that sub paragraph.

    //The mind must be either physical or explained as a necessary component of an ontology. The only other option is magic.Since you have not offered an ontological alternative. I can only assume that when you try to go beyond physics, you are trying to go into the territory of magic.//

    A false dilemma fallacy. Either the ontology is a monist ontology of materialism or I’m invoking magic. There is no dualist ontology which could satisfy the materialist’s beliefs because it would have to pass the atheist’s arbitrary standard for knowledge, i.e., empirical evidence. So that well has been poisoned long before I even attempt to justify an alternative ontology.

    //Disbelief in magic is not superstition: on the contrary, it is a firm grip of reality that does not allow for any deceptive flights of fancy (belief in non-causal entities, true contradictions, etc.)//

    You have failed to demonstrate any of my beliefs equate to magic. In fact, it is the belief that minerals can become alive which is actual magic. A firm materialist belief and superstition.
    ============
    //How is this an example of “non material”? A theist is a person who believes in a creator God or gods (x), Phoenix believes in a creator God (Y) therefore Phoenix is a theist. (X) Where in this is the “without referencing physical objects”?//

    Stardusty said this://Meaning is relative to other things that exist. There is no absolute meaning relative to something outside of all existence because by definition there is nothing outside of all that exists//

    I demonstrated a meaning without referencing any physical objects and you respond with a red herring. You did not even address my point.

    Modus ponens : (P=>Q) (P) ; (Q). This is the standard reference and format for logical arguments, proving that the foundation for all claims are non-material. Show me where in that structure exists a reference to a material object? My counterexample proves his hypothesis false.

    //“Life” is just the label we give to a particular collection of atoms that do certain things, – it’s not magical.//

    It’s magic when minerals give birth to consciousness

  6. Faisal
    “Shalom. This article guy is total out of track and will end up in dead end. I feel sorry for him. May Hashem.show this poor guy a light.”
    So the Jewish guy says the Christian guy is wrong about the Muslim guy. Is this some kind of joke? You know, “A rabbi and a priest walk into a bar and meet an imam…”

    In all seriousness, I do appreciate the criticisms from Jews about Christianity and Islam, about Judaism from Christians and Muslims, and about Islam from Jews and Christians. They all kind of do my work for me.

    All I have to do is compile all these criticisms and voila, the vast defects in all these religions are laid bare.

    The article actually does a fairly good job of describing so-called moderate Muslims versus radicalized Muslims, radicalization being a process of learning the texts in more detail and seeking to implement them in real life by emulating the extremely violent methods used increasingly by Muhammad, the exemplary man.

  7. Faisal says:

    Shalom. This article guy is total out of track and will end up in dead end. I feel sorry for him. May Hashem.show this poor guy a light. Ameen Faisal

  8. @Phoenix
    “I do not need to know the exact mechanism behind the mind-brain interaction”
    –Translation: You do not have the slightest clue and you are just making up nonsense out of whole cloth.

    “Just as we do not know exactly how or the source of gravity which allows it to affect objects but we can measure its effects on those objects. “
    –Ok, please provide equations of mind/brain similar to equations of matter/gravity.

    “An extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. “
    So where is your extraordinary evidence for the mind as a separate entity? So far you have provided zero.

    “The description you require is a Category Error fallacy. It would boil down to a physical description of a non-material entity.”
    Translation: You just make stuff up. Yes, my assertions are in a category different from yours. Mine are in the category of reality. Yours are in the category of fantasy.

    “And yet you have failed to prove the material is all there is. In fact here is another example of non-material.
    Modus ponens; a deductive syllogism affirming the antecedent:
    (X => Y) , (X) ∴ (Y).
    Notice how that is explained without referencing physical objects?”
    –??? All you did is write some symbols down. Therefore magic poof stuff that isn’t really stuff???

    “You remain unable to prove how the non-material is oxymoronic. You just keep asserting it even though I have already provided a counter-example, which is sufficient to falsify your categorical assertion.”
    –What counter example? The symbols are themselves material. If you use words to describe that relationship the words themselves are material. I can program a computer to make decisions based on that relationship and as those decisions are being made dynamically in a tiny fraction of a second the process is entirely material.

    //Your claims are even worse than teapots in orbit. Teapots in orbit are immeasurably more plausible than your imaginary oxymoronic non-material stuff .//
    “Then go ahead and justify why you believe there are tea pots in orbit.”
    –I don’t believe there are teapots in orbit, but one could speculate that for some bizarre reason somebody launched some teapots into orbit. I have no evidence such a thing actually happened but at least that speculation does not require inventing a whole new form of existence that cannot even be observed.

    //Unwillingness to educate yourself noted.//
    “You were initially asked to provide proof that life erupted from dead minerals (Abiogenesis). Somehow I am now suppose to provide that proof for you. Do you not see the absurdity in your reasoning?”
    –Working on it. That’s a very difficult scientific problem. But some progress has been made. There are presently a number of self replicating molecules that have been synthesized, so humans have already been able to make living things out of non-living things.

    //-You misuse the term. I am not claiming that your hypocracy invalidates your claim. Your claims simply lack any evidence, description, or even any hint as to how they could function. Mine do.//
    “You previously stated that intuition can easily be accounted for by data processing actions in the brain. This was asserted as truth when in fact it is a hollow statement. What is the causal mechanism behind intuition?”
    –Already answered but you did not recognize the answer. Traditionally intuition has been described as part of the subconscious. Very obviously the brain continues to function even when we are unconscious. Intuitions are simply the conclusions of the subconscious portions of brain function communicated to our self awareness brain functions in the form of a feelings.

    //It is also rational to behave socially and to avoid negative consequences and to adhere to one’s own personal sense of ought and to lock up those who harm us irrespective of their rationalizations.//
    “How can you avoid something you have no control over?”
    –Just like a robot can avoid driving itself off a cliff. The robot has no ultimate control because it is pre-programmed to act deterministically. Yet, the control algorithm is written in the form of making decisions in response to sensory information.

    The robot has no free will, yet it makes decisions to avoid harm.

    =========

    “It is a paradox because your statement is self-refuting/ contradictory. Meanings are supposed to be clearly defined and unambiguous. A book cannot be a set of pages to one person and to someone else firewood. “
    –Of course it can, and is. Some people do indeed burn written material simply for the heat.

    “It loses its intended purpose when it is not clearly and objectively defined.”
    –The author has one intended purpose, the reader a different intended purpose, the burner another different intended purpose. There is no objective purpose to the book, and thus no paradox in my position.

    “This is why Atheists cannot generate trust amongst the general population because your morals are unpredictable and may change as the situation change.”
    –Oh well, in the grown up world things are complex and unpredictable. To deal with that we make laws

    //Self awareness is easily accounted for as self monitoring data processing
    Lower animals are aware of their surroundings. When they evolve sufficient complexity to apply such observational processes to themselves they become self aware. How is that difficult to understand?//
    “This has no bearing on the source of consciousness. “
    –On the contrary, self monitoring brain processes are sufficient to explain self awareness.

    “Modern tv’s are more advanced today than their more primitive counterparts a few decades ago ,with features such as wifi, 3D, internet, SUHD, etc. but that still does not prove the signal is produced inside the set.”
    –If an electronic device is programmed with self diagnostics routines then it has rudimentary self awareness.

  9. Ron says:

    “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.”

    – Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

  10. Steve says:

    @ Phoenix

    ‘I do not need to know the exact mechanism behind the mind-brain interaction for them to be causally efficacious. As long as the secondary effects are experienced, then it should suffice. Just as we do not know exactly how or the source of gravity which allows it to affect objects but we can measure its effects on those objects. The same applies with the other forces too.”
    Their is no need to hypothesise a separate mind, brain function accounts for the mind, if you damage the brain you damage the mind/personality. A “soul” is not needed, it is redundant and unnecessary. It’s no different to “hypothesising” that the brain is controlled by aliens. There is no need for it, their is no evidence for, it is highly complex and raises even more questions.

    //“Oh I have and I concluded this: If determinism is a universal law of nature then all human thoughts should be algorithmic. “
    —-Yes//
    “An extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. This should also be the case for all individuals, if determinism is a universal law.” It’s not an extraordinary claim, it’s obvious to anyone who has thought about it. We take in information and then give a result based on our goals/values. This explains the so called free will.

    “The description you require is a Category Error fallacy. It would boil down to a physical description of a non-material entity.” Anything beyond the physical is either metaphysical or magical. If it describes the principles of everything within reality, it’s metaphysics. If it tries to go beyond the principles of reality, then it’s magical. It’s that simple.

    The mind must be either physical or explained as a necessary component of an ontology. The only other option is magic.Since you have not offered an ontological alternative. I can only assume that when you try to go beyond physics, you are trying to go into the territory of magic.

    Disbelief in magic is not superstition: on the contrary, it is a firm grip of reality that does not allow for any deceptive flights of fancy (belief in non-causal entities, true contradictions, etc.)

    “Modus ponens; a deductive syllogism affirming the antecedent:
    (X => Y) , (X) ∴ (Y).
    Notice how that is explained without referencing physical objects?” How is this an example of “non material”? A theist is a person who believes in a creator God or gods (x), Phoenix believes in a creator God (Y) therefore Phoenix is a theist. (X) Where in this is the “without referencing physical objects”?

    “You remain unable to prove how the non-material is oxymoronic. You just keep asserting it even though I have already provided a counter-example, which is sufficient to falsify your categorical assertion.” See above where I explained either the “non physical” is either metaphysical (describes the principals of everything in reality) or is magical and beyond reality -in which case it doesn’t exist.

    “You were initially asked to provide proof that life erupted from dead minerals (Abiogenesis). Somehow I am now suppose to provide that proof for you. Do you not see the absurdity in your reasoning?” “Life” is just the label we give to a particular collection of atoms that do certain things, – it’s not magical.

    “How can you avoid something you have no control over?” Because evolution has made us good at avoiding things which are harmful to us. For example if someone throws a brick at your head it helps if you have the ability to see it coming and move out of its way to avoid being hit by it.

    “It is a paradox because your statement is self-refuting/ contradictory. Meanings are supposed to be clearly defined and unambiguous. A book cannot be a set of pages to one person and to someone else firewood. It loses its intended purpose when it is not clearly and objectively defined.” Purposes are given to things by a mind, there is no such thing as “objective purposes”.

    “This is why Atheists cannot generate trust amongst the general population because your morals are unpredictable and may change as the situation change.” Killing or capturing a serial killer or a rapist is having “unpredictable morals”?

    “This has no bearing on the source of consciousness. Modern tv’s are more advanced today than their more primitive counterparts a few decades ago ,with features such as wifi, 3D, internet, SUHD, etc. but that still does not prove the signal is produced inside the set.” As explained above this “hypothesis” is rejected because, Consciousness is explained by brain function, all abilities of the mind depend on brain structures and function. A soul is not needed. It’s like hypothesising that if your car breaks down it was caused by a alien in outer space pointing a disabling beam at your car. A Believer in such an alien could also claim if you find that a flat/faulty battery caused the car breakdown this doesn’t disprove the “hypothesis” of the aliens and their disabling beam – since they just sent a signal to the battery which caused it to malfunction.

  11. Ron
    “Watch that video!!! Hear what Braxton says and what his doctors say.”
    Another Jesus!!! Wow, that’s pretty impressive.

    How many people are there who have been resurrected after death? It seems like Easter is no big thing to celebrate after all. Resurrection is a banality. Lots of guys are getting resurrected.

    How credulous are you, Ron? Serious question. Do you believe every story somebody tells you? How about alien abductions? There are lots of videos of people describing their alien abductions in great detail. Are you credulous about those too?

    Have you ever had any weird dreams? Have you ever found that your dreams are especially bizarre when you are under stress. In case you don’t know, serious medical conditions that lead to brain trauma, heart stoppage, oxygen starvation, and other forms of severe impacts are very stressful and can lead to some very unusual perceived visions and sensations.

    I can tell you from experience, a serious medical condition can produce some very vivid dreams, visions, and sensations. One definition of madness is believing your dreams are real.

    When you start to listen to the voices in your head as though they are real external beings you have lost your mind.

  12. Phoenix says:

    //How does this imagined thing you call the “mind” utilize the brain? What is the connection method by which this imagined thing somehow manipulates the brain?//

    I do not need to know the exact mechanism behind the mind-brain interaction for them to be causally efficacious. As long as the secondary effects are experienced, then it should suffice. Just as we do not know exactly how or the source of gravity which allows it to affect objects but we can measure its effects on those objects. The same applies with the other forces too.

    //“Oh I have and I concluded this: If determinism is a universal law of nature then all human thoughts should be algorithmic. “
    —-Yes//

    An extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. This should also be the case for all individuals, if determinism is a universal law.

    -That’s funny coming from a guy who can’t even remotely begin to describe this fantasy thing called the “mind”//

    The description you require is a Category Error fallacy. It would boil down to a physical description of a non-material entity.

    //What else is there? If there is something else please provide the “evidence which has been experimentally tested under laboratory conditions, replicated and is falsifiable under the rules of empiricism. “ for your incoherent notion of “immaterial” mind or soul or whatever you call it.//

    And yet you have failed to prove the material is all there is. In fact here is another example of non-material.

    Modus ponens; a deductive syllogism affirming the antecedent:

    (X => Y) , (X) ∴ (Y).

    Notice how that is explained without referencing physical objects?

    //No, “non-physical” is an oxymoronic term. Even if I am god and you are a figment of my divine imagination I must still be physical, I must exist in some form, I cannot be absolutely nothing at all. Of this I am absolutely certain.//

    You remain unable to prove how the non-material is oxymoronic. You just keep asserting it even though I have already provided a counter-example, which is sufficient to falsify your categorical assertion.

    //Your claims are even worse than teapots in orbit. Teapots in orbit are immeasurably more plausible than your imaginary oxymoronic non-material stuff .//

    Then go ahead and justify why you believe there are tea pots in orbit.

    //Unwillingness to educate yourself noted.//

    You were initially asked to provide proof that life erupted from dead minerals (Abiogenesis). Somehow I am now suppose to provide that proof for you. Do you not see the absurdity in your reasoning?

    //-You misuse the term. I am not claiming that your hypocracy invalidates your claim. Your claims simply lack any evidence, description, or even any hint as to how they could function. Mine do.//

    You previously stated that intuition can easily be accounted for by data processing actions in the brain. This was asserted as truth when in fact it is a hollow statement. What is the causal mechanism behind intuition? Is intuition quantifiable?

    //It is also rational to behave socially and to avoid negative consequences and to adhere to one’s own personal sense of ought and to lock up those who harm us irrespective of their rationalizations.//

    How can you avoid something you have no control over?

    =========
    How is that supposed to be some kind of paradox? What “intended purpose”. One person has one personal intention, another person has another personal intention. Where is the paradox?//

    It is a paradox because your statement is self-refuting/ contradictory. Meanings are supposed to be clearly defined and unambiguous. A book cannot be a set of pages to one person and to someone else firewood. It loses its intended purpose when it is not clearly and objectively defined.

    //We can’t falsify any moral principle so the inability to falsify a moral principle that asserts that moral principles cannot be falsified somehow shows that some moral principle can be falsified? Your logic is all twisted up in knots.//

    Then it cannot hold any truth value if it is unfalsifiable.

    //Because I don’t care about his personal sense of ought, I care what I consider to be harmful actions and I am not paralyzed into inaction by my lack of absolute certainty. I act when my personal probability estimate exceeds my personal actionability threshold.//

    This is why Atheists cannot generate trust amongst the general population because your morals are unpredictable and may change as the situation change.

    //Self awareness is easily accounted for as self monitoring data processing
    Lower animals are aware of their surroundings. When they evolve sufficient complexity to apply such observational processes to themselves they become self aware. How is that difficult to understand?//

    This has no bearing on the source of consciousness. Modern tv’s are more advanced today than their more primitive counterparts a few decades ago ,with features such as wifi, 3D, internet, SUHD, etc. but that still does not prove the signal is produced inside the set.

  13. Phoenix
    “ The fmri may detect the effects of the mind as it utilizes the brain. “
    —-How does this imagined thing you call the “mind” utilize the brain? What is the connection method by which this imagined thing somehow manipulates the brain?

    “Oh I have and I concluded this: If determinism is a universal law of nature then all human thoughts should be algorithmic. “
    —-Yes

    “I’m still waiting for the evidence which has been experimentally tested under laboratory conditions, replicated and is falsifiable under the rules of empiricism. “
    —-That’s funny coming from a guy who can’t even remotely begin to describe this fantasy thing called the “mind”

    //So you get to just make stuff up and not describe it all.//
    “you are a Materialist,”
    —-What else is there? If there is something else please provide the “evidence which has been experimentally tested under laboratory conditions, replicated and is falsifiable under the rules of empiricism. “ for your incoherent notion of “immaterial” mind or soul or whatever you call it.

    “Is this not the definition of madness?”
    —-One definition of madness is to think your dreamworld fantasies are real.

    “You assert there is the possibility that there might be a non-physical”
    —-No, “non-physical” is an oxymoronic term. Even if I am god and you are a figment of my divine imagination I must still be physical, I must exist in some form, I cannot be absolutely nothing at all. Of this I am absolutely certain.

    “That’s not the claim being made here is it?”
    —-Your claims are even worse than teapots in orbit. Teapots in orbit are immeasurably more plausible than your imaginary oxymoronic non-material stuff .

    //Just google self replicating molecule//
    “Eh, no. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.”
    —-Unwillingness to educate yourself noted.

    ======

    //It is a function, a dynamic process of material computations. These processes have often been described as the subconscious. Actually, there isn’t a single subconscious, rather, a network of processing mechanisms.
    Show me a study where the soul has been measured.//
    “Tu quoque response. “
    —-You misuse the term. I am not claiming that your hypocracy invalidates your claim. Your claims simply lack any evidence, description, or even any hint as to how they could function. Mine do.

    –Uhm, how do you ge t “absolute certainty” out of “provisional”? Do you know what the word “provisional” means?//
    I don’t blame you for not seeing the incoherence inherent within Materialism. To claim that the are NO absolutes is an absolute statement.
    –Which is why I did not make that claim. You really should try to read more accurately.
    “ To claim that all truths are provisional is an absolute statement refuting the position being held. “
    —-Again, please read with greater care. Not my claim.

    “You have consistently contradicted yourself at every turn.”
    —-Your inaccurate reading leads to your own contradictions. My positions are eminently self consistent.

    “You cannot be certain that your senses are reliable, and yet you continue to make absolute statements regarding the nature of your reality,”
    —-Nope, again, please try to read more accurately.

    “Also, that would imply that those who are criminally inclined and unable to restrain themselves from committing heinous acts are not delusional but rational, since they are the ones who recognize and accept their deterministic condition.”
    —-It is also rational to behave socially and to avoid negative consequences and to adhere to one’s own personal sense of ought and to lock up those who harm us irrespective of their rationalizations.

    “To assert otherwise is counter-intuitive.”
    —-Indeed, science is often counter intuitive.

    //I do not know the extent of all that exists, but that is irrelevant to the fact there can be no meaning relative to something outside all that exists because by definition there is nothing outside of all that exists, whether I can fully enumerate the contents of existence or not.//
    “You have subtly redefined “exis”t to refer only to material existence. With such a blatant equivocation,”
    —-Nope, I have been consistent.

    //“Life has no meaning except the meaning you give it. “
    –Yes.//
    “This is demonstrably false and leads to a paradox. If every person decides to define an object to their personal whim then the object will ultimately no longer serve its intended purpose and may be used in a manner which contrasts that of others.”
    —-How is that supposed to be some kind of paradox? What “intended purpose”. One person has one personal intention, another person has another personal intention. Where is the paradox?

    “Although another paradox, I will have to applaud your brutal honesty. If moral relativism tolerates and accomodates counter moral principles then it is false, since there would be no way to falsify moral relativist principle.”
    —-We can’t falsify any moral principle so the inability to falsify a moral principle that asserts that moral principles cannot be falsified somehow shows that some moral principle can be falsified? Your logic is all twisted up in knots.

    //I have my personal sense of ought. You have your personal sense of ought. Neither of us can absolutely prove the other wrong. What part of that is unclear to you?//
    “Sure, if rape is wrong for you, it might be acceptable for a muslim. “
    —-Indeed, Muhammad was a rapist.

    “So why complain when he acts out his right to practise his principles?”
    —-Because I don’t care about his personal sense of ought, I care what I consider to be harmful actions and I am not paralyzed into inaction by my lack of absolute certainty. I act when my personal probability estimate exceeds my personal actionability threshold.

    //“Yes, but the “sense of agency” is false, a delusion according to materialism. What is the source of this delusion?”
    –The self monitoring processes of our brains lead us to sense we are making decisions and taking actions.//
    “You still haven’t answered the question.”
    —-I just did, but you did not understand the answer.

    . “Now the brain’s monitoring is equated as consciousness, am I correct?”
    —-Self awareness is easily accounted for as self monitoring data processing

    Lower animals are aware of their surroundings. When they evolve sufficient complexity to apply such observational processes to themselves they become self aware. How is that difficult to understand?

  14. Ron says:

    Watch that video!!! Hear what Braxton says and what his doctors say.

    Then watch this video
    Atheist College Professor dies and sees hell and demons – it changed his life – Pt 1

  15. Ron
    “He was dead for 2 hours, visited Heaven and also encountered Jesus”
    –So he must actually be Jesus, right?

    I mean, the resurrection story is what demonstrates the divinity of Jesus, since no mere mortal can die and then come back to life. Only god can do that, so this guy is actually part of the quadrinity..

  16. Steve says:

    +Phoenix
    “What I said was that mind is not physical. You have stated the correlation between mind and brain. The fmri may detect the effects of the mind as it utilizes the brain.” If mind utilises brain then why damaging the brain damages personality? “Soul” (an independent mind) even if it existed is completely overridden by the brain and therefore it is useless and unnecessary.
    “Intelligence is not seen in blood flow. If so, prove it.” Intelligence has a strong genetic component and and intelligence levels probably depends on how effectively information travels through the brain and a “intelligence centre” is now thought to be unlikely. See this http://www.livescience.com/1863-theory-intelligence-works.html

    “Oh I have and I concluded this: If determinism is a universal law of nature then all human thoughts should be algorithmic. Thus far I have seen no evidence for this. Declaring a possibilty that there might be is not a testable prediction.” Yes our thoughts are algorithmic, we are machines that take in data (input), process it and produce a result (output) based on the information we receive.

    “I’m still waiting for the evidence which has been experimentally tested under laboratory conditions, replicated and is falsifiable under the rules of empiricism” The very concept of “free will” incoherent, all we do is observe our thoughts and the decision ONCE THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE. As Sam Harris correctly noted free will isn’t even an illusion it just doesn’t exist.

    “You assert there is the possibility that there might be a non-physical but then you require it to be quantifiable and subjected to laboratory conditions and throw in falsifiability for good measure, defeating the very nature of the phenomenon we are searching for.” Either “non – physical” things interact with the physical in which case they are part of the physical world or it doesn’t interact in which case their is no way we could ever know about the “non-physical” and we could never have any evidence for it or any reason to think it might exist.

    “Also, that would imply that those who are criminally inclined and unable to restrain themselves from committing heinous acts are not delusional but rational, since they are the ones who recognize and accept their deterministic condition.” Such people are impulsive not psychotic.

    “I any case, the onus is on you provide evidence for the source of the delusion of free will because it is an observable therefore empirical phenomenon and nearly everyone believe they have it. To assert otherwise is counter-intuitive.” Has what? What do they have? All we do is observe and thoughts and feelings – and that’s it. Their is no evidence even from our subjective experience of “free will”.

    “Then provide proof for your premise “On materialism there is no ultimate or absolute meaning to our existence”. A syllogism with an unproven premise is unsound. Another thing, is “meaning” a physical entity which can be measured, has color and weight? Is meaning composed of molecules? If not, then meaning is immaterial and the statement that “all reality is physical” is false.” “Meaning” and “purpose” is a product of consciousness, imagine a universe just full of rocks with no conscious beings in it. Is their any meaning in such a universe? No because “meaning” is assigned to things by a mind.

    “This is demonstrably false and leads to a paradox. If every person decides to define an object to their personal whim then the object will ultimately no longer serve its intended purpose and may be used in a manner which contrasts that of others.” Why is their a paradox? Things are designed for a specific purpose. A gun is designed to kill people its not useful for much else.

    “Although another paradox, I will have to applaud your brutal honesty. If moral relativism tolerates and accomodates counter moral principles then it is false, since there would be no way to falsify moral relativist principle.” No “all values are equal” is itself a value judgement.

    “Sure, if rape is wrong for you, it might be acceptable for a muslim. So why complain when he acts out his right to practise his principles?” Because his behaviour harms individuals and the society, He doesn’t have a “right” to rape people, and in any case other people will respond to protect themselves from him and his values.

  17. Ron says:

    He was dead for 2 hours, visited Heaven and also encountered Jesus
    (Testimony from Braxton and also his Dr corroborating the facts)

  18. Phoenix says:

    Stardusty,
    //You claimed there is some kind of disconnection between the forces of nature and intelligence. Medical sensing techniques say you are wrong//

    What I said was that mind is not physical. You have stated the correlation between mind and brain. The fmri may detect the effects of the mind as it utilizes the brain. Intelligence is not seen in blood flow. If so, prove it.

    //If you don’t see any connection between chemistry and the way we think you simply have not considered the matter in any depth//

    Oh I have and I concluded this: If determinism is a universal law of nature then all human thoughts should be algorithmic. Thus far I have seen no evidence for this. Declaring a possibilty that there might be is not a testable prediction.

    //Free will is an illusion//

    I’m still waiting for the evidence which has been experimentally tested under laboratory conditions, replicated and is falsifiable under the rules of empiricism. This is the criterion for knowledge the Atheists demand from all theist claims, so the same is demanded from Atheists since that is the only source of knowledge which will satisfy their position.

    //Yes, computers are intelligently designed, brains are not.//

    The meaning of the software is only comprehended by the intelligent agents who invented them. The hardware is entirely oblivious to the instructions which it recieves from the hardware or the consequences of the meaning contained in the software.

    //So you get to just make stuff up and not describe it all.//

    The description you are seeking for always and I mean ALWAYS requires a physical description, simply because you are a Materialist, whether you accept that term or not. Atheists cannot comprehend nor experience any activity which accomodates the non-physical so the ridicule the concept. How are we to determine if there exists a reality beyond the physical when we keep searching inside the physical? Is this not the definition of madness? You assert there is the possibility that there might be a non-physical but then you require it to be quantifiable and subjected to laboratory conditions and throw in falsifiability for good measure, defeating the very nature of the phenomenon we are searching for.

    //If you claim teapots in orbit exist I am justified in my incredulity until you provide evidence.//

    That’s not the claim being made here is it? So this is just another fallacious straw man.

    //Just google self replicating molecule//

    Eh, no. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
    ======

    It is a function, a dynamic process of material computations. These processes have often been described as the subconscious. Actually, there isn’t a single subconscious, rather, a network of processing mechanisms.
    Show me a study where the soul has been measured.//

    Tu quoque response. Either you provide evidence for your extraordinary claims or admit you beliefs are religiously held and therefore superstitious.

  19. Phoenix says:

    Stardusty,

    –Uhm, how do you get “absolute certainty” out of “provisional”? Do you know what the word “provisional” means?//

    I don’t blame you for not seeing the incoherence inherent within Materialism. To claim that the are NO absolutes is an absolute statement. To claim that all truths are provisional is an absolute statement refuting the position being held. You have consistently contradicted yourself at every turn.

    –Based on the provisional postulate of the basic reliability of my senses, which itself is not absolutely certain.//

    You cannot be certain that your senses are reliable, and yet you continue to make absolute statements regarding the nature of your reality, unless you are forced to defend them , in which case you retreat to agnosticism.

    //–You have never suffered under any illusions? Well, that is indeed impressive.//

    The causes of illusions are usually attributed to drugs, alcohol, brain injuries, etc. So what is the cause of the delusion in those who believe they are exercising free will? Also, that would imply that those who are criminally inclined and unable to restrain themselves from committing heinous acts are not delusional but rational, since they are the ones who recognize and accept their deterministic condition. I any case, the onus is on you provide evidence for the source of the delusion of free will because it is an observable therefore empirical phenomenon and nearly everyone believe they have it. To assert otherwise is counter-intuitive.

    //I do not know the extent of all that exists, but that is irrelevant to the fact there can be no meaning relative to something outside all that exists because by definition there is nothing outside of all that exists, whether I can fully enumerate the contents of existence or not.//

    You have subtly redefined “exis”t to refer only to material existence. With such a blatant equivocation, you then place a false limitation on reality and presuppose your position to be true. This is question begging at its most blatant.

    –I just did//

    No you most certainly did not. What you are doing is not employing logic in defense of your stance but rather sophistry and rhetoric.

    //On materialism there is no ultimate or absolute meaning to our existence. Meanings are relative to other things within our material existence.//

    Then provide proof for your premise “On materialism there is no ultimate or absolute meaning to our existence”. A syllogism with an unproven premise is unsound. Another thing, is “meaning” a physical entity which can be measured, has color and weight? Is meaning composed of molecules? If not, then meaning is immaterial and the statement that “all reality is physical” is false.

    Relative meanings are just that, relative, not absolute and not consistent from person to person. That is a perfectly coherent notion. A meaning is a relationship. Things have relationships. You and I might not agree on what is a good relationship or a bad relationship, which is ok within relative morals. There is no ultimate arbiter of who is right and wrong morally.

    //“Life has no meaning except the meaning you give it. “
    –Yes.//

    This is demonstrably false and leads to a paradox. If every person decides to define an object to their personal whim then the object will ultimately no longer serve its intended purpose and may be used in a manner which contrasts that of others.

    //–Relative meanings are just that, relative, not absolute and not consistent from person to person. That is a perfectly coherent notion. A meaning is a relationship. Things have relationships. You and I might not agree on what is a good relationship or a bad relationship, which is ok within relative morals. There is no ultimate arbiter of who is right and wrong morally.//

    Although another paradox, I will have to applaud your brutal honesty. If moral relativism tolerates and accomodates counter moral principles then it is false, since there would be no way to falsify moral relativist principle.

    //I have my personal sense of ought. You have your personal sense of ought. Neither of us can absolutely prove the other wrong. What part of that is unclear to you?//

    Sure, if rape is wrong for you, it might be acceptable for a muslim. So why complain when he acts out his right to practise his principles?

    //“Yes, but the “sense of agency” is false, a delusion according to materialism. What is the source of this delusion?”
    –The self monitoring processes of our brains lead us to sense we are making decisions and taking actions.//

    You still haven’t answered the question. Why are we deluded into believing we are free to make choices? You just keep on piling more nonsense. Now the brain’s monitoring is equated as consciousness, am I correct?

  20. Ron
    “Watch this video”
    –Perhaps the most inane video I have ever watched. This guy is a child, not even an adolescent, more like an 8 year old. He is so happy his skydaddy loves him. How asinine.

    I am really sorry for this guy, his father tortured him, his family had a mock funeral for him…no wonder his mind has degenerated into this slobbering childish babbling about some imaginary skydaddy who loves him.

    To hear this guy’s story religion is National Socialism, Stalinism, and 1984 all rolled into one monstrous mess.

  21. Ron says:

    There are a lot of Muslims converting to Christianity.
    When you have a real thirst for God your search will end in knowing Christ.
    Watch this video

  22. Ron
    “Watch this frank video
    Devout Palestinian Muslim Becomes A Christian Missionary”
    –Ok, one down, 1.6 billion to go!
    I would prefer that all theists simply shed their notions about god altogether, but that is going to be a bridge too far for most Muslims, so if we could get them to follow Jesus instead of Muhammad at least the dangerousness of their imagined beings would be reduced by orders of magnitude.

  23. Phoenix
    //That’s all the assertions of these otherwise brilliant men are. They just assert some ethereal speculation called “the mind” as a distinct entity. I can’t disprove their woo any more than I can disprove teapots in orbit, but that is not my burden.//
    “No, they are not just assertions of those brilliant men. They are the conclusions drawn from the work of the quantum physicists whether you like it or not.”
    –So they were physicists, so what? Their work in physics advanced our models of reality. Their idle speculations on other subjects have no special merit.

    //No, I made the clear statement of certain working provisional postulates and my knowledge claims are based on those postulates and are therefore also provisional, as I said.//
    “Yes that’s what you claim but you constantly expose yourself to be just another materialist ideologue who is absolutely certain of his position and unwilling to allow new information in.”
    –Uhm, how do you get “absolute certainty” out of “provisional”? Do you know what the word “provisional” means?

    //It would be if that were my stance, which it is not. My only absolute certainties are derivatives of my self-awareness and are thus very limited. All the rest of my conclusions are provisional and based on my working provisional acceptance of the basic reliability of my senses, as I have already said in a variety of statements you apparently did not read or perhaps simply did not recognize as such.//
    “And here we are back to Empiricism, whether you admit it or not.”
    –Based on the provisional postulate of the basic reliability of my senses, which itself is not absolutely certain.

    //Two more notions that are supported by nothing more than some vague feelings of human sensibilities.We have the sense of our own agency but on closer examination we act according to our wants and our choices which well up from within quite apart from this sense of agency.//
    “Here you have essentially stated that agency is an illusion without demonstrating how we could possibly be so deceived by our mind?”
    –You have never suffered under any illusions? Well, that is indeed impressive.

    //Meaning is relative to other things that exist. There is no absolute meaning relative to something outside of all existence because by definition there is nothing outside of all that exists//
    “One, you cannot know all of existence because you simply do not have access to that information even by your own admission. “
    –I do not know the extent of all that exists, but that is irrelevant to the fact there can be no meaning relative to something outside all that exists because by definition there is nothing outside of all that exists, whether I can fully enumerate the contents of existence or not.

    “Nor can you prove your claim.”
    –I just did.

    “Two, under materialism (the view that all existence is matter), there exists no absolute meaning, since all existence is just a rearrangement of particles and making value judgements about particles is meaningless. “
    –On materialism there is no ultimate or absolute meaning to our existence. Meanings are relative to other things within our material existence.

    “Life has no meaning except the meaning you give it. “
    –Yes.

    “Thus the concept of meaning is incoherent, since the meaning of one concept may be defined differently by another. subjective meaning, much like subjective morals is an incoherency.”
    –Relative meanings are just that, relative, not absolute and not consistent from person to person. That is a perfectly coherent notion. A meaning is a relationship. Things have relationships. You and I might not agree on what is a good relationship or a bad relationship, which is ok within relative morals. There is no ultimate arbiter of who is right and wrong morally.

    I have my personal sense of ought. You have your personal sense of ought. Neither of us can absolutely prove the other wrong. What part of that is unclear to you?

    //Yes, ultimately, that is true, but individually we have the sense of agency in our decision making processes.//
    “Yes, but the “sense of agency” is false, a delusion according to materialism. What is the source of this delusion?”
    –The self monitoring processes of our brains lead us to sense we are making decisions and taking actions.

    //No, because morals are relative. The notions of responsibility and consequences are social mechanisms by which we influence the behavior of each other.//
    “Ah, relative morals. More incoherence.”
    –What part of relative relationship analysis don’t you understand?

  24. Phoenix
    “What are you on about? fMRI detects blood flow. Yes, there is a correlation between mental states and brain activity but correlation only allow us to infer a connection between different entities”
    You claimed there is some kind of disconnection between the forces of nature and intelligence. Medical sensing techniques say you are wrong.

    “Are you referring to Artificial Intelligence? Because I do not understand your connection between chemistry and consciousness.”
    If you don’t see any connection between chemistry and the way we think you simply have not considered the matter in any depth.

    “. A simple refutation that mind is equal to the brain stems from the fact that the brain is physical and is therefore entirely subjected to the laws of determinism from a macro perspective and subjected to quantum randomness from a micro perspective. Yet the mind is not subjected to any of these laws, since we have a basic instinct of being in possession of free will.”
    Free will is an illusion.

    “Religious terminology has no bearing on our discussion. Besides, they are usually in the form of symbolic language which Atheists interpret literally as a caricature for ridicule.”
    The soul is ridicule ‘ous. It is pure fantasy.

    “The software may be realized in the hardware but its ingenuity is from an external source”
    Yes, computers are intelligently designed, brains are not.

    “A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property”
    So you get to just make stuff up and not describe it all.

    I say it’s magic unicorns, but don’t ask me describe what they are made of, that would be a category error, just believe me, even though I cannot even hypothesize as to their structure or composition in any coherent terms, to do so would be a category error, just accept these words “magic unicorns” as a sufficient description.

    “Also, you are employing an argument from incredulity. Because you find X too incredible to believe therefore X does not exist.”
    If you claim teapots in orbit exist I am justified in my incredulity until you provide evidence.
    =======
    //Didn’t say there was. Just said there are self replicating molecules and they are therefore alive.//
    “Fine. Let’s see the peer reviewed study.”
    Just google self replicating molecule.

    //The brain is a massively parallel, dynamically changing data processing distributed network than can be analyzed as a distributed network of subnetworks. Intuition is easily accounted for as the data processing actions and output of subnetworks in the brain. Conscious reasoning is made up of other subnetworks in the brain and what we call feelings are just the signaling method from one data processing group to another data processing group.//
    “You are repeating the same garbage as before. Apparently the term empirical evidence eludes you. Show me a study proving intuition is a material.”
    It is a function, a dynamic process of material computations. These processes have often been described as the subconscious. Actually, there isn’t a single subconscious, rather, a network of processing mechanisms.

    Show me a study where the soul has been measured.

  25. Ron says:

    Watch this frank video
    Devout Palestinian Muslim Becomes A Christian Missionary

  26. Steve says:

    Phoenix
    “No, they are not just assertions of those brilliant men. They are the conclusions drawn from the work of the quantum physicists whether you like it or not.” That is why the vast – overwhelming- majority of theoretical physicists are atheists?

    “Exactly, if determinism is true then we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions.” Humans are machines from the determinist view, if your computer malfunctions you chuck it away or attempt to have it repaired. Likewise if a human is malfunctioning and dangerous and does not respond to reasons or punishment we lock them up, kill them or drug them up etc.

    “Here you have essentially stated that agency is an illusion without demonstrating how we could possibly be so deceived by our mind?” Mind is just a product of causality also, everything you want and like is not the result of conscious choice or so called free will but is the result of unconscious programming.

    “there exists no absolute meaning” What is “absolute meaning”? What is the “meaning” of a tornado?

    “What is the source of this delusion?” Causes.

    “Yet the mind is not subjected to any of these laws, since we have a basic instinct of being in possession of free will.” Even though the so called free will is completely overridden by brain function?

    I have a few questions for you (and why and any believer in “soul” who might read this).

    1)Everything about our mind is explained by brain function, all our thoughts, memories, emotions have a basis in the physical brain as demonstrated by neuro science. What then can a soul do without a brain? If you strip away the brain everything about the soul is gone, their is nothing left for a “soul” to do. It is completely redundant and unnecessary.

    2) Evolution is a accepted fact at least by most intelligent religious people, where did the souls “come in” in this natural process? Are souls subject to natural selection? Or does God directly “inject” souls into the organism? And where is the evidence of this “tinkering”? Where is the evidence in the genetic record of “souls” suddenly coming into existence?

    3)How does a “soul” control the body? Where is the evidence for this control? Surely there should be evidence in the brain? And if it doesn’t control physically then how does it interact at all then?

  27. Phoenix says:

    Stardusty,

    That’s all the assertions of these otherwise brilliant men are. They just assert some ethereal speculation called “the mind” as a distinct entity. I can’t disprove their woo any more than I can disprove teapots in orbit, but that is not my burden.//

    No, they are not just assertions of those brilliant men. They are the conclusions drawn from the work of the quantum physicists whether you like it or not.

    //No, I made the clear statement of certain working provisional postulates and my knowledge claims are based on those postulates and are therefore also provisional, as I said.//

    Yes that’s what you claim but you constantly expose yourself to be just another materialist ideologue who is absolutely certain of his position and unwilling to allow new information in.

    //It would be if that were my stance, which it is not. My only absolute certainties are derivatives of my self-awareness and are thus very limited. All the rest of my conclusions are provisional and based on my working provisional acceptance of the basic reliability of my senses, as I have already said in a variety of statements you apparently did not read or perhaps simply did not recognize as such.//

    And here we are back to Empiricism, whether you admit it or not.

    //That’s why I try not to get mad or call names, it isn’t your fault you have such incoherent notions!//

    Exactly, if determinism is true then we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions.

    //Two more notions that are supported by nothing more than some vague feelings of human sensibilities.
    We have the sense of our own agency but on closer examination we act according to our wants and our choices which well up from within quite apart from this sense of agency.//

    Here you have essentially stated that agency is an illusion without demonstrating how we could possibly be so deceived by our mind?

    //Meaning is relative to other things that exist. There is no absolute meaning relative to something outside of all existence because by definition there is nothing outside of all that exists//

    One, you cannot know all of existence because you simply do not have access to that information even by your own admission. Nor can you prove your claim.
    Two, under materialism (the view that all existence is matter), there exists no absolute meaning, since all existence is just a rearrangement of particles and making value judgements about particles is meaningless. Life has no meaning except the meaning you give it. Thus the concept of meaning is incoherent, since the meaning of one concept may be defined differently by another. subjective meaning, much like subjective morals is an incoherency.

    //Yes, ultimately, that is true, but individually we have the sense of agency in our decision making processes.//

    Yes, but the “sense of agency” is false, a delusion according to materialism. What is the source of this delusion?

    //No, because morals are relative. The notions of responsibility and consequences are social mechanisms by which we influence the behavior of each other.//

    Ah, relative morals. More incoherence.

  28. Phoenix says:

    //Sure there is. FMRI is just one way we can correlate thought processes with just the forces you mention.//

    What are you on about? fMRI detects blood flow. Yes, there is a correlation between mental states and brain activity but correlation only allow us to infer a connection between different entities. You have not asserted causation therefore I don’t see any confliction with my argument.

    //Chemistry is primarily a function of the electromagnetic force, and certainly chemistry has a great deal to do intelligence, consciousness and life.//

    Are you referring to Artificial Intelligence? Because I do not understand your connection between chemistry and consciousness.

    //True, there is no evidence for a mind as a separate entity. What we call mind is easily accounted for by brain function.//

    All you have attempted to show thus far is a correlation between mental states and brain states. A simple refutation that mind is equal to the brain stems from the fact that the brain is physical and is therefore entirely subjected to the laws of determinism from a macro perspective and subjected to quantum randomness from a micro perspective. Yet the mind is not subjected to any of these laws, since we have a basic instinct of being in possession of free will.

    //The soul has often been depicted just as I describe it, some kind of ghostly cloud co-inhabiting the body that lifts away and floats up to heaven when we die. I am not the one making this up, there are countless depictions of just that. Don’t blame me for repeating this often made description.//

    Religious terminology has no bearing on our discussion. Besides, they are usually in the form of symbolic language which Atheists interpret literally as a caricature for ridicule.

    //If you do not have a computer science background, ok, but that is actually not the case.
    Software is simply a particular arrangement of hardware. In principle, you could take the most complicated hardware/software system, say the computer you are using right now including every bit of software installed on it and realize (construct, or build, or synthesize) all of it using just simple inverter and 2 input gates. You could use just a single type of gate, the NAND gate which has both the AND and INVERT functions built in.//

    The software/hardware analogy serves only to show what is logically possible. It’s not a tautology and you’ve taken it way too far.

    //Software, like the mind, is not some ethereal entity floating around independent of hardware. Software is always realized in hardware.//

    See, this is where your analogy fails because all analogies are ultimately false. Some fail sooner than others. The software may be realized in the hardware but its ingenuity is from an external source

    //So where is this mind? What is it made of? How does it connect with the brain? If it can interact with the brain why can’t we measure it directly? It connects to the physical world but we cannot use physical means to measure it?//

    You really do not know what a Category Error fallacy is do you?
    See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
    “A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property”

    Also, you are employing an argument from incredulity. Because you find X too incredible to believe therefore X does not exist.

    Category Mistake Fallacy: search for category Q strictly inside category ~Q.

    =======
    //Didn’t say there was. Just said there are self replicating molecules and they are therefore alive.//

    Fine. Let’s see the peer reviewed study.

    //The brain is a massively parallel, dynamically changing data processing distributed network than can be analyzed as a distributed network of subnetworks. Intuition is easily accounted for as the data processing actions and output of subnetworks in the brain. Conscious reasoning is made up of other subnetworks in the brain and what we call feelings are just the signaling method from one data processing group to another data processing group.//

    You are repeating the same garbage as before. Apparently the term empirical evidence eludes you. Show me a study proving intuition is a material.
    =====
    //I can tell you what my asserted entities are made of. I can make many direct measurements of their activities, which you cannot do at all for fairies, unicorns, or your dualistic mind.//

    Unproven claims garbed in engineering or scientific terms are no less superstitious.

  29. @ Phoenix
    //Irrelevant, the below statements are not part of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and are merely indications of the segmentation of the human brain. Even those doing highly respectable work in science are susceptible to pronouncements of woo.//
    “You’ve dismissed that without presenting any counter facts. Nothing but cheap shots.”
    That’s all the assertions of these otherwise brilliant men are. They just assert some ethereal speculation called “the mind” as a distinct entity. I can’t disprove their woo any more than I can disprove teapots in orbit, but that is not my burden.

    //My position has not changed at all. You simply do not understand how all my positions do in fact comprise a whole system of consistent thought.//
    “Your initial position was that you only know yourself to exist and your senses are accurate.”
    In the sense of absolute knowledge, knowledge with a probability of 1, yes, and I said so.

    “You then proceed to make knowledge claims outside of set boundaries, contradicting your previous position.
    No, I made the clear statement of certain working provisional postulates and my knowledge claims are based on those postulates and are therefore also provisional, as I said.

    “You claim not to know anything under your selective skepticism but you are certain of your knowledge claims that there is no non-material. An irrational and incoherent stance.”
    It would be if that were my stance, which it is not. My only absolute certainties are derivatives of my self-awareness and are thus very limited. All the rest of my conclusions are provisional and based on my working provisional acceptance of the basic reliability of my senses, as I have already said in a variety of statements you apparently did not read or perhaps simply did not recognize as such.

    ======================
    “Now, let’s take a look at your supposed factual argumentation in support of Atheist precepts:”
    Ok, but based on your above misunderstandings I am not hopeful of the accuracy of your coming characterizations of my positions, but let’s give it a go anyhow 🙂

    //Logically by the absurdity of the contrary. Scientifically by reason applied to observation, but keeping in mind that a scientific proof is not an absolute proof.//
    “Prove that Determinism governs all human actions.”
    //The contrary is absurd. Intrinsic randomness is the absurd notion that things just go poof for absolutely no reason at all, by no cause.//
    “Your attempt at Reductio ad Absurdum fails for a number of reasons as well as backfires on your position. First, according to your beliefs, everything I think and write is predetermined all the way back to the Big Bang. I am a dualist and theist because of prior particles alignments and not because of choice. “
    That’s why I try not to get mad or call names, it isn’t your fault you have such incoherent notions!

    “Secondly, you have forced a false dichotomy; either Determinism or Indeterminism (randomness). There is a third and fourth option available: Compatibilism and Free-Will.”
    Two more notions that are supported by nothing more than some vague feelings of human sensibilities.
    We have the sense of our own agency but on closer examination we act according to our wants and our choices which well up from within quite apart from this sense of agency.

    “Thirdly, there would be no meaning outside of your predetermined electrical discharges controlled by the laws of cause and effect.
    Meaning is relative to other things that exist. There is no absolute meaning relative to something outside of all existence because by definition there is nothing outside of all that exists.

    “What would appear to be rational deliberation is in fact a deception because you would merely be the carrier for predetermined processes over which you cannot control. “
    Yes, ultimately, that is true, but individually we have the sense of agency in our decision making processes.

    “And lastly, with deterministic laws governing human behaviors, it would absolve us from all moral responsibility, since you cannot be held responsible over something you could not control.”
    No, because morals are relative. The notions of responsibility and consequences are social mechanisms by which we influence the behavior of each other.

    =======
    “Prove that the mind and intelligence are material.”
    //The contrary is absurd, what else is there but the material? If it isn’t something then it is absolutely nothing at all. Absolutely nothing at all has no properties at all, much less intelligence. If it is something then it is material, what else could it be? The term “immaterial” is utterly incoherent, vague, and meaningless.
    As for the mind specifically, where would it come from if not brain function? Some ethereal cloud of soulstuff floating about in the head? Some kind of ghost cloud in the brain? I often wonder how anybody can take that kind of thing seriously.
    There has never been a scientifically documented separation of mind and brain. Brain injuries and brain surgery and drug effects show that mind is a function of the brain. When the brain is altered then mind is altered in a corresponding way.//
    “If intelligence has material properties then it should be subjected to the four forces of physics (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces). There is no trail from any of these 4 forces to intelligence, consciousness or life.”
    Sure there is. FMRI is just one way we can correlate thought processes with just the forces you mention. Chemistry is primarily a function of the electromagnetic force, and certainly chemistry has a great deal to do intelligence, consciousness and life. EEG and EKG have been around a long time, charting brain and other body functions. I really have no idea where you are coming from on this point.

    “ If deterministic laws truly govern the universe there should be no non-entropic, non-predetermined activity in the brain. Thus there is no mind (intellect, reasoning and awareness), since that would implicate an ability to reflect on alternatives.”
    True, there is no evidence for a mind as a separate entity. What we call mind is easily accounted for by brain function.

    //As for the mind specifically, where would it come from if not brain function? Some ethereal cloud of soulstuff floating about in the head? Some kind of ghost cloud in the brain? I often wonder how anybody can take that kind of thing seriously.//
    “Instead of using typical Atheist nonsense terms like “ghost cloud”, why not just discuss the topic at hand? “
    That is one of the topics at hand. What is this ethereal “mind” made of? Absolutely nothing at all? Some kind of unknown material? Some unknown dimensions? What?

    The soul has often been depicted just as I describe it, some kind of ghostly cloud co-inhabiting the body that lifts away and floats up to heaven when we die. I am not the one making this up, there are countless depictions of just that. Don’t blame me for repeating this often made description.

    “Tell me, how does computer hardware generate software which moves throughout its circuits? Well, it doesn’t. Does the meaning in the software come from the hardware? Also, a resounding no. My point is that the software derives from an external intelligence, not contained within the hardware.”
    If you do not have a computer science background, ok, but that is actually not the case.

    Software is simply a particular arrangement of hardware. In principle, you could take the most complicated hardware/software system, say the computer you are using right now including every bit of software installed on it and realize (construct, or build, or synthesize) all of it using just simple inverter and 2 input gates. You could use just a single type of gate, the NAND gate which has both the AND and INVERT functions built in.

    Software is simply a convenient means of changing the hardware arrangements of a computer. What we think of as software is realized in memory locations, which are hardware elements.

    Software, like the mind, is not some ethereal entity floating around independent of hardware. Software is always realized in hardware. Program execution is hardware function of the hardware logic circuits acting in sequence with the hardware storage of the desired logical configuration, either as dedicated logic circuits or a data execution architecture as is usually the case in modern computers.

    “ Likewise, the brain does not contain any trace of intelligence or information. This is generated by an external source, namely the mind.”
    So where is this mind? What is it made of? How does it connect with the brain? If it can interact with the brain why can’t we measure it directly? It connects to the physical world but we cannot use physical means to measure it?

    Sorry, your notion of “mind” is incoherent.

    //“Prove that all life evolved from minerals in a chemical soup (Abiogenesis). “
    Working on it…but we have some good beginnings in the form of self replicating molecules. Turns out that certain molecules are alive.//
    “Egregiously false. There has never been any documented case of successfully producing an enzyme, DNA or RNA as well as metabolic system. “
    Didn’t say there was. Just said there are self replicating molecules and they are therefore alive.

    “Prove that intuition can be reduced to material substances. “
    //Intuition is easily accounted for by subnetworks of data processing in our brains that are continually performing pattern matching and correlation calculations of stored data with sensory data and issuing correlation scores in the form of emotions or feelings that the data processing subnetworks of consciousness monitor and factor into decision making processes.//
    “Please! You cannot provide any proof for your conjecture. Either intuition is deterministic, which does not require rational deliberation OR conscious reasoning and inferring is deterministic which does require rational deliberation. Both cannot be deterministic. So which is it?”
    The brain is a massively parallel, dynamically changing data processing distributed network than can be analyzed as a distributed network of subnetworks. Intuition is easily accounted for as the data processing actions and output of subnetworks in the brain. Conscious reasoning is made up of other subnetworks in the brain and what we call feelings are just the signaling method from one data processing group to another data processing group.

    ======
    //Sorry if you found those to be pejorative, it was not my intent to attack the intelligence of those who are actually in the majority. However, teapots in orbit, fairies, unicorns, devils, angels, gods, spirits, soulstuff and all the rest are all non-disprovable speculations of equal merit.//
    “Since you have failed to provide any factual data for your conjecture, the fairy/unicorn analogies apply equally to your unproven claims.”
    On the contrary, all my assertions are based on observable forces and materials. Fairies, unicorns, and your dualistic mind have never been observed. You can’t even tell me what it is made of.

    I can tell you what my asserted entities are made of. I can make many direct measurements of their activities, which you cannot do at all for fairies, unicorns, or your dualistic mind.

  30. Phoenix says:

    (continued)
    As for the mind specifically, where would it come from if not brain function? Some ethereal cloud of soulstuff floating about in the head? Some kind of ghost cloud in the brain? I often wonder how anybody can take that kind of thing seriously.//

    Instead of using typical Atheist nonsense terms like “ghost cloud”, why not just discuss the topic at hand? Tell me, how does computer hardware generate software which moves throughout its circuits? Well, it doesn’t. Does the meaning in the software come from the hardware? Also, a resounding no. My point is that the software derives from an external intelligence, not contained within the hardware. Likewise, the brain does not contain any trace of intelligence or information. This is generated by an external source, namely the mind.

    //There has never been a scientifically documented separation of mind and brain. Brain injuries and brain surgery and drug effects show that mind is a function of the brain. When the brain is altered then mind is altered in a corresponding way.//

    Of course, damage to the hardware will affect the proper operation of the software. But that does not imply the software and hardware are the same. Just like damaging a tv set will destroy the reception but that doesn’t mean the signal and movies are produced inside the tv set. Also, people diagnosed with hydrocephalus ( who have little gray matter and excessive fluid in their cranium) with math degrees falsify these claims.

    //“Prove that all life evolved from minerals in a chemical soup (Abiogenesis). “
    Working on it…but we have some good beginnings in the form of self replicating molecules. Turns out that certain molecules are alive.//

    Egregiously false. There has never been any documented case of successfully producing an enzyme, DNA or RNA as well as metabolic system. Every attempt has failed, much less for the molecule containing the neccessary information for first life in a single cell and even still less, the replicators of the interrelated factors for one living cell.

    “Prove that intuition can be reduced to material substances. “
    Intuition is easily accounted for by subnetworks of data processing in our brains that are continually performing pattern matching and correlation calculations of stored data with sensory data and issuing correlation scores in the form of emotions or feelings that the data processing subnetworks of consciousness monitor and factor into decision making processes.//

    Please! You cannot provide any proof for your conjecture. Either intuition is deterministic, which does not require rational deliberation OR conscious reasoning and inferring is deterministic which does require rational deliberation. Both cannot be deterministic. So which is it?
    ======
    //Sorry if you found those to be pejorative, it was not my intent to attack the intelligence of those who are actually in the majority. However, teapots in orbit, fairies, unicorns, devils, angels, gods, spirits, soulstuff and all the rest are all non-disprovable speculations of equal merit.//

    Since you have failed to provide any factual data for your conjecture, the fairy/unicorn analogies apply equally to your unproven claims.

  31. Phoenix says:

    Stardusty,

    //Irrelevant, the below statements are not part of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and are merely indications of the segmentation of the human brain. Even those doing highly respectable work in science are susceptible to pronouncements of woo.//

    You’ve dismissed that without presenting any counter facts. Nothing but cheap shots.

    //Newton had a lot of crackpot ideas too. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a mathematical and scientific genius, just means that a single brain can have both rational and mystical segments.//

    Once again, purely rhetorical and without any factual argumentation.

    //My position has not changed at all. You simply do not understand how all my positions do in fact comprise a whole system of consistent thought.//

    Your initial position was that you only know yourself to exist and your senses are accurate. You then proceed to make knowledge claims outside of set boundaries, contradicting your previous position. You claim not to know anything under your selective skepticism but you are certain of your knowledge claims that there is no non-material. An irrational and incoherent stance.
    ======================
    Now, let’s take a look at your supposed factual argumentation in support of Atheist precepts:

    Logically by the absurdity of the contrary. Scientifically by reason applied to observation, but keeping in mind that a scientific proof is not an absolute proof.

    “Prove that Determinism governs all human actions.”
    //The contrary is absurd. Intrinsic randomness is the absurd notion that things just go poof for absolutely no reason at all, by no cause.//

    Your attempt at Reductio ad Absurdum fails for a number of reasons as well as backfires on your position. First, according to your beliefs, everything I think and write is predetermined all the way back to the Big Bang. I am a dualist and theist because of prior particles alignments and not because of choice. Secondly, you have forced a false dichotomy; either Determinism or Indeterminism (randomness). There is a third and fourth option available: Compatibilism and Free-Will. Thirdly, there would be no meaning outside of your predetermined electrical discharges controlled by the laws of cause and effect. What would appear to be rational deliberation is in fact a deception because you would merely be the carrier for predetermined processes over which you cannot control. And lastly, with deterministic laws governing human behaviors, it would absolve us from all moral responsibility, since you cannot be held responsible over something you could not control.
    =======
    “Prove that the mind and intelligence are material.”
    The contrary is absurd, what else is there but the material? If it isn’t something then it is absolutely nothing at all. Absolutely nothing at all has no properties at all, much less intelligence. If it is something then it is material, what else could it be? The term “immaterial” is utterly incoherent, vague, and meaningless.
    As for the mind specifically, where would it come from if not brain function? Some ethereal cloud of soulstuff floating about in the head? Some kind of ghost cloud in the brain? I often wonder how anybody can take that kind of thing seriously.
    There has never been a scientifically documented separation of mind and brain. Brain injuries and brain surgery and drug effects show that mind is a function of the brain. When the brain is altered then mind is altered in a corresponding way.//

    If intelligence has material properties then it should be subjected to the four forces of physics (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces). There is no trail from any of these 4 forces to intelligence, consciousness or life. If deterministic laws truly govern the universe there should be no non-entropic, non-predetermined activity in the brain. Thus there is no mind (intellect, reasoning and awareness), since that would implicate an ability to reflect on alternatives.

  32. @why?
    “You have, expecting infinite process out of finite process…which is why you think infinite counting process does NOT exist because your finite counting process does NOT yield infinite counting process…”
    Word salad.

    “If it is a mathematical process, then it can exist in reality”
    A truly bizarre and baseless notion.

    “Lets say there are two points in space…Please let me know ho many infinitesimal points exist between these two points?”
    That is a mathematical concept, not a physical realization.

    “ Let me see if you can finish the counting process…This is an actual infinite counting process..”
    No, because I am not counting the elements in an infinite series using a time sequence physical count. The summation notation is simply symbology that is used to express mathematical concepts. No physical counting process is occurring when manipulating infinite series summation symbols.

    “ “In math we can integrate from negative infinity to some particular value as our two limits of integration.
    In a physical realization we cannot integrate to infinity by any process.”” “
    “We can and do in reality…..Long range forces that exist between particles in atomic world do NOT go to zero at any particular distance….”
    How do you know that? In Newton’s universal gravitation model that would be true. Newton turns out to only be an approximation of a dynamic and quantized reality.

  33. Steve says:

    Why

    “(a.) Since no phenomenon takes place independent of intrinsic properties of matter (fact)” Agreed. Nothing happens independent of the physical world.

    “(b.) and since no known intrinsic properties of matter is known to cause consciousness (fact)” We already some of the causes, their is always going to be ‘unknown matter”.

    “The known physical world do NOT account for the consciousness. This is why there is no real explanation in Scientific world for consciousness, only conjectures…This is fact…” The brain does account for it. What else other than the brain and body is involved? Where is this soul? Where in the development of a human being does it come in?

    “Drugs work like a blindfold to your eyes…they blindfold consciousness…” Which wouldn’t be possible if consciousness had nothing to do with brain. If soul interacts physically with brain then their would be evidence of this interaction (and their isn’t any) and if it doesn’t then it Couldn’t be effected by things like drugs.

    “The God of gaps is unnecessary and unproven. The gaps in understanding natural phenomenon like evolution can be bridged by completely naturalistic theories…” Same as with consciousness. Also where in the process of evolution did the “soul” come in? Or do you believe all life forms have “souls”? Or does God “inject” souls directly into life forms and has to constantly tinker in the evolution?

    …”Even if this is NOT possible, one cannot suggest God as solution, unless God’s existence is proven separately first…So this is NOT a solution at all…So you have an in-equivalent comparison here.” Likewise with soul, even if there is a hard problem of consciousness “soul” does nothing whatsoever to solve it.

    “…Soul is necessary here…” No it’s not, all that involved is the physical body and brain, if their was a soul, it would have to interact with the physical brain and their be evidence for this – but their is isn’t any. Indeed soul shouldn’t even need a brain.

    “(a) My claim is none of the present theories or known “intrinsic properties” of matter account for the phenomenon of consciousness” Yes it does, the evolution accounts for consciousness.

    “You have clearly agreed that there is a gap here…..So this is true and factual claim..” I said this is true of all things – not just consciousness – consciousness is not a special case.

    “The argument is “none of the present theories” fully explain how consciousness arises? This is factual dumb ass…” It just your belief that consciousness is more than the collection of its parts. Human beings are machines, consciousness is a program being run on the brain and is a result of the evolution. “Soul” is just your religious belief nonsense.

    “I never said, I do NOT understand something and therefore it is so….This is false comparison….A computer is built after understanding theories about semiconductors and computing…This is NOT so with consciousness..” So most people don’t know how to build a computer does that mean it has a “soul”? Computer is just the sum of its parts – and so is consciousness.

    “Therefore the only inescapable conclusion is that hidden variables or unknown “intrinsic properties” and/or unknown substance do exist…This is soul…” Either soul interacts physically with the brain in which case we should observe evidence of this interaction. We don’t see any evidence so soul doesn’t exist. Or soul cannot interact with the brain in which case their is no way it could be effected by brain function. Your “soul” doesn’t exist.

    “We do know all the causes of the flame moron….Otherwise how can you know the chemical in your match stick that causes flame….” Do you? You know the exact state of the brain? (Also consciousness was involved and that according to you is not explainable). You know why gasses and chemicals exist and how the earth formed? You know every environmental condition involved in sparking a match? You know why the physical constants of the universe was in such a way as that human beings evolved and match sticks were invented? You know the causes of the Big Bang? Like Carl Sagan said “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”

    “Imagine a case if one is NOT aware of the concept of software which causes a robot to function. He/she assumes since by tampering its control system and CPUs that one can modify robots behavior, therefore it is the control system itself that causes robot to act independent of software…Your claim is similar to this…” 1) Software is DEPENDENT on brain. 2) Yes by tampering with brain you can override its software, so if you tamper with frontal lobe (for example) it can override the command which says “don’t hurt the guy”. Violent criminals have malfunction in this area of the brain as the blood flow is not reaching it and that signal is not being sent. Also what use is soul if it’s completely overridden by the brain? Another reason why “soul” is utter nonsense.

    “Existence does have intrinsic properties…..that is why it exists in the first place..” It doesn’t have properties because existence is not a “thing”.

    “Now this is NOT only argument from ignorance, but also an argument from self-knowing…” Yes I know where belief in god beings from. They are product of human imagination, our first and worst attempt of trying to explain the world around us as Christopher Hitchens said.

    “It is still argument from ignorance and a logical fallacy…” No it’s not why isn’t their any evidence? And if this being can’t be bothered to show himself, why we should be interested in him?

    “You canobserve blue color, but NOT your Shunya as per your own stupid philosophy…” You can’t live in the colour blue and neither can you observe the all – because it’s not “something”

    “Because totality is sum of its parts annd therefore it is like parts only…..how about this for starters like you….” So the properties that apply to things in the all don’t apply to the all itself. If you have a broken leg does it mean all your bones are broken? No because it’s just a part, likewise with the all.

    ” So proposing totality radically and absolutely different from its parts is baloney like your buddhism…. ” Tell me what is comparable to the all? Their is nothing else like it, it’s completely unique.

    “There is no “all” independent of its parts….” It doesn’t matter, their is still nothing else like the all. It’s not like a car which is made of parts or anything else in existence.

    “Again irrelevant for discussion of the point that a person is an objective reality…” According to you body=Person, body dies therefore person dies also. Body is even more permanent than the mind in fact.

    “Form is the fundamental nature of existence…” What form? All “forms” have causes, they rise and fall just like waves in the ocean they are not “fundamental. The only thing which is fundamental is the all.

    “You just confirmed again my point. Just as a suicide victim wants to end suffering, so does Buddha wants to end suffering by annihilation…This is ultimate suicide…” He doesn’t encourage suicide, so you must be lying again.

    “I thought you said God does NOT exist…which is it….does He exist or not exist? ” When I was speaking about “God” here I was speaking about the real God – reality itself. Not some imaginary alien creator being which fools choose to call “God”.

    “If you mix milk and sugar, do you get something that tastes salty? dumb ass…” What is like the all? Nothing else is like the all, so what you say is false.

    “The “all” is sum of its parts…It cannot be prime mover…” It is the prime mover – since it is the “thing” that powers everything else.

    “What does NOT exist is NOT existence…” Your saying existence doesn’t exist?

    “So peceiver does NOT exist then…you just confirmed what I said…” No perception exists, but is not a “cartesian theatre” their isn’t a little man “in their” watching a screen, that doesn’t exist. All thoughts and perceptions are dependent on reality that’s what I am saying – they are nothing special.

    “Existence is sum or totality of all things….So when you observe any part and aggregate all parts, you see the “totality”… So the “all’ can be observed through its parts….” Existence is inferred it is not “observed”. The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists — that existence exists — existence being all that which exists.
    “One who claims that something (even if it is NOT a thing, the “all”) cannot be perceived by anyone exists is making a claim which one can never falsify…” Its not a thing that’s why it can’t be perceived. Existence is inferred not observed.

    .

  34. Phoenix
    //??? The Copenhagen Interpretation is about specific properties, measurement, and collapse of the wave function. You just tossed in the bit about “universal consciousness” ad hoc.//
    “You appear to be unaware of the positions of those “you applaud and deeply respect”.”
    Irrelevant, the below statements are not part of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and are merely indications of the segmentation of the human brain. Even those doing highly respectable work in science are susceptible to pronouncements of woo.

    ““Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”― Erwin Schrödinger”
    A truly absurd statement from an otherwise brilliant man.

    ““I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck”
    More woo.

    ““As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck”
    Still more woo.

    Newton had a lot of crackpot ideas too. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a mathematical and scientific genius, just means that a single brain can have both rational and mystical segments.

    ===========

    //We just don’t have any science at t=0. Quite apparently the true nature of the underlying reality is beyond my senses and comprehension at present, as is the case for all human beings that have ever lived. Science is simply the best tool we have for getting closer and closer to that ultimate truth.//
    “First of all, science cannot produce ultimate truths, it can at best produce contingent knowledge that is subject to revision.”
    Yes, that is what I said, closer and closer. I have no expectation of arriving at a final absolute truth.

    “Secondly,the conclusions of science are inductive. Only deductive logic can lead to true conclusions. “
    Deductions based on observation are also a part of science.

    “Thirdly, science is also voluntarily limited to investigating the material.”
    That’s all that has ever been shown to be, the material. What would “immaterial” even mean? “Immaterial” is an incoherent notion.

    //I have evidence and logic based upon certain provisional postulates for my position, and I demand likewise from others.//
    “And yet you have failed thus far to provide any logic and evidence for your position which seems to change constantly.”
    My position has not changed at all. You simply do not understand how all my positions do in fact comprise a whole system of consistent thought.

    //“Non-material” is an oxymoronic term. It is an incoherent notion. If it isn’t made of something, some kind of energy, some kind of spacetime, something other than absolutely nothing at all, then it is absolutely nothing at all and can thus have no properties at all, much less intelligence and the power to create a universe.//
    “Once again your position has shifted, which can now be identified as metaphysical monistic materialism. “
    I have not shifted my position at all. You insist on labeling each statement as belonging to some recognized school of thought. I really do not care about labels or schools of thought.

    “That is the hypothesis that all reality has one fundamental material substance. Go ahead and prove it. “
    Working on it…don’t expect to get there because one can always speculate another layer of existence below the lowest yet detected. Also my assertion is of one fundamental set, not on fundamental substance.

    “You have made a number of positive claims. How do you intend to prove that. “
    Logically by the absurdity of the contrary. Scientifically by reason applied to observation, but keeping in mind that a scientific proof is not an absolute proof.

    “Prove that Determinism governs all human actions.”
    The contrary is absurd. Intrinsic randomness is the absurd notion that things just go poof for absolutely no reason at all, by no cause.

    “Prove that the mind and intelligence are material.”
    The contrary is absurd, what else is there but the material? If it isn’t something then it is absolutely nothing at all. Absolutely nothing at all has no properties at all, much less intelligence. If it is something then it is material, what else could it be? The term “immaterial” is utterly incoherent, vague, and meaningless.

    As for the mind specifically, where would it come from if not brain function? Some ethereal cloud of soulstuff floating about in the head? Some kind of ghost cloud in the brain? I often wonder how anybody can take that kind of thing seriously.

    There has never been a scientifically documented separation of mind and brain. Brain injuries and brain surgery and drug effects show that mind is a function of the brain. When the brain is altered then mind is altered in a corresponding way.

    “Prove that all life evolved from minerals in a chemical soup (Abiogenesis). “
    Working on it…but we have some good beginnings in the form of self replicating molecules. Turns out that certain molecules are alive.

    “Prove that intuition can be reduced to material substances. “
    Intuition is easily accounted for by subnetworks of data processing in our brains that are continually performing pattern matching and correlation calculations of stored data with sensory data and issuing correlation scores in the form of emotions or feelings that the data processing subnetworks of consciousness monitor and factor into decision making processes.

    “Pick either one and go ahead and show us your evidence and logic. If you can do that you would indeed have proved the non-material is a an incoherent concept. Until such time all you have done is provided bare assertions.”
    Ok.

    //You can believe in magic pixies if you want., which are just as likely as your god or any other “supernatural” claim.
    My senses seem to be basically reliable, so I provisionally postulate that they are. Building upon that postulate reality is detectable and assertions about the nature of various aspects of reality are falsifiable, or at least they should be falsifiable at least in principle to be considered more than idle speculation.//
    “Tell me, which sense do you utilize when using your intuition? Or is intuition for magic fairies only?”
    I use my internal feedback path monitoring senses for considering intuition. Intuition is produced by data processing subnetworks and the computation results are inputs to my consciousness subnetworks. No fairies or gods or ethereal soulstuff required.

    “BTW, your insistence on using pejoratives such as fairies and unicorns exposes an inability to logically analyze dualist propositions. “
    Sorry if you found those to be pejorative, it was not my intent to attack the intelligence of those who are actually in the majority. However, teapots in orbit, fairies, unicorns, devils, angels, gods, spirits, soulstuff and all the rest are all non-disprovable speculations of equal merit.

    “You have still failed to provide a logical argument demonstrating that God = unicorns or fairies. “
    Ok, I thought that was fairly self evident, but apparently not. There have been thousands of proposed gods, spirits, or whatever invoked to account for unexplained phenomena. You and I can make up some more if we wish, and I just did. The fact that I can make them up just as easily as the author of some old books did brings to light their fictional nature.

    But these are not just any unicorns mind you, these are super duper magic unicorns that you can’t see, but they are really super powerful because whenever they romp about in unison their rhythms produce a universe, and that is how we got here. Also, they are mind readers, so watch out about all those nasty idea that pop into your head or the magic unicorns are gonna send you to a place where they stomp on your head for all eternity.

    Also, these are immaterial unicorns, they have all these super duper powers but they really are made of nothing at all, yet they account for our existence because they are outside of time and eternal, yet the can act in our time sequence of events history and then go romping back out of time in their immaterial plane of existence that exists but is not really made of anything.

    See, I have just solved all the mysteries of the universe! It’s immaterial timeless eternal super powerful magic unicorns.

    Ridiculous? Indeed. Such speculations composed of oxymoronic phrases and meaningless assertions are ridicule ‘ous. But I try to avoid ad hominem and stick to criticisms of the ideas, not you or anybody else as individuals.

  35. Phoenix says:

    //??? The Copenhagen Interpretation is about specific properties, measurement, and collapse of the wave function. You just tossed in the bit about “universal consciousness” ad hoc.//

    You appear to be unaware of the positions of those “you applaud and deeply respect”.

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”― Erwin Schrödinger

    “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck
    ===========

    //We just don’t have any science at t=0. Quite apparently the true nature of the underlying reality is beyond my senses and comprehension at present, as is the case for all human beings that have ever lived. Science is simply the best tool we have for getting closer and closer to that ultimate truth.//

    First of all, science cannot produce ultimate truths, it can at best produce contingent knowledge that is subject to revision. Secondly,the conclusions of science are inductive. Only deductive logic can lead to true conclusions. Thirdly, science is also voluntarily limited to investigating the material.

    //I have evidence and logic based upon certain provisional postulates for my position, and I demand likewise from others.//

    And yet you have failed thus far to provide any logic and evidence for your position which seems to change constantly.

    //“Non-material” is an oxymoronic term. It is an incoherent notion. If it isn’t made of something, some kind of energy, some kind of spacetime, something other than absolutely nothing at all, then it is absolutely nothing at all and can thus have no properties at all, much less intelligence and the power to create a universe.//

    Once again your position has shifted, which can now be identified as metaphysical monistic materialism. That is the hypothesis that all reality has one fundamental material substance. Go ahead and prove it. You have made a number of positive claims. How do you intend to prove that. Prove that Determinism governs all human actions. Prove that the mind and intelligence are material. Prove that all life evolved from minerals in a chemical soup (Abiogenesis). Prove that intuition can be reduced to material substances. Pick either one and go ahead and show us your evidence and logic. If you can do that you would indeed have proved the non-material is a an incoherent concept. Until such time all you have done is provided bare assertions.

    //You can believe in magic pixies if you want., which are just as likely as your god or any other “supernatural” claim.
    My senses seem to be basically reliable, so I provisionally postulate that they are. Building upon that postulate reality is detectable and assertions about the nature of various aspects of reality are falsifiable, or at least they should be falsifiable at least in principle to be considered more than idle speculation.//

    Tell me, which sense do you utilize when using your intuition? Or is intuition for magic fairies only?
    BTW, your insistence on using pejoratives such as fairies and unicorns exposes an inability to logically analyze dualist propositions. You have still failed to provide a logical argument demonstrating that God = unicorns or fairies. How do you intend to do that? You can use a modus ponens syllogism, since it is the simplest and direct.

  36. why? says:

    Steve,

    “Ill defined, you might as well say soul is what possesses computers as it intrinsic property – completely meaningless poorly defined nonsense.”

    Completely meaningless assertions….Consciousness can be attributed to soul… there is nothing meaningless in this…

    “The brain gives rise to consciousness so this statement is false. Physical tamper with the brain and consciousness changes, destroy the brain and you destroy consciousness. This is known, their is no “soul” involved.”

    Aren’t you one dumb fellow? Round and round you come to the same point again….

    It is your and general conjecture that brain causes consciousness….My argument essentially disproves this claim…

    (a.) Since no phenomenon takes place independent of intrinsic properties of matter (fact)

    (b.) and since no known intrinsic properties of matter is known to cause consciousness (fact)

    => brain made of known matter only cannot be the cause of consciousness…Rather we need to deductively conclude that there exists some unknown matter and/or unknown intrinsic properties of matter.

    “The physical world accounts for consciousness so this is false.”

    The known physical world do NOT account for the consciousness. This is why there is no real explanation in Scientific world for consciousness, only conjectures…This is fact…

    “How do mind alternating drugs alter the mind if it’s not caused by the brain?”

    Drugs work like a blindfold to your eyes…they blindfold consciousness…

    “Their is always gaps in the evolution so the creationists will always put their “God” in those gaps. Likewise with believers in soul even in the future when we fully understand the brain and how it gives rise to consciousness their will always be some “gap” or “hidden variable” where believers in soul will put their “soul”.”

    The God of gaps is unnecessary and unproven. The gaps in understanding natural phenomenon like evolution can be bridged by completely naturalistic theories….Evolution is simply alteration in arrangement of matter through natural forces. Rearrangement of matter is simply possible through natural factors like forces acting between individual particles…Even if this is NOT possible, one cannot suggest God as solution, unless God’s existence is proven separately first…So this is NOT a solution at all…So you have an in-equivalent comparison here.

    Now lets see the case of consciousness….You have agreed that there is a gap or “hidden variable”. This hidden variable is the unknown intrinsic property of known/unknown matter or some substance. Either way, one can propose this known/unknown substance to be the soul itself…There is clearly no parallel between god of the gaps and Soul here…Soul is necessary here…

    “No it’s not brain is a cause of consciousness this statement is false. You don’t know all the workings of the physical world, so you are no position to claim it is not sufficient to account for consciousness.”

    My statement is absolutely true….

    (a) My claim is none of the present theories or known “intrinsic properties” of matter account for the phenomenon of consciousness….

    No present theories give full explanation as to how consciousness arises? Neither do we know what intrinsic property of matter can cause consciousness…You have clearly agreed that there is a gap here…..So this is true and factual claim..

    “Nonsense. This is like saying I don’t fully understand the workings of my computer, therefore hidden variables exist, this is called “soul”‘it’s just utter nonsense.”

    Now its clear you are one incorrigibly dumb fellow…..Where is the parallel between a computer and brain here?

    I never said, I do NOT understand something and therefore it is so….This is false comparison….A computer is built after understanding theories about semiconductors and computing…This is NOT so with consciousness..

    The argument is “none of the present theories” fully explain how consciousness arises? This is factual dumb ass…

    Second, (b.) It is also a statement of fact when I say “none of the existing phenomenon, occur independent of intrinsic properties of matter”

    Therefore the only inescapable conclusion is that hidden variables or unknown “intrinsic properties” and/or unknown substance do exist…This is soul…

    “No we don’t know all the causes of the flame. To do that you would have to know every detail about everything in existence- which is impossible.”

    We do know all the causes of the flame moron….Otherwise how can you know the chemical in your match stick that causes flame….

    “Also drugs, brain damage, brain surgery and stimulation of brain areas with electrodes areas produce predictable effects – just like sparking a match is predictable. So this is VERY STRONG evidence that the brain is the seat of the mind.”

    Imagine a case if one is NOT aware of the concept of software which causes a robot to function. He/she assumes since by tampering its control system and CPUs that one can modify robots behavior, therefore it is the control system itself that causes robot to act independent of software…Your claim is similar to this…

    “Whatever that is.” that which has consciousness as its intrinsic property is soul…

    “You said consciousness can’t come from matter so how can the soul be material?”

    I said, consciousness cannot occur from known matter or known intrinsic properties of matter…

    “Yes I do and your “soul” is just your version of the God of the gaps. We don’t know all the things involved in consciousness therefore soul. This is EXACTLY what your “argument” is.”

    NOT at all…..You do NOT understand anything about logic…

    “I didn’t say the material world doesn’t exist. How can existence have attributes? Think about it and you will understand why.”

    Existence does have intrinsic properties…..that is why it exists in the first place..

    “It’s not an an argument from ignorance because I know where belief in God beings come from – human imagination and wish thinking.”

    Now this is NOT only argument from ignorance, but also an argument from self-knowing…

    “Yet it is, if there is no evidence of a elephant in my room, it means their Is no elephant in my room. Is Your God shy? Why he doesn’t show himself? And what is the use of him if he doesn’t do anything?”

    It is still argument from ignorance and a logical fallacy…

    “I told you why you can’t observe the all. It’s like asking why I can’t live inside the colour blue.”

    You canobserve blue color, but NOT your Shunya as per your own stupid philosophy…

    “How can the totality be like any of its parts? It’s not a thing for starters.”

    Because totality is sum of its parts annd therefore it is like parts only…..how about this for starters like you….

    So proposing totality radically and absolutely different from its parts is baloney like your buddhism…. 🙂

    “Because properties is an attribute of “things” the all is not a “thing”.”

    There is no “all” independent of its parts….

    “It’s not irrelevant, if the person is the body then the person must die – because the body dies.”

    Again irrelevant for discussion of the point that a person is an objective reality…

    “Reality creates and destroys all forms, consciousness is no exception.”

    Form is the fundamental nature of existence…

    “Yes but death is not an “escape” from suffering – because when you die you cease to exist. So one thing suicide is NOT and that is an escape. When Buddha says he wants to end suffering he wants people to give up delusions which cause suffering, once you identify the cause you stop the suffering. psychological suffering created by believing in delusions is harmful and unnecessary. He doesn’t talk about people killing themselves as a solution to their problems – which it obviously isn’t anyway for the reason I gave.”

    You just confirmed again my point. Just as a suicide victim wants to end suffering, so does Buddha wants to end suffering by annihilation…This is ultimate suicide…

    “I don’t care about that, God is REAL (he is not nothing) and ALL ELSE is illusion.”

    I thought you said God does NOT exist…which is it….does He exist or not exist? decide….Shunya is NOT God..

    “Existence cannot exist? Doesn’t mean anything. How can the totality of all existent things be like any particular existent thing?”

    If you mix milk and sugar, do you get something that tastes salty? dumb ass…

    “The all is the “prime mover” behind all things, so it’s not nonsense.”

    The “all” is sum of its parts…It cannot be prime mover…

    “It is existence.”

    What does NOT exist is NOT existence…

    “The self is delusion when we say “this is mine” this an example of it, when in reality the thoughts are not yours they are caused by reality and you don’t cause them or “own” them. They come from “elsewhere” and are programmed in you. Even the thought their is a “you” that exists is programmed. “You” are just a puppet and nature is what is pulling your strings.”

    So peceiver does NOT exist then…you just confirmed what I said…

    “Yes everything observes everything else or has at least some effect on all other things that exist, if that’s what you mean.”

    So again you confirmed that oerceiver does NOT exist…

    “How is existence like that? It is responsible for everything that happens and nor is it “separate” from anything in existence. Its not some magic being like the God of the Christians who is separate and who magics things into being from nothing, it is the principal behind all things.”

    Existence is sum or totality of all things….So when you observe any part and aggregate all parts, you see the “totality”… So the “all’ can be observed through its parts….

    One who claims that something (even if it is NOT a thing, the “all”) cannot be perceived by anyone exists is making a claim which one can never falsify…..It is like barren woman’s child or a hare’s horn, it is non-existent and hence cannot falsify as it cannot be perceived by principle…

  37. Steve says:

    Why

    “Soul is what possesses consciousness as its intrinsic property…” Ill defined, you might as well say soul is what possesses computers as it intrinsic property – completely meaningless poorly defined nonsense.

    “Absolutely yes lets see your “argument”, “Now, since there is NOT one such known intrinsic property of matter which can give rise to subjectivity, we have to propose existence of intrinsic properties and/or unknown substance..””
    The argument says “there is NO known “intrinsic property” of matter which gives rise to consciousness”…. this is NOT a statement that something is unknown, “it is a statement that all known processes and associated “intrinsic properties” do NOT account for phenomenon for consciousness….This is a true statement that consciousness is NOT explained by known processes or “intrinsic properties”” The brain gives rise to consciousness so this statement is false. Physical tamper with the brain and consciousness changes, destroy the brain and you destroy consciousness. This is known, their is no “soul” involved.

    …”..Therefore a new explanation or existence of new “intrinsic properties” is needed is NOT statement from ignorance or lack of knowledge, but from positively knowing that any of the present theories or known “intrinsic properties” do NOT sufficiently account for the phenomenon of consciousness…” The physical world accounts for consciousness so this is false. How do mind alternating drugs alter the mind if it’s not caused by the brain?

    “Creationists claim of God is argument from ignorance..why? because there is an explanation from from evolution for things that exist and creationists cannot suggest God’s existence without refuting the idea of evolution first….and then proving that God exists independently first…
    My argument is NOT like that…..I am NOT claiming since we do NOT know how consciousness arose, therefore soul exists….” Their is always gaps in the evolution so the creationists will always put their “God” in those gaps. Likewise with believers in soul even in the future when we fully understand the brain and how it gives rise to consciousness their will always be some “gap” or “hidden variable” where believers in soul will put their “soul”.
    (“a) My claim is none of the present theories or known “intrinsic properties” of matter account for the phenomenon of consciousness….This is a statement of fact….” No it’s not brain is a cause of consciousness this statement is false. You don’t know all the workings of the physical world, so you are no position to claim it is not sufficient to account for consciousness.
    (b.) It is also a statement of fact when I say “none of the existing phenomenon, occur independent of intrinsic properties of matter”
    Conclusion:
    “Therefore there must exist hidden variables in the form of some unknown “intrinsic properties” and/or unknown substance…we can call this soul…” Nonsense. This is like saying I don’t fully understand the workings of my computer, therefore hidden variables exist, this is called “soul”‘it’s just utter nonsense.
    “Listen stupid fellow….We exactly know how flame arises….ignoramus…that is why match sticks were designed in the first place…We know that chemcial reactions leads to flame….” No we don’t know all the causes of the flame. To do that you would have to know every detail about everything in existence- which is impossible. Also drugs, brain damage, brain surgery and stimulation of brain areas with electrodes areas produce predictable effects – just like sparking a match is predictable. So this is VERY STRONG evidence that the brain is the seat of the mind.
    “The soul….” Whatever that is.
    “How does mere names matter? Call soul matter if you like it…” You said consciousness can’t come from matter so how can the soul be material?
    “You do NOT know what is a logical fallacy….” Yes I do and your “soul” is just your version of the God of the gaps. We don’t know all the things involved in consciousness therefore soul. This is EXACTLY what your “argument” is.
    “It’s is existence and it doesn’t make sense to say existence doesn’t exist.”
    “Mindless stupid assertions….Intrinsic properties exist…saying it does NOT exist, and existence real nature is devoid of intrinsic properties is opposed to empirical evidence….” I didn’t say the material world doesn’t exist. How can existence have attributes? Think about it and you will understand why.
    “NOW THIS IS THE LOGICAL FALLACY CALLED…Argument from Ignorance” It’s not an an argument from ignorance because I know where belief in God beings come from – human imagination and wish thinking.
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance
    “Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Yet it is, if there is no evidence of a elephant in my room, it means their Is no elephant in my room. Is Your God shy? Why he doesn’t show himself? And what is the use of him if he doesn’t do anything?
    “WHAT CANNOT BE OBSERVED/PERCEIVED BY ANYONE DOES NOT EXIST…” I told you why you can’t observe the all. It’s like asking why I can’t live inside the colour blue.
    “Proposing the whole to be absolutely unlike its parts is a logical absurdity….” How can the totality be like any of its parts? It’s not a thing for starters.

    Shunya is such an absurdity whose lack of any properties is unlike its parts which has properties…” Because properties is an attribute of “things” the all is not a “thing”.
    “For all practical purpose the person is the body…..so argument is irrelevant…” It’s not irrelevant, if the person is the body then the person must die – because the body dies.
    “Soul is not needed, reality brings consciousness into existence and it will also annihilate consciousness – the same as everything else.”
    “argument from assumption…” Reality creates and destroys all forms, consciousness is no exception.
    “Yes annihilation is escape….if you do not exist anymore no more suffering….Suicide victims also have similar mentality…..Gowthama took it further one more step to philosophical end…..ultimate suicide….Both are psychologically screwed up as both want to end suffering…” Yes but death is not an “escape” from suffering – because when you die you cease to exist. So one thing suicide is NOT and that is an escape. When Buddha says he wants to end suffering he wants people to give up delusions which cause suffering, once you identify the cause you stop the suffering. psychological suffering created by believing in delusions is harmful and unnecessary. He doesn’t talk about people killing themselves as a solution to their problems – which it obviously isn’t anyway for the reason I gave.

    “This is exactly Buddhism…..NOT all Hindus subscribe to this crypto Buddhist philosophy… It is anti-Vedic philosophy..” I don’t care about that, God is REAL (he is not nothing) and ALL ELSE is illusion.

    “Exactly this is why Shunya cannot exist….Its contradictory to suggest that “all” and part of “all” are absolutely unlike each other….” Existence cannot exist? Doesn’t mean anything. How can the totality of all existent things be like any particular existent thing?
    “Nothing gave rise to matter. Shunya or the all is the principal behind all things. The material world – poetically speaking – is the body of God.”
    “Nonsense…” The all is the “prime mover” behind all things, so it’s not nonsense.

    “Let is be…still nobody can perceive the “all” which is absolutely unlike any part of it….Therefore it cannot exist…” It is existence.
    “So be it……If there is no self that is true (whatever this means), then how can there be a perceiver?” The self is delusion when we say “this is mine” this an example of it, when in reality the thoughts are not yours they are caused by reality and you don’t cause them or “own” them. They come from “elsewhere” and are programmed in you. Even the thought their is a “you” that exists is programmed. “You” are just a puppet and nature is what is pulling your strings.

    “All that exists is perceiving in Buddhism….the process of perceiving, not the perceiver….” Yes everything observes everything else or has at least some effect on all other things that exist, if that’s what you mean.
    “It is like the child of a barren woman….which cannot be perceived by lanyone” How is existence like that? It is responsible for everything that happens and nor is it “separate” from anything in existence. Its not some magic being like the God of the Christians who is separate and who magics things into being from nothing, it is the principal behind all things.

  38. why? says:

    Stardust,

    “Noooo! Many models are mathematically valid and have no physical realization.”

    Its still a possibility..

    “I see you have a fundamental misconception about the relationship between math and physical reality.”

    I see you have…

    ““No, I have used observation and logic. All observed counting processes are finite. Nothing changes in principle if I count up for a year, or 100 years, or an arbitrarily large number of years. Even if I never die the only thing I can do is count higher and higher and higher.”
    “Logical fallacy….
    Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic): If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.”
    Sorry, you are pulling that one out of thin air!”

    NOT, unlike you….You made a claim that “All observed counting processes are finite.”, which implies “infinite counting process does NOT exist (proposition P)”

    You are indeed pulling that one out of thin air..

    “??? I have no such expectation, where did you get that from? Just the opposite is what I have said numerous times.”

    You have, expecting infinite process out of finite process…which is why you think infinite counting process does NOT exist because your finite counting process does NOT yield infinite counting process…

    “A “beginingingless process” is an oxymoronic term. It is incoherent as a physical realization. It is merely a mathematical concept.”

    If it is a mathematical process, then it can exist in reality….You cant an actual infinity that exists in reality….

    Lets say there are two points in space…Please let me know ho many infinitesimal points exist between these two points? Let me see if you can finish the counting process…This is an actual infinite counting process..

    “In math we can integrate from negative infinity to some particular value as our two limits of integration.

    In a physical realization we cannot integrate to infinity by any process.””

    We can and do in reality…..Long range forces that exist between particles in atomic world do NOT go to zero at any particular distance….Therefore we need integration from zero to infinity or from -infinity to zero…..This is an actual integration from -infinity to zero…for this is indeed physically also true…

  39. why? says:

    Steve,

    “Consciousness does, I don’t know about “soul” – since you haven’t defined what you mean by “soul”.”

    Soul is what possesses consciousness as its intrinsic property…

    “Yes that’s we how identify a “thing” by its properties or attributes. If a “thing” didn’t have properties or attributes we wouldn’t be able to talk about it.”

    So now you agree that a “thing” is identified only by its properties….So is the soul….

    “Absolutely yes lets see your “argument”, “Now, since there is NOT one such known intrinsic property of matter which can give rise to subjectivity, we have to propose existence of intrinsic properties and/or unknown substance..””

    The argument says “there is NO known “intrinsic property” of matter which gives rise to consciousness”…. this is NOT a statement that something is unknown, it is a statement that all known processes and associated “intrinsic properties” do NOT account for phenomenon for consciousness….This is a true statement that consciousness is NOT explained by known processes or “intrinsic properties”…..Therefore a new explanation or existence of new “intrinsic properties” is needed is NOT statement from ignorance or lack of knowledge, but from positively knowing that any of the present theories or known “intrinsic properties” do NOT sufficiently account for the phenomenon of consciousness…

    “In other words I don’t know or can’t imagine how consciousness could have came about by a natural process therefore soul. This is exactly the same ‘reasoning’ that creationists use. I personally can’t imagine how complex life forms could have evolved by a natural process, therefore God exists.”

    Creationists claim of God is argument from ignorance..why? because there is an explanation from from evolution for things that exist and creationists cannot suggest God’s existence without refuting the idea of evolution first….and then proving that God exists independently first…

    My argument is NOT like that…..I am NOT claiming since we do NOT know how consciousness arose, therefore soul exists….

    (a) My claim is none of the present theories or known “intrinsic properties” of matter account for the phenomenon of consciousness….This is a statement of fact….

    (b.) It is also a statement of fact when I say “none of the existing phenomenon, occur independent of intrinsic properties of matter”

    Conclusion:

    Therefore there must exist hidden variables in the form of some unknown “intrinsic properties” and/or unknown substance…we can call this soul…

    “Yes it is.” No it is NOT…

    “It doesn’t show anything, you have not proven anything it’s just an argument from ignorance.”

    Your argument is from argument of ignorance….

    “No we don’t know all the details and all the causes/conditions that result in a flame arising. We know some of the causes such as the matchstick and its oxygen supply but then again we also know some of the causes of consciousness such as the brain, body and environmental stimuli.”

    Listen stupid fellow….We exactly know how flame arises….ignoramus…that is why match sticks were designed in the first place…We know that chemcial reactions leads to flame….

    Regarding consciousness, all we have is conjecture and no explanation at all…

    “Why? And where else did it come from then if not the physical world? Pie in the sky theory eh?”

    The soul….

    ” “Unknown matter” is just unknown matter it’s not a soul or anything spiritual.”

    How does mere names matter? Call soul matter if you like it…

    “You don’t have an argument – just a logical fallacy.”

    You do NOT know what is a logical fallacy….

    “It’s is existence and it doesn’t make sense to say existence doesn’t exist.”

    Mindless stupid assertions….Intrinsic properties exist…saying it does NOT exist, and existence real nature is devoid of intrinsic properties is opposed to empirical evidence….

    “Because all God beings are inventions of the ego. If their was a “God” there would be evidence for everyone to know about him, he wouldn’t play a cosmic game of hide and seek where the only people who claim to have seen are these “Mystics” who have special access to him that nobody else does.”

    NOW THIS IS THE LOGICAL FALLACY CALLED…Argument from Ignorance

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance

    Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    “If you had a brain you would understand why the all can’t be “observed” – since its literal everything. And no nobody has seen your God – accept some fools who claim to have but for some strange cant demonstrate his existence to any one else.”

    WHAT CANNOT BE OBSERVED/PERCEIVED BY ANYONE DOES NOT EXIST…

    “The all is not a fantasy, imaginary alien creator beings are.”

    Proposing the whole to be absolutely unlike its parts is a logical absurdity….Shunya is such an absurdity whose lack of any properties is unlike its parts which has properties…

    “And yet before you said soul does not depend on the body! Now you say the exact opposite. If the “person” is the body, then the “person” must die – because the body dies. You contradict yourself and refute yourself – because you have no clue what you are talking about.”

    For all practical purpose the person is the body…..so argument is irrelevant…

    “Soul is not needed, reality brings consciousness into existence and it will also annihilate consciousness – the same as everything else.”

    argument from assumption…

    “No death is not an “escape” from suffering. There is nothing outside of life – for the individual – when you die that means no more experiences for you. If we say you escaped from something then you have to get out or outside of the situation but in the case of your life (to you) there is no “outside”.”

    Yes annihilation is escape….if you do not exist anymore no more suffering….Suicide victims also have similar mentality…..Gowthama took it further one more step to philosophical end…..ultimate suicide….Both are psychologically screwed up as both want to end suffering…

    “Read AND Understand the statement “God alone is real, all else is illusion”. The all or reality is real (it’s not “nothing”) everything else is just illusion.”

    This is exactly Buddhism…..NOT all Hindus subscribe to this crypto Buddhist philosophy… It is anti-Vedic philosophy..

    “The all is not a thing and is not like any thing in existence so you can’t construct it from just observing (a infinitesimally) small part of it.”

    Exactly this is why Shunya cannot exist….Its contradictory to suggest that “all” and part of “all” are absolutely unlike each other….

    “Nothing gave rise to matter. Shunya or the all is the principal behind all things. The material world – poetically speaking – is the body of God.”

    Nonsense…

    “It just means perceiver and perceived are dependent arising. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist – just that their existence isn’t magical or any different to the existence of anything else.”

    Let is be…still nobody can perceive the “all” which is absolutely unlike any part of it….Therefore it cannot exist…

    “There is no self that is true and objects of perception are a dependent arising. But where does Buddha say nothing exists? Or that no experience at all is happening?”

    So be it……If there is no self that is true (whatever this means), then how can there be a perceiver? All that exists is perceiving in Buddhism….the process of perceiving, not the perceiver….

    “It IS reality or existence itself.” That which no one can perceive does NOT exist….It is like the child of a barren woman….which cannot be perceived by anyone….

  40. why?
    “If it is possible mathematically, then it is definitely possible”
    Noooo! Many models are mathematically valid and have no physical realization.

    I see you have a fundamental misconception about the relationship between math and physical reality.

    “No, I have used observation and logic. All observed counting processes are finite. Nothing changes in principle if I count up for a year, or 100 years, or an arbitrarily large number of years. Even if I never die the only thing I can do is count higher and higher and higher.”
    “Logical fallacy….
    Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic): If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.”
    Sorry, you are pulling that one out of thin air!

    “The definition of insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing but expecting a different result.”
    “Right…..Fits you well…You expect your finite counting process to be infinite…”
    ??? I have no such expectation, where did you get that from? Just the opposite is what I have said numerous times.

    “Agreed, so why are you disagreeing with me? All counting processes we start with are finite, thus none can lead to infinity.”
    “No…..A beginning-less counting process is NOT finite….”
    A “beginingingless process” is an oxymoronic term. It is incoherent as a physical realization. It is merely a mathematical concept.

    In math we can integrate from negative infinity to some particular value as our two limits of integration.

    In a physical realization we cannot integrate to infinity by any process.

  41. Steve says:

    Why
    “NOT at all….If Soul exists, then it does NOT depend on the brain or the material body we know…” Consciousness does, I don’t know about “soul” – since you haven’t defined what you mean by “soul”.

    “Then answer what kind of properties can we attribute to a “thing”? can we attribute any kind of property to a “thing”?” Yes that’s we how identify a “thing” by its properties or attributes. If a “thing” didn’t have properties or attributes we wouldn’t be able to talk about it.

    “Did I make a claim that “since no one knows how consciousness arose from brain, therefore such a proposition is wrong”? absolutely no……” Absolutely yes lets see your “argument”, “Now, since there is NOT one such known intrinsic property of matter which can give rise to subjectivity, we have to propose existence of intrinsic properties and/or unknown substance..”
    In other words I don’t know or can’t imagine how consciousness could have came about by a natural process therefore soul. This is exactly the same ‘reasoning’ that creationists use. I personally can’t imagine how complex life forms could have evolved by a natural process, therefore God exists.

    “My argument for the proposition I made is NOT because of my ignorance of how consciousness arose from brain,” Yes it is.

    ” but my argument shows that consciousness cannot have arisen from the brain as there are no such intrinsic properties of known matter which can give rise to a phenomenon like consciousness…” It doesn’t show anything, you have not proven anything it’s just an argument from ignorance.

    “We exactly know how a flame arises and what intrinsic properties are responsible for a flame arising” No we don’t know all the details and all the causes/conditions that result in a flame arising. We know some of the causes such as the matchstick and its oxygen supply but then again we also know some of the causes of consciousness such as the brain, body and environmental stimuli.

    “In case of consciousness, no known intrinsic properties of matter can cause consciousness…”
    Why? And where else did it come from then if not the physical world? Pie in the sky theory eh?

    “however since consciousness is observed, there must exist some unknown matter and/or intrinsic properties…” “Unknown matter” is just unknown matter it’s not a soul or anything spiritual.

    “First you learn to understand any argument you dumb ass before you apply logical fallacies…” You don’t have an argument – just a logical fallacy.

    “That which lacks any intrinsic property does NOT exist….” It’s is existence and it doesn’t make sense to say existence doesn’t exist.

    “Now how do you know this?” Because all God beings are inventions of the ego. If their was a “God” there would be evidence for everyone to know about him, he wouldn’t play a cosmic game of hide and seek where the only people who claim to have seen are these “Mystics” who have special access to him that nobody else does.

    “In other words, what cannot be seen at all is proposed by an idiot and you believe this…. At the least God can be seen….and yet shunya which cannot be seen by anybody is reality for you… Aren’t you a genius?” If you had a brain you would understand why the all can’t be “observed” – since its literal everything. And no nobody has seen your God – accept some fools who claim to have but for some strange cant demonstrate his existence to any one else.

    “There is NO bigger fantasy than the existence of shunya which cannot be seen by anybody… Its you possessing ego….” The all is not a fantasy, imaginary alien creator beings are.

    “The person is the body…nobody identifies subjectivity as the real person……” And yet before you said soul does not depend on the body! Now you say the exact opposite. If the “person” is the body, then the “person” must die – because the body dies. You contradict yourself and refute yourself – because you have no clue what you are talking about.

    ‘Soul is needed…..as no known intrinsic property of matter can cause consciousness….” Soul is not needed, reality brings consciousness into existence and it will also annihilate consciousness – the same as everything else.

    “What you say proves my point….There is no individual that survives…..the only way to escape suffering, is to lead one’s self to annihilation…if there is no self then there is no suffering as only if self, survives suffering persists…..” No death is not an “escape” from suffering. There is nothing outside of life – for the individual – when you die that means no more experiences for you. If we say you escaped from something then you have to get out or outside of the situation but in the case of your life (to you) there is no “outside”.

    Shunya is lack of “intrinsic property”…. Therefore its zeroness or emptyness…as it lacks any intrinsic property… much like your abuddha’s empty head” Read AND Understand the statement “God alone is real, all else is illusion”. The all or reality is real (it’s not “nothing”) everything else is just illusion.

    “You can by aggregating parts of the totality….like constructing entire elephant from individual blind men’s observations/….” The all is not a thing and is not like any thing in existence so you can’t construct it from just observing (a infinitesimally) small part of it.

    “One cannot claim a completely barren woman gave rise to children….similarly one cannot claim, Shunya that is devoid of any intrinsic properties gave rise to matter with intrinsic properties… It is logically absurd…” Nothing gave rise to matter. Shunya or the all is the principal behind all things. The material world – poetically speaking – is the body of God.
    “If every thing’s nature s shunya, then neither perceiver nor the perceived exist in reality….” It just means perceiver and perceived are dependent arising. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist – just that their existence isn’t magical or any different to the existence of anything else.
    “You exist, other things exist and this means existence exists, so stop blabbering and lying and speaking about things you know nothing about.”
    “Why should I lie? read above.. there is no self nor the objects of perception…” There is no self that is true and objects of perception are a dependent arising. But where does Buddha say nothing exists? Or that no experience at all is happening?
    “Regardless, no one including Buddha has ever seen shunya, because it is like the child of a barren woman or a hare’s horn…It simply does NOT exist in relaity” It IS reality or existence itself.

  42. Phoenix
    //Nobody has a true description of the ultimate underlying reality. That remains hidden from all human beings. I applaud and deeply respect the work of those who get us a bit closer to this goal at each step.//
    “Then you should respect the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics which posits that all reality requires a universal consciousness at its most fundamental level.”
    ??? The Copenhagen Interpretation is about specific properties, measurement, and collapse of the wave function. You just tossed in the bit about “universal consciousness” ad hoc.

    //Ok, but that does not give us any science at t=0, only a very general notion at that time, and a great deal of science thereafter.//
    “Here you have subtly admitted that your epistemological position is Empricism. Empiricists (a subcategory of Philosophical Materialism) only accept what can be perceived by the senses and verified scientifically. Is this your position and can you rationally sustain it?”
    We just don’t have any science at t=0. Quite apparently the true nature of the underlying reality is beyond my senses and comprehension at present, as is the case for all human beings that have ever lived. Science is simply the best tool we have for getting closer and closer to that ultimate truth.

    //Indeed, I might be god and you might be a figment of my divine imagination. I cannot prove that is not the case, and neither can you. But, I have no positive evidence for that speculation, so I consider it to be infinitesimally likely.//
    “So you have no proof for your position yet you demand proof of others,”
    I have evidence and logic based upon certain provisional postulates for my position, and I demand likewise from others.

    “ provide material evidence for a non-material claim.”
    “Non-material” is an oxymoronic term. It is an incoherent notion. If it isn’t made of something, some kind of energy, some kind of spacetime, something other than absolutely nothing at all, then it is absolutely nothing at all and can thus have no properties at all, much less intelligence and the power to create a universe.

    “Atheists require all theist claims pass empirical standards which must be falsifiable and can be independently replicated…yet they consistently fail their own demands by failing to provide either logic or evidence and declare themselves rational”
    You can believe in magic pixies if you want., which are just as likely as your god or any other “supernatural” claim.

    My senses seem to be basically reliable, so I provisionally postulate that they are. Building upon that postulate reality is detectable and assertions about the nature of various aspects of reality are falsifiable, or at least they should be falsifiable at least in principle to be considered more than idle speculation.

  43. why? says:

    @Stardust,

    “Mathematical expressions can be approximate models of reality or they can have no physical realization.”

    They can be approximate or have no physical realization….However, it still shows what is possible in reality…

    “Just because you have a valid mathematical expression does not mean it is possible in physical reality.”

    If it is possible mathematically, then it is definitely possible….Possibility is calculated mathematically only…

    “No, I have used observation and logic. All observed counting processes are finite. Nothing changes in principle if I count up for a year, or 100 years, or an arbitrarily large number of years. Even if I never die the only thing I can do is count higher and higher and higher.”

    Logical fallacy….

    Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic): If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.

    “The definition of insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing but expecting a different result.”

    Right…..Fits you well…You expect your finite counting process to be infinite…

    “Agreed, so why are you disagreeing with me? All counting processes we start with are finite, thus none can lead to infinity.”

    No…..A beginning-less counting process is NOT finite….

    “This holds true for counting up from the present or counting down from the present, either way, infinity has no connection to our present finite counting process.”

    That is because of your circular reasoning…

  44. why?
    “ Physical reality is expressed as mathematical expression”
    Mathematical expressions can be approximate models of reality or they can have no physical realization.

    “….Mathematica expression shows what is possible in physical reality.”
    Just because you have a valid mathematical expression does not mean it is possible in physical reality.

    “ You have assumed it is NOT physical reality because you made a circular argument….”
    No, I have used observation and logic. All observed counting processes are finite. Nothing changes in principle if I count up for a year, or 100 years, or an arbitrarily large number of years. Even if I never die the only thing I can do is count higher and higher and higher.

    The definition of insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing but expecting a different result.

    “When you assume a finite counting process, it will end up as finite counting process…It is absolute stupidity to expect an infinite process while you start a finite process”
    Agreed, so why are you disagreeing with me? All counting processes we start with are finite, thus none can lead to infinity.

    This holds true for counting up from the present or counting down from the present, either way, infinity has no connection to our present finite counting process.

  45. why? says:

    Steve,

    “It definitely contains it, otherwise the soul or self would not be able to interact with it.”

    We agree on this then…

    “The self or soul is part of the physical world and operates by cause and effect, so no proposing existence of a soul does not answer anything.”

    I do NOT agree on this….

    “Which means it’s material.”

    Call it whatever you want material or non-material…These are mere words….

    “Consciousness depends on the body, if you had no body you wouldn’t be aware of anything.”

    NOT at all….If Soul exists, then it does NOT depend on the brain or the material body we know…

    “What do you mean? No “thing” or particular form of matter is intrinsic, if your car is blue it is caused to be blue and if something causes it change to red then it will change. It’s not “intrinsically blue” – and it doesn’t matter that the material of which it is made can’t be created or destroyed because the matter/energy changes form.”

    Then answer what kind of properties can we attribute to a “thing”? can we attribute any kind of property to a “thing”?

    “No it’s a logical fallacy.
    The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
    Example
    “The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can’t possibly evolve naturally.”
    Or in this case, “one person (why) cannot see how consciousness arose from the physical world, therefore it can’t possibly have arose from the physical world.” Your “argument” is nothing but a fallacy.”

    Stevey…steeveyy….You have applied the “argument from incredulity” in a really incredulous way indeed….This is why a person who cannot understand logic should NOT apply logic in the first place…

    Lets see how “argument from ignorance” is made generally…

    (a.) If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.

    (b.) If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

    Did I make a mere proposition in the first place? NOT at all…I made an argument to show a particular proposition is wrong….This is NOT at all argument from ignorance…you ignorant idiot…..

    Now you made a claim that “one person (why) cannot see how consciousness arose from the physical world, therefore it can’t possibly have arose from the physical world.”

    Did I make a claim that “since no one knows how consciousness arose from brain, therefore such a proposition is wrong”? absolutely no……

    My argument is NOT this at all….My argument is “since there cannot arise any extrinsic property independent of the intrinsic properties of interacting matter, consciousness too must have some intrinsic property of matter responsible for its arising…Now, since there is NOT one such known intrinsic property of matter which can give rise to subjectivity, we have to propose existence of intrinsic properties and/or unknown substance..”

    This is NOT argument from ignorance you ignoramus, it is a valid argument….My argument for the proposition I made is NOT because of my ignorance of how consciousness arose from brain, but my argument shows that consciousness cannot have arisen from the brain as there are no such intrinsic properties of known matter which can give rise to a phenomenon like consciousness…

    Do you get it you ignorant fellow…..

    “We don’t know “exactly” how a flame is caused by sparking a match, but that doesn’t mean it arises uncaused and exists independently of the match and the rest of the physical world, likewise with the brain and consciousness.”

    We exactly know how a flame arises and what intrinsic properties are responsible for a flame arising……

    In case of consciousness, no known intrinsic properties of matter can cause consciousness…however since consciousness is observed, there must exist some unknown matter and/or intrinsic properties…

    “More baloney they’re is no reason why consciousness can’t arise from the physical world, so what you believe is a fantasy.”

    First you learn to understand any argument you dumb ass before you apply logical fallacies…

    “The all is not a thing, and doesn’t have any properties. Nobody observes the all because it’s not a thing, it’s EVERYTHING. Their is nowhere that it is not.”

    What…..did you say “Nobody observes the all because it’s **not a thing**, it’s **EVERYTHING**” 🙂

    It is much like your brain, which does NOT exist and yet exists….nbody knows if you have one 🙂

    “The all is not a thing yes but that does not mean it is “nothing”. “Nothing” or non-existence, if it exists is just a part of existence and a part cannot be the all and if non-existence doesn’t exist then their is no point talking about because it doesn’t exist.”

    That which lacks any intrinsic property does NOT exist….

    “Dog shit arises from “intrinsic properties” of matter – just like consciousness. So in that sense it is EXACTLY the same as consciousness. Dog shit is not a special thing and nor is consciousness.”

    Wait…did you say “Dog shit arises from “intrinsic properties” of matter – just like consciousness”?

    SO which known “intrinsic property” of matter gives rise to consciousness and how?

    “None of them have seen any God being, all such beings are figment of the imagination of human beings.”

    Now how do you know this?

    Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic): If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.

    “Shunya is not a thing, so cannot be seen. This is a category akin to asking why you can’t live inside the colour blue.”

    In other words, what cannot be seen at all is proposed by an idiot and you believe this…. At the least God can be seen….and yet shunya which cannot be seen by anybody is reality for you… Aren’t you a genius? 🙂

    “Even dog shit appears because of “intrinsic properties” of matter” Just insults, the reality is the only “rebirth” that is going to happen to you after death is being food for the worms. Your precious ego can’t stomach that so invents fantasies like God, soul and reincarnation.”

    There is NO bigger fantasy than the existence of shunya which cannot be seen by anybody… Its you possessing ego….

    “The body of brain dead people can be kept alive does that mean the person is “there” just because the body is still functioning?”

    The person is the body…nobody identifies subjectivity as the real person……

    “Consciousness is caused by reality, just like every other extrinsic property is caused by reality. Thus no soul is needed.”

    Soul is needed…..as no known intrinsic property of matter can cause consciousness….

    “The Buddhas teaching on this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with physical birth and death. ……… it has NOTHING at all to do with physical birth or death or being reborn as a actual dog or going to literal hell realms after death and other nonsense.”

    If Shunya without any “intrinsic property” is the only reality as per Buddhism, then it is annihilation. What you say proves my point….There is no individual that survives…..the only way to escape suffering, is to lead one’s self to annihilation…if there is no self then there is no suffering as only if self, survives suffering persists…..

    So it is a sort of ultimate suicide suggested by Buddha…. the very annihilation or existence of individual itself…. This is the PERFECT EVIL PHILOSOPHY FOR INTRINSICALLY EVIL SOULS WHOSE VERY NATURE IS SUFFERING ONLY….THEY NATURALLY WANT ANNIHILATION…

    “Death is but you liking or not liking death or preferring to be alive is not.”

    THIS IS TOTAL BUDDHIST BLABBER….IS IT ONE OF THOSE STUPID HAIKUS?

    “You don’t understand what emptiness is. It is not nothing. It is everything and everything is not a thing and is not even “nothing””

    Shunya is lack of “intrinsic property”…. Therefore its zeroness or emptyness…as it lacks any intrinsic property… much like your abuddha’s empty head… 🙂

    “How can you observe the totality of all things? You can’t, so you have no idea what you are talking about here”

    You can by aggregating parts of the totality….like constructing entire elephant from individual blind men’s observations/….

    “My brain is not “everything” you fucking idiot.”

    Buddhist is an angry little twat now….

    “Existence gives rise to all things, and is not “non existent”, you are a clown.”

    One cannot claim a completely barren woman gave rise to children….similarly one cannot claim, Shunya that is devoid of any intrinsic properties gave rise to matter with intrinsic properties… It is logically absurd…

    “He doesn’t say the perceived or the perceiver doesn’t exist, so you are lying again.”

    If every thing’s nature s shunya, then neither perceiver nor the perceived exist in reality….

    “You exist, other things exist and this means existence exists, so stop blabbering and lying and speaking about things you know nothing about.”

    Why should I lie? read above.. there is no self nor the objects of perception…

    Regardless, no one including Buddha has ever seen shunya, because it is like the child of a barren woman or a hare’s horn…It simply does NOT exist in relaity… 🙂

  46. Phoenix says:

    (Continued)

    The operative phrase being “best we have”. We don’t have it right yet. So, the best we have is wrong.
    By “wrong” if mean it in the sense the Newton was “wrong”. Newton was correct to a high degree of accuracy, but he was fundamentally wrong as a true description of the ultimate underlying reality.
    Nobody has a true description of the ultimate underlying reality. That remains hidden from all human beings. I applaud and deeply respect the work of those who get us a bit closer to this goal at each step.//

    Then you should respect the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics which posits that all reality requires a universal consciousness at its most fundamental level.

    //Ok, but that does not give us any science at t=0, only a very general notion at that time, and a great deal of science thereafter.//

    Here you have subtly admitted that your epistemological position is Empricism. Empiricists (a subcategory of Philosophical Materialism) only accept what can be perceived by the senses and verified scientifically. Is this your position and can you rationally sustain it?

    //Indeed, I might be god and you might be a figment of my divine imagination. I cannot prove that is not the case, and neither can you. But, I have no positive evidence for that speculation, so I consider it to be infinitesimally likely.//

    So you have no proof for your position yet you demand proof of others, albeit an irrational demand, i.e., provide material evidence for a non-material claim. Atheists require all theist claims pass empirical standards which must be falsifiable and can be independently replicated…yet they consistently fail their own demands by failing to provide either logic or evidence and declare themselves rational…tautologically.

  47. Phoenix says:

    Stardusty,

    //Please provide an observed instance of “simultaneous causation”, else the term remains without realization and is, in real terms, an oxymoron.//

    Quantum Entanglement, where performing actions on one the entagled particles instantly affects the other.

    //Nobody knows. That is why an account of our existence remains a mystery. Billions of humans have pondered this subject. None have communicated a solution free of defect.//

    Pleading ignorance has no explanatory power. Atheists demand all theist claims must have explanatory power yet they cannot satisfy their own requirement.

    //You are asserting a plane of existence not palpably in evidence, thus the burden of proof is on you.//

    Palpable means tangible and observable. Your evidential criterion for a non-physical entity which must be proven materially is an ontological error and a fallacious category mistake.

    //I claim magic unicorns romping about the far side of the moon telepathically control our fates (they hide in moon caves whenever they magically sense the presence of a spacecraft overhead). You may reasonably reject my claim of magic unicorns on the far side of the moon until such time as I provide some evidence for them.
    Your god speculation is no better than my unicorn assertion.//

    The entire paragraph above fails under several fallacies: One, it is a false comparison fallacy until it is rationally demonstrated that both God and unicorns share the same properties or characteristics. Two, it is a strawman and a violation of the principle of charitable interpretation because I never invoked any unicorns and there are plausible arguments for God’s existence. There are none for magic unicorns.

    Contrary to Atheist claims, you cannot disprove a proposition by inventing a ficticious scenario then claiming you also don’t believe in your ficticious analogy therefore God does not exist. It’s a non-sequitur.
    Proposition P must be analyzed in isolation of proposition Q by providing a sound syllogistic argument demonstrating how proposition P is equivalent to Q
    .
    //More oxymoronic imagination. If your god is not made of something then she is absolutely nothing at all, and absolutely nothing at all has a real hard time poofing a universe into existence.//

    We do not describe God’s essence in physical terms since God is not composed of matter, hence symbolic language is used. If God had material properties then God would be restricted to the laws of cause and effect and contained within our universe and such a physical being would not be able to cause the universe into effect, since self-causation is fallaciously circular. Therefore the cause of the universe must be sans matter and space-time.

    //Sorry, Aristotelian physics is entirely unimpressive to a modern thinker.//

    It is not Aristotelian physics but Aristotelian logic which I assert. If the hypothesis passes sound reasoning then I will accept it.

  48. why? says:

    “A process of counting up that never ends will always remain finite. Even if you never die, you cannot count up to infinity

    There is no upper bound on such a never ending count, so the count is in that sense unbounded.

    In mathematics we can express infinity simply by writing a symbol for it. In real time we can never get to infinity, even if there is no upper limit, no upper bound to our time.”

    The moment you stop the counting process, it is a finite process…

    I asked you the simple question…..Can we realize an infinite process through a finite process? Logical answer is NO…..Your silliness is in concluding that infinite process does NOT exist because finite process does NOT yield an infinite process… Is this that difficult to understand?

    A beginning-less counting process is actual infinite process…

  49. why? says:

    Stardust,

    “Yes, I get that you do not get the difference between a mathematical expression and physical reality.”

    Physical reality is expressed as mathematical expression….Mathematica expression shows what is possible in physical reality.

    You have assumed it is NOT physical reality because you made a circular argument….When you assume a finite counting process, it will end up as finite counting process…It is absolute stupidity to expect an infinite process while you start a finite process…

  50. why?
    @stardust,
    “I think you seem to presume that countable implies finiteness/boundedness by default….”
    No, those are mathematical concepts; I am speaking of a realized process.

    “Here is a mathematical evidence that countability has nothing to do with boundedness…
    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CountablyInfinite.html
    Countably Infinite
    Any set which can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (or integers) so that a prescription can be given for identifying its members one at a time is called a countably infinite (or denumerably infinite) set.
    Examples of countable sets include the integers, algebraic numbers, and rational numbers. Georg Cantor showed that the number of real numbers is rigorously larger than a countably infinite set, and the postulate that this number, the so-called “continuum,” is equal to aleph-1 is called the continuum hypothesis. Examples of nondenumerable sets include the real, complex, irrational, and transcendental numbers.
    SO DO YOU GET IT STARDUST…COUNTABILITY IS EQUIVALENT TO DENUMERABILITY…..IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING UNBOUNDED…..”

    Yes, I get that you do not get the difference between a mathematical expression and physical reality.

    I can write an expression representing 7 dimensional space. That does not mean that 7 dimensional space really exists.

    A process of counting up that never ends will always remain finite. Even if you never die, you cannot count up to infinity.

    There is no upper bound on such a never ending count, so the count is in that sense unbounded.

    In mathematics we can express infinity simply by writing a symbol for it. In real time we can never get to infinity, even if there is no upper limit, no upper bound to our time.

  51. @Phoenix
    “Firstly, simultaneous causation does not involve a sequence of events.”
    Please provide an observed instance of “simultaneous causation”, else the term remains without realization and is, in real terms, an oxymoron.

    “Secondly, if time is a precondition for causation then the universe could not have had a beginning nor cause.”
    Indeed.

    “Any trace back in time would require a first cause or we’d have to concede an infinite regression or self-causation. So, which is it?”
    Nobody knows. That is why an account of our existence remains a mystery. Billions of humans have pondered this subject. None have communicated a solution free of defect.

    “//As opposed to some kind of ethereal cloud of soul stuff in a dualist imagination? Unproven indeed. Pot, meet kettle//
    Tu quoque”
    Well, no, I am not claiming you are acting inconsistent with your conclusions and therefore your conclusions are wrong.

    My claim is that whatever logical conundrum you seek to solve with dualistic speculations is in fact merely pushed back a step to even worse conundrums in your attempt.

    “ and your rejection of dualist theories are merely denialism without rational justification and/or evidence.”
    You are asserting a plane of existence not palpably in evidence, thus the burden of proof is on you.

    I claim magic unicorns romping about the far side of the moon telepathically control our fates (they hide in moon caves whenever they magically sense the presence of a spacecraft overhead). You may reasonably reject my claim of magic unicorns on the far side of the moon until such time as I provide some evidence for them.

    Your god speculation is no better than my unicorn assertion.

    “Not ex nihilo but ex materia.”
    More oxymoronic imagination. If your god is not made of something then she is absolutely nothing at all, and absolutely nothing at all has a real hard time poofing a universe into existence.

    “ Invoking one of Aristotle’s Four Causes, the cause in the first premise of the KCA is defined as efficient cause (“the primary source of the change or rest”), as opposed to material cause.”
    Sorry, Aristotelian physics is entirely unimpressive to a modern thinker.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau
    Thanks for the link. How quaint.

    “Nobody knows. There are no scientific theories, much less experimental observations to answer that question.
    There most certainly is no reason to presuppose existence began at t=0.//

    Then you are contradicting the current Standard Model of Cosmology which posits that General Relativity is the best description we have”
    The operative phrase being “best we have”. We don’t have it right yet. So, the best we have is wrong.

    By “wrong” if mean it in the sense the Newton was “wrong”. Newton was correct to a high degree of accuracy, but he was fundamentally wrong as a true description of the ultimate underlying reality.

    Nobody has a true description of the ultimate underlying reality. That remains hidden from all human beings. I applaud and deeply respect the work of those who get us a bit closer to this goal at each step.

    “ of space-time at large and is alone sufficient to tell us that the universe was born in a superdense state and that there was indeed a Big Bang.”
    Ok, but that does not give us any science at t=0, only a very general notion at that time, and a great deal of science thereafter.

    “//My only absolute certainty is that I exist in some form, and corollaries based on self awareness. To proceed in my apparent life with apparent function I provisionally postulate the basic reliability of my senses, while remaining a skeptic//

    Then you cannot provide proof for any proposition beyond your “brain in the vat’. You are fed false information and is unable to discern truth from falsehood.”
    Indeed, I might be god and you might be a figment of my divine imagination. I cannot prove that is not the case, and neither can you. But, I have no positive evidence for that speculation, so I consider it to be infinitesimally likely.

  52. Phoenix says:

    Stardusty,
    //Of course there is. Cause and effect are a time sequence of events. If you can cite an observed case of a cause and effect that is not a time sequence of events please send me the link to the paper or video or whatever documentation is available.//

    Firstly, simultaneous causation does not involve a sequence of events.
    Secondly, if time is a precondition for causation then the universe could not have had a beginning nor cause. Any trace back in time would require a first cause or we’d have to concede an infinite regression or self-causation. So, which is it?

    //As opposed to some kind of ethereal cloud of soul stuff in a dualist imagination? Unproven indeed. Pot, meet kettle//

    Tu quoque and your rejection of dualist theories are merely denialism without rational justification and/or evidence.

    //How could those “causal conditions” come in to place ex nihlio? As in all theistic speculations, you have merely moved the problem back a step and made it even worse in doing so by introducing unevidenced dualist notions that solve nothing//

    Not ex nihilo but ex materia. Invoking one of Aristotle’s Four Causes, the cause in the first premise of the KCA is defined as efficient cause (“the primary source of the change or rest”), as opposed to material cause.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau
    ====

    Nobody knows. There are no scientific theories, much less experimental observations to answer that question.
    There most certainly is no reason to presuppose existence began at t=0.//

    Then you are contradicting the current Standard Model of Cosmology which posits that General Relativity is the best description we have of space-time at large and is alone sufficient to tell us that the universe was born in a superdense state and that there was indeed a Big Bang.

    =======
    //That would only reinforce skepticism, since you are not trusting my assertion, you are being a skeptic yourself//

    To be skeptical of radical skepticism actually reduces skepticism. Utilizing deductive logic is the best method known for truth acquisition.

    //My only absolute certainty is that I exist in some form, and corollaries based on self awareness. To proceed in my apparent life with apparent function I provisionally postulate the basic reliability of my senses, while remaining a skeptic//

    Then you cannot provide proof for any proposition beyond your “brain in the vat’. You are fed false information and is unable to discern truth from falsehood.

  53. Steve says:

    Why

    “The physical world may contain the soul as well” It definitely contains it, otherwise the soul or self would not be able to interact with it.

    “proposing existence of soul with such intrinsic property is a necessity here…” The self or soul is part of the physical world and operates by cause and effect, so no proposing existence of a soul does not answer anything.

    “It does interact with our bodies, exhibits consciousness as a phenomenon and so it exists…” Which means it’s material. Consciousness depends on the body, if you had no body you wouldn’t be aware of anything.

    “I asked you does a “thing” have properties associated with it. As per Buddhism, does a “thing” have associated “intrinsic properties” and “extrinsic properties”? Answer this before you write meaningless Buddhist buttshit..” What do you mean? No “thing” or particular form of matter is intrinsic, if your car is blue it is caused to be blue and if something causes it change to red then it will change. It’s not “intrinsically blue” – and it doesn’t matter that the material of which it is made can’t be created or destroyed because the matter/energy changes form.

    “It is a valid argument…. See on dependent intrinsic properties again…” No it’s a logical fallacy.
    “The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.”
    Example
    “The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can’t possibly evolve naturally.”

    Or in this case, “one person (why) cannot see how consciousness arose from the physical world, therefore it can’t possibly have arose from the physical world.” Your “argument” is nothing but a fallacy.

    “Then you agree you do NOT know exactly how consciousness is caused by brain….but still claim it is caused by brain….” We don’t know “exactly” how a flame is caused by sparking a match, but that doesn’t mean it arises uncaused and exists independently of the match and the rest of the physical world, likewise with the brain and consciousness.

    .”Thus proposition of soul with an intrinsic property which can lead to consciousness is a necessity here…” More baloney they’re is no reason why consciousness can’t arise from the physical world, so what you believe is a fantasy.

    “Imagine blind men, who see parts of elephant….By seeing part, you are seeing the “all”… The “all” has properties similar to parts….One cannot propose an “all” which is fundamentally and completely different from that of parts….So if no one can see such “all” as shunya, then it is nonsense claim…” The all is not a thing, and doesn’t have any properties. Nobody observes the all because it’s not a thing, it’s EVERYTHING. Their is nowhere that it is not.

    “…. Shunya means “zero”…absence of any intrinsic property..Thus Shunya is nothing ONLY….You have clearly told the “all” is NOT a “thing”..so the “all” aka shunya is nothing…You can bull shit as much “all” you want here….its still a big nothing like your shunya…Buddhist crackpot…” The all is not a thing yes but that does not mean it is “nothing”. “Nothing” or non-existence, if it exists is just a part of existence and a part cannot be the all and if non-existence doesn’t exist then their is no point talking about because it doesn’t exist.

    “Dog shit is NOT conscious and you can eat it for all I know….” Dog shit arises from “intrinsic properties” of matter – just like consciousness. So in that sense it is EXACTLY the same as consciousness. Dog shit is not a special thing and nor is consciousness.

    ..” Every Vedic seer has seen Vedic God” None of them have seen any God being, all such beings are figment of the imagination of human beings.

    “Hence no one has seen this Shunya… Only an idiot will propose such a thing…. and ironically Gowthama is Buddha…he must ne renamed as “abuddha”.” Shunya is not a thing, so cannot be seen. This is a category akin to asking why you can’t live inside the colour blue.

    “Reality is that “intrinsic properties” of matter exist…unlike your dog shit theory that all is shunya… Here nothing is shunya except your brain…or may be your brain is same a dog shit… Even dog shit appears because of “intrinsic properties” of matter” Just insults, the reality is the only “rebirth” that is going to happen to you after death is being food for the worms. Your precious ego can’t stomach that so invents fantasies like God, soul and reincarnation.

    “The person is still existent as he/she is merely unconscious in coma condition, NOT dead….” No “they” are not their, they are unconscious. The body of brain dead people can be kept alive does that mean the person is “there” just because the body is still functioning?

    “Consciousness is caused by “intrinsic properties” just like every other extrinsic property is caused by “intrinsic properties”….Thus soul must exist…” Consciousness is caused by reality, just like every other extrinsic property is caused by reality. Thus no soul is needed.

    “It is irrelevant what your imaginations are…. Annihilation is sorrow….this is why people cry on death of somebody..All normal people do NOT celebrate death and celebrate life….. If your philosophy celebrates annihilation as the ultimate form od spirituality, then it is the ultimate form of evil…for evil celebrates sorrow only…You just confirmed my point…” The Buddhas teaching on this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with physical birth and death. By “birth” the Buddha means the birth of the ego or the false “I” the birth of attachment. By “death” the Buddha means the death of an attachment. The inevitable falling apart of an illusion. Pain and dissatisfaction. And the root of it all is ignorance, the false “I” or ego. For example let’s say a person is a alcoholic, and this eventually leads to their life falling apart. They give up alcohol and take up another attachment, let’s say they become an born again Christian. And so the cycle of birth and death continues which collectively is called samsara. This cycle is responsible for all suffering, so if you break the illusion of the “false I” you escape the cycle of rebirth. This is the Buddhas teaching, it is about psychological mental states, it has NOTHING at all to do with physical birth or death or being reborn as a actual dog or going to literal hell realms after death and other nonsense.

    “Death is objective state” Death is but you liking or not liking death or preferring to be alive is not.

    “Matter has intrinsic property and hence is NOT shunya…The proof for that already given which you cannot understand with your shunya brain…Shunya lacks any intrinsic property…thus shunya is NOT matter…they are polar opposites…The only matter that is Shunya is your brain, that does NOT exist” You don’t understand what emptiness is. It is not nothing. It is everything and everything is not a thing and is not even “nothing”

    “So, if you can imagine or observe something, that “thing” is NOT an object of perception according to you…. ? ” How can you observe the totality of all things? You can’t, so you have no idea what you are talking about here

    “Hey Paris has a museum for you to exhibit your brain….with a caption below…. “If you can observe Steve’s brain, it does NOT exist and if NOT observed Steve’s brain exists” My brain is not “everything” you fucking idiot.

    “One that is “absolutely different” to any other “thing” in existence cannot give rise to “other things” which has properties “absolutely unlike” that “thing”. Thus Shunya is non-existent like a hare’s horn or pregnancy of an infertile woman…” Existence gives rise to all things, and is not “non existent”, you are a clown.

    “.If neither perceiver nor the perceived exist, then neiter Buddha exists nor Buddha perceived Shunya… So how does Buddha know Shunya exists? he does not…ad yet Buddha proposed Shunya…Now that A class stupidity…for abuddha” He doesn’t say the perceived or the perceiver doesn’t exist, so you are lying again.

    “What are you blabbering here Steve….Its meaningless statement you have made…. I asked you if Buddha perceived/observed Shunya? Didn’t Buddha say neither perceiver nor perceived exist…..What cannot be seen and will never be seen cannot be proposed to exist…Its height of foolishness…” You exist, other things exist and this means existence exists, so stop blabbering and lying and speaking about things you know nothing about.

  54. why? says:

    @stardust,

    I think you seem to presume that countable implies finiteness/boundedness by default….

    Here is a mathematical evidence that countability has nothing to do with boundedness…

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CountablyInfinite.html

    Countably Infinite

    Any set which can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (or integers) so that a prescription can be given for identifying its members one at a time is called a countably infinite (or denumerably infinite) set.

    Examples of countable sets include the integers, algebraic numbers, and rational numbers. Georg Cantor showed that the number of real numbers is rigorously larger than a countably infinite set, and the postulate that this number, the so-called “continuum,” is equal to aleph-1 is called the continuum hypothesis. Examples of nondenumerable sets include the real, complex, irrational, and transcendental numbers.

    SO DO YOU GET IT STARDUST…COUNTABILITY IS EQUIVALENT TO DENUMERABILITY…..IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING UNBOUNDED…..

  55. why? says:

    @why?

    “It’s pattern matching, not pattern making, and I already have explained, you simply lack the fundamental education is data processing to understand the explanation.”

    You are right…its pattern matching (not making) algorithm…May be I was multitasking and something got mixed up….Now we weill see who lacks the fundamental education as to it….

    “Anybody who characterizes a pattern matching algorithm executed on a modern and highly complex computing system to be “nothing but a bunch of electrons” very obviously has no substantial education on the subject.”

    The final output result of any algorithm or program is nothing but a bunch of electrical signals…..

    In any “pattern matching algorithm”, all the software does is check the “data stream” for any particular pattern or patterns in the data stream based on some rules and the algorithm does this in the most efficient way possible……If the data stream has a pattern, it gives the output in terms of may be memory address of the data, how many patterns were found etc…

    The output is still in the form of electrical signals….Now let is be that in a modern computing system, that is highly complex (massively parallel processors)..how does it make a difference? The output is still in the form of electrical signals and pre/post-processor displays the data on your screen….How on Earth will one jump from here to a phenomenon like subjectivity is beyond me and complete baloney….There is absolutely no explanatory value at all here….

    “Ok so now you are asserting a “new phenomenon arising”, which is just “emergent phenomenon” in sheep’s clothing.”

    Absolutely yes…..If one does NOT accept subjectivity itself as a “new phenomenon” here with respect to known properties of matter, then you are denying existence of subjectivity as a phenomenon itself…Since emergent phenomenon is NOT possible, there must exist an known “thing” which has or can cause this subjectivity to arise…

    “If you knew anything about pattern recognition algorithms and correlation scores you would see the connection and the explanatory value in them. Since you don’t, you don’t.”

    C’mon Stardust….There is no such explanatory value at all here at all….How will a mere statistical measure like a correlation score will make much difference in creating a phenomenon like subjectivity? You think people will get fooled by just some use of jargons….There is NO EXPLANATORY VALUE WHATSOEVER HERE…You are merely bull shitting here…

    “I said most, not all, and the animals I chose as an example were insects. Some higher mammals are self aware, which is why I used the word “most” as opposed to “all”.”

    Even insects are self-aware in a sense….If you pull out their legs (not that I have done it), you will see that insects will twitch and turn…If you put your hand in the path of ants, it will go around….If you stand near an ant colony and mdisturb them, you will get bitten by it….All these show some kind of self-awareness….

    “When you refuse to think then you will not learn. Pity you seem bound an determined to close your mind to new understandings.”

    Sorry pal…..but to say “unbounded finite number” is an oxymoron… Nothing to learn from contradicting terms….If I write billion^billion, it is still finite number and NOT unbounded…hee….I thought you are educated about pattern matching algorithms and writing complex codes…Here you seem to struggling with a very simple concept like finite implies bounded….and unbounded is never applied to a finite number… 🙂

    “Your lack of understanding goes hand in hand with your unwillingness to think. When you choose to think you then open the possibility of learning new things.”

    Really!….. May be you should think if it is NOT the other way round….

    “Ok “a number” in this sense does not mean one particular value, it means a variable which at any particular moment is a particular value. I explained it more clearly below.”

    Hehehehe…….. SO you do NOT know the difference between a variable and a number…..Now how on Earth can you write a code and talk about data mining techniques? and you are asking me to learn something from you… now thats called an irony… 🙂

    A variable is also never a “unbounded finite number”…. Its still bullshit nonsense 🙂

    A variable can be unbounded….agree to this…. So in a counting process, the variable V(t) can denote the number count at time “t”. So V(t) is finite at time “t”……however, “-infinity < V < infinity" means the variable V can assume any natural number value……

    SO beginning-less count is possible…….By the way time is an unbounded real variable

    "Yes, your closed mind seems to have taken all the exposure to advanced concepts you can tolerate."

    Well….Whn you learn the difference between a variable and number and/or learn to write properly, we shall think about that.. 🙂

    "If you learn something about the facts of pattern matching algorithms, correlation scores, and never ending counting that never reaches infinity but always yields finite numbers then you will have the opportunity to better yourself conceptually."

    Read my above explanation…. Still you do NOT understand that infinite process cannot be simulated by finite process….. When you understand this simple statement, you will understand the difference between a beginning-less count and a count process that is finite….

    Then we can discuss about yourself conceptually…

  56. @Phoenix
    “There is nothing inherent in the concept of atemporal being which would preclude its ability to effect causation.”
    Of course there is. Cause and effect are a time sequence of events. If you can cite an observed case of a cause and effect that is not a time sequence of events please send me the link to the paper or video or whatever documentation is available.

    “ I suspect you’re invoking the Principle of Causal Closure, if that’s the case then you’re question begging as it is merely a naturalist metaphysical principle and unproven emprically. Furhtermore,”
    As opposed to some kind of ethereal cloud of soul stuff in a dualist imagination? Unproven indeed. Pot, meet kettle.

    “ how exactly could time come into existence without any causal conditions in the first place?”
    Nobody knows.

    How could those “causal conditions” come in to place ex nihlio? As in all theistic speculations, you have merely moved the problem back a step and made it even worse in doing so by introducing unevidenced dualist notions that solve nothing.

    ====
    “You seem to have side-stepped my initial point. Did space-time and matter begin to exist at the Big Bang? Or did they exist prior to t=0?”
    Nobody knows. There are no scientific theories, much less experimental observations to answer that question.

    There most certainly is no reason to presuppose existence began at t=0.

    =======
    “So it’s not metaphysical naturalism you’re asserting but Radical Skepticism. To assert that nothing can be known, trusted or proven to be absolutely the case is in fact an internal incoherence. This failure is at least two-fold:
    One, your assertion cannot be trusted to contain any knowledge per admission.”
    That would only reinforce skepticism, since you are not trusting my assertion, you are being a skeptic yourself 🙂

    “Two, your assertion has no external validation and relies on itself for validity, thus circular.”
    Again, I applaud your skepticism! Welcome to my little club 🙂

    My only absolute certainty is that I exist in some form, and corollaries based on self awareness. To proceed in my apparent life with apparent function I provisionally postulate the basic reliability of my senses, while remaining a skeptic.

  57. @why?
    “ I do NOT think you understand what you have said makes no sense Stardust…..”Pattern making algorithm” in terms of hardware circuits is nothing but bunch of electrons….You have to still explain how awareness of any sort or subjectivity arises… “
    It’s pattern matching, not pattern making, and I already have explained, you simply lack the fundamental education is data processing to understand the explanation.

    Anybody who characterizes a pattern matching algorithm executed on a modern and highly complex computing system to be “nothing but a bunch of electrons” very obviously has no substantial education on the subject.

    “The self-diagnostic routine is just some computation. In terms of hardware, any computational result is just an electrical charge, interpreted by software as that particular result. There is no new phenomenon arising here like consciousness or subjectivity. Subjective experience is the new phenomenon here in discussion.”
    Ok so now you are asserting a “new phenomenon arising”, which is just “emergent phenomenon” in sheep’s clothing.

    “A self-diagnostic routine is NOT “aware” in any rudimentary sense……It is merely a routine or program which checks if the device is working as it should. For example, in order to check a car’s emission system, you can install some monitors and check the outputs (temperature, % of gases released, or whatever is required here etc.) to know if catalysts are working properly. The output from the monitors are sent as electrical signals, and the routine checks for monitor outputs and interprets the results. Where is the room for any kind of “subjective awareness” in this situation? NONE….”
    If you knew anything about pattern recognition algorithms and correlation scores you would see the connection and the explanatory value in them. Since you don’t, you don’t.

    “ “Response to sensory data is different than self-awareness. There is no indication that most animals are self aware.”
    Now this is funny….. On the one hand you want me to believe that self-diagnostic routine is “aware of itself in a very rudimentary sense”, but on the other hand you want to negate the “response of animals to sensory data” as no evidence for self-awareness….Which is it? Animals do feel pain and have other experiences of qualia, like unhappiness when one of its members die..You cannot simulate pain through self-diagnostic routine as it is subjective experience….
    These clearly indicate animals are self-aware…”
    I said most, not all, and the animals I chose as an example were insects. Some higher mammals are self aware, which is why I used the word “most” as opposed to “all”.

    “ “An unbounded finite number is not infinite. Please research the difference.”
    There is nothing to think here… 🙂 Its nonsense… There is NO “unbounded finite number” “
    When you refuse to think then you will not learn. Pity you seem bound an determined to close your mind to new understandings.

    Your lack of understanding goes hand in hand with your unwillingness to think. When you choose to think you then open the possibility of learning new things.

    “ A finite number is a finite number….it is nonsense to say it is unbounded… 🙂 You can say that the process is never ending, but its complete baloney and funny to say a finite number is unbounded…”
    Ok “a number” in this sense does not mean one particular value, it means a variable which at any particular moment is a particular value. I explained it more clearly below.

    “ “If you start today and keep counting up without end your count is never ending and is thus unbounded but it will never reach infinity.
    Think about it, my friend.”
    I think I had enough of this nonsense…”
    Yes, your closed mind seems to have taken all the exposure to advanced concepts you can tolerate.

    If you learn something about the facts of pattern matching algorithms, correlation scores, and never ending counting that never reaches infinity but always yields finite numbers then you will have the opportunity to better yourself conceptually.

  58. why? says:

    Steve,

    “Consciousness is caused mostly by the brain. If you deny this you are denying all the evidence and you are not in touch with reality – and their is no point in talking to people who are not in touch with reality. Because we don’t know all the causes of something doesn’t mean it didn’t arise from the material world. We can’t know all the causes and all the details responsible for anything but that doesn’t mean it arose independently of the physical world. What you are saying here is not an argument.”

    The physical world may contain the soul as well…So you agree you do NOT know what causes consciousness. Since nothing arises independent of intrinsic properties, subjectivity as a phenomenon must arise also dependent on intrinsic properties of interacting matter.

    Since we cannot identify even one “intrinsic property” of interacting matter that can even lead to subjective experience, proposing existence of soul with such intrinsic property is a necessity here…This is how lectron was discovered…through observation of macroscopic properties and by reduction arriving at a conclusion of existence of electrons..

    “Where is this “soul” and how on earth does it interact with the matter if it’s not material? It couldn’t so this “soul” is nothing but a fantasy.”

    It does interact with our bodies, exhibits consciousness as a phenomenon and so it exists…

    “How is new things arising from already existing things interacting a contradiction? I post this message, why reads it and responds with his own, where is the logical contradiction?”

    I asked you does a “thing” have properties associated with it. As per Buddhism, does a “thing” have associated “intrinsic properties” and “extrinsic properties”? Answer this before you write meaningless Buddhist buttshit..

    “I understand it very well, it’s you that doesn’t understand anything and spouts bullshit about things you know nothing about.”

    No you don’t…since you cannot even understand my argument… Your irrelevant arguments clearly show you have NOT understood any of my arguments so far…

    “1) This is not an argument. .”

    It is a valid argument…. See on dependent intrinsic properties again…

    “2) We already know some of the causes – such as the brain, environmental stimuli and the body.”

    No you do not know as per your own statement…”Because we don’t know all the causes of something doesn’t mean it didn’t arise from the material world.” is your statement. Then you agree you do NOT know exactly how consciousness is caused by brain….but still claim it is caused by brain….

    It is impossible that one can propose a mechanism for rise of consciousness with known intrinsic properties of matter. Forces between charged particles led to the proposition of existence of intrinsic property of “electric charge” in particles….. Macroscopic phenomenon cannot be explained without inherent/intrinsic properties of matter….Thus proposition of soul with an intrinsic property which can lead to consciousness is a necessity here…

    “How do you see at all? Isn’t it by their being existence? Existence is all around you their is nowhere it’s not. It’s not a particularly thing that can be seen however.”

    Imagine blind men, who see parts of elephant….By seeing part, you are seeing the “all”… The “all” has properties similar to parts….One cannot propose an “all” which is fundamentally and completely different from that of parts….So if no one can see such “all” as shunya, then it is nonsense claim…

    “No “nothing” means absence of any thing, so any state of nothing (if such a thing is possible) is dependent on conditions, such a conditioned state CANNOT be the all or existence itself since “nothing” (if it exists) is just a part of existence and not everything or the all.”

    As usual Buddhist bullshit here…. Shunya means “zero”…absence of any intrinsic property..Thus Shunya is nothing ONLY….You have clearly told the “all” is NOT a “thing”..so the “all” aka shunya is nothing…You can bull shit as much “all” you want here….its still a big nothing like your shunya…Buddhist crackpot…

  59. why? says:

    Steve,

    “So consciousness is the same as everything else it’s not anything special. It doesn’t matter that it arises out of “intrinsic properties” since literally everything does. ”

    It does matter that it arises dependent on “intrinsic properties” of interacting matter and it does matter for us to know what is this “intrinsic property” that can lead to to consciousness….

    “Fucking dog shit arises from the material world but dog shit is nothing special and is not intrinsic to reality. You are one big dumb ass.”

    Dog shit is NOT conscious and you can eat it for all I know…. 🙂

    “Who has seen your God? Nobody has, he is a product of your imagination. If you exist then it means existence also exists.”

    Existence is Shunya….. Every Vedic seer has seen Vedic God… On the other hand, even your Buddha has NOT seen Shunya, for there is neither the one who perceives nor the thing that is perceived…. Hence no one has seen this Shunya… Only an idiot will propose such a thing…. and ironically Gowthama is Buddha…he must ne renamed as “abuddha”.

    “This is the reality, obviously your ego can’t live with the thought you are going to cease to exist one day thinking you are special and intrinsic to reality. When really you are no more intrinsic to reality than a piece of dog shit.”

    Reality is that “intrinsic properties” of matter exist…unlike your dog shit theory that all is shunya… Here nothing is shunya except your brain…or may be your brain is same a dog shit… Even dog shit appears because of “intrinsic properties” of matter.

    “Does the person still exist if they become a corpse?” The person is still existent as he/she is merely unconscious in coma condition, NOT dead….

    “No it’s not read the definition of sentience I gave you. Perception is NOT consciousness.”

    Your definition is fallacious…Read mine…

    “Perception can happen without awareness. Perception is NOT the same as awareness.”

    Perception is awareness of a thing you numb-skull…

    “Exactly the same as ants.” NO they are NOT…

    ““what is responsible for consciousness” Is called reality or existence or the all or whatever you want to call it. Which I have been saying all a fucking long but because you are such a dumb ass it takes you ages to process what other people are saying.”

    The “all” is nothing but sum of all th things in it…. Consciousness is caused by “intrinsic properties” just like every other extrinsic property is caused by “intrinsic properties”….Thus soul must exist…

    “For you it might be but to the universe at large it’s not, it doesn’t give a shit whether you, or for that matter the entire human race or even all life on Earth becomes extinct tomorrow. As far as the universe is concerned you are irrelevant.”

    It is irrelevant what your imaginations are…. Annihilation is sorrow….this is why people cry on death of somebody..All normal people do NOT celebrate death and celebrate life….. If your philosophy celebrates annihilation as the ultimate form od spirituality, then it is the ultimate form of evil…for evil celebrates sorrow only…You just confirmed my point…

    ” I don’t like death and my opinion is objective, no it doesn’t work like that.”

    Death is objective state…

    “Shunya IS existence it not possible for it NOT to exist. You have no idea what shunya is, it’s not some “empty void” which just “suddenly gave rise to matter”. Nothing gave rise to matter, matter is Shunya and shunya IS all that exists.”

    Matter has intrinsic property and hence is NOT shunya…The proof for that already given which you cannot understand with your shunya brain…Shunya lacks any intrinsic property…thus shunya is NOT matter…they are polar opposites…The only matter that is Shunya is your brain, that does NOT exist 🙂

    “Not its not if you think you can observe it or imagine it, that thing you are observing is definitely NOT the all.”

    So, if you can imagine or observe something, that “thing” is NOT an object of perception according to you…. 🙂 hahahaha… What a joker…

    Hey Paris has a museum for you to exhibit your brain….with a caption below…. “If you can observe Steve’s brain, it does NOT exist and if NOT observed Steve’s brain exists” 🙂 🙂

    “Yes we can, but the all or existence is completely different to any other thing.”

    One that is “absolutely different” to any other “thing” in existence cannot give rise to “other things” which has properties “absolutely unlike” that “thing”. Thus Shunya is non-existent like a hare’s horn or pregnancy of an infertile woman…

    “He doesn’t say that, so stop lying.” So let me restate it again….If neither perceiver nor the perceived exist, then neiter Buddha exists nor Buddha perceived Shunya… So how does Buddha know Shunya exists? he does not…ad yet Buddha proposed Shunya…Now that A class stupidity…for abuddha..

    “Yes I exist and perceive existent things so how in the world could existence exist? You are one very stupid man Mr Why.”

    What are you blabbering here Steve….Its meaningless statement you have made…. I asked you if Buddha perceived/observed Shunya? Didn’t Buddha say neither perceiver nor perceived exist…..What cannot be seen and will never be seen cannot be proposed to exist…Its height of foolishness…

    “You are a moron full stop.” Who is a moron is clear from arguments above….

  60. Steve says:

    @why
    “what intrinsic property of matter (like “electric charge” of proton and electrons in atoms) makes possible consciousness?” Consciousness is caused mostly by the brain. If you deny this you are denying all the evidence and you are not in touch with reality – and their is no point in talking to people who are not in touch with reality. Because we don’t know all the causes of something doesn’t mean it didn’t arise from the material world. We can’t know all the causes and all the details responsible for anything but that doesn’t mean it arose independently of the physical world. What you are saying here is not an argument.

    “Hence the conjecture of soul. ” Where is this “soul” and how on earth does it interact with the matter if it’s not material? It couldn’t so this “soul” is nothing but a fantasy.

    “Answer this and then we will proceed….” How is new things arising from already existing things interacting a contradiction? I post this message, why reads it and responds with his own, where is the logical contradiction?

    “I cannot expect you to understand anything in meta-physics…” I understand it very well, it’s you that doesn’t understand anything and spouts bullshit about things you know nothing about.

    “So what is the intrinsic property that causes consciousness?” 1) This is not an argument. 2) We already know some of the causes – such as the brain, environmental stimuli and the body.

    “So you believe in what cannot be seen at all? and yet you claim you believe in the physical world only… This is nonsense…” How do you see at all? Isn’t it by their being existence? Existence is all around you their is nowhere it’s not. It’s not a particularly thing that can be seen however.

    “Emptiness means nothingness only…You have also said Shunya or existence is NOT a thing….then it is nothing….what is wrong in calling shunya as nothing then as it is hollowness?
    Emptiness implies lack of any “intrinsic property”……that which lacks any property is nothing….What do you say when a volume of space consists of nothing? nothing as space contains nothing…..” No “nothing” means absence of any thing, so any state of nothing (if such a thing is possible) is dependent on conditions, such a conditioned state CANNOT be the all or existence itself since “nothing” (if it exists) is just a part of existence and not everything or the all.

  61. Steve says:

    @why
    “I have already explained it. You do NOT seem to get it at all…Nothing arises independent of “intrinsic properties” of interacting matter. SO it is with consciousness” So consciousness is the same as everything else it’s not anything special. It doesn’t matter that it arises out of “intrinsic properties” since literally everything does. Fucking dog shit arises from the material world but dog shit is nothing special and is not intrinsic to reality. You are one big dumb ass.

    ‘There is NO logical reason why your imaginary “qualityless” which no one has seen or none can see (as the one seeing is also “qualityless” in your philosophy) is reality….There is no possibility of seeing this and yet ur philosophy suggests existence of such things…At the least God can be seen, but in your stupid philosophy there is no one to see this Shunya…” Who has seen your God? Nobody has, he is a product of your imagination. If you exist then it means existence also exists.

    “This would be definitely a state of nirvana in your dumb-ass philosophy as it is a cessation and returning to shunya” This is the reality, obviously your ego can’t live with the thought you are going to cease to exist one day thinking you are special and intrinsic to reality. When really you are no more intrinsic to reality than a piece of dog shit.

    ” This is objective reality of some person existing despite NOT being conscious…” Does the person still exist if they become a corpse?

    “Sentience is consciousness twit” No it’s not read the definition of sentience I gave you. Perception is NOT consciousness.

    “Sentience and perception involves conscience idiot” Perception can happen without awareness. Perception is NOT the same as awareness.

    “If you are talking about sensors and machines with a CPU, memories etc., then it merely senses te utput from sensors….” Exactly the same as ants.

    “May be conscious beings (such a humans etc.) are NOT existent and arise and fall….However, what is responsible for consciousness is intrinsic to reality…” “what is responsible for consciousness” Is called reality or existence or the all or whatever you want to call it. Which I have been saying all a fucking long but because you are such a dumb ass it takes you ages to process what other people are saying.

    “Sorrowfulness is intrinsic property of evil souls….They cause and spread sorrow…Non-existence of self or annihilation of self is the highest sorrow…” For you it might be but to the universe at large it’s not, it doesn’t give a shit whether you, or for that matter the entire human race or even all life on Earth becomes extinct tomorrow. As far as the universe is concerned you are irrelevant.

    “and their philosophy also takes sorrowfulness to its highest state…Thus Buddhism is the ultimate formula to cause sorrow….Therefore evil is objective….” I don’t like death and my opinion is objective, no it doesn’t work like that.

    Shunya is an impossible to exist….Shunya cannot give rise to any kind of properties, as it lacks any kind of properties….It is like saying an completely empty void space suddenly gave rise to matter…in other words, nothing gave rise to solid matter…It is logically absurd claim….God is NOT such a concept…” Shunya IS existence it not possible for it NOT to exist. You have no idea what shunya is, it’s not some “empty void” which just “suddenly gave rise to matter”. Nothing gave rise to matter, matter is Shunya and shunya IS all that exists.

    “If we are discussing existence, then it is an object of perception” Not its not if you think you can observe it or imagine it, that thing you are observing is definitely NOT the all.

    “..If it aint, then we cannot even start to talk about it even in abstract sense…” Yes we can, but the all or existence is completely different to any other thing.

    “If neither perception nor preceiver exists as per Buddha, then no one has seen Shunya…” He doesn’t say that, so stop lying.

    “What cannot be seen at all and will never be seen by anyone is what is proposed by dimwitted Buddha….Need I say more…” Yes I exist and perceive existent things so how in the world could existence exist? You are one very stupid man Mr Why.

    “hence you are a buddhist moron.. end of story…” You are a moron full stop.

  62. why? says:

    Steve,

    “That’s because I have told you about 10 times now that I do not believe consciousness arises independently. So stop this straw man.”

    Hey idiot….I am NOT accusing you that you insisted that something arose independently….

    I am telling you about no extrinsic property arising independent of “intrinsic properties” of interacting matter. Do you get the difference fool?

    “I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not talking “intrinsic properties” of matter, I am talking about particular forms of matter like candle flames, tables and chairs. These are not intrinsic to reality and asserting consciousness is intrinsic to reality is no different to claiming tables and chairs are intrinsic to reality.”

    Oh you nit-witted numb-skull moron….You do NOT understand anything God forsaken fool…. 🙂 Let me try again..

    If you claim consciousness is due to organization of matter like tables and chairs or like flame….

    (a.) you are claiming that consciousness is an extrinsic property like a flame…

    (b.) No extrinsic property like flame, arises independent of “intrinsic property” of interacting matter, just like flame arises because of electric charge of protons and electrons in an atom. If protons and electrons do not have electric charge, then no flame will arise…

    (c.) If you claim consciousness is an extrinsic property like a flame, then like a flame made possible ONLY because of intrinsic property “electric charge” of proton and electrons in atoms, what intrinsic property of matter (like “electric charge” of proton and electrons in atoms) makes possible consciousness?

    One cannot even think of any such intrinsic property of existing matter. Hence the conjecture of soul. If you cannot get this argument now, then you are ONE DUMB ASS who cannot understand anything.

    “Let’s say that thing A is caused by thing B, which is a certain distance away. But thing B is caused by thing C, which is further away, and thing C is caused by thing D, which is even further away, etc. Chaining the causes like this gets around the limitation, since the limitation only applies to adjacent things (“direct” causes). Thing A can be said to be caused by thing Z, even though they are a vast distance apart.”

    I am NOT surprised that you are a dumb-ass moron…. You did NOT even start to understand my argument at all… Are you some high-school dropout?

    What is a thing “A”? It is caused by a thing “B”.

    In terms of properties, can we attribute to thing “A” any intrinsic property? Answer this and then we will proceed….

    Also answer, if we can attribute any kind of property to thing “A”. What kind of property would it be?

    “Bullshit. Things are different because they have different causes. If everything had no birth or death we would live in a “frozen” universe – but we don’t so your belief is nonsense.”

    As I said above, you have NOT even begun to scratch what I have said….With this kind of low IQ, I cannot expect you to understand anything in meta-physics…

    “Yes but consciousness is no more intrinsic than a candle flame.”

    So what is the intrinsic property that causes consciousness?

    “I don’t believe “nothingness” is the ultimate reality or the true state. You don’t understand the concept of void or emptiness it is not “nothingness” it is Everything or existence itself but existence itself doesn’t have any form or being – but it’s not “nothing” either.”

    So you believe in what cannot be seen at all? and yet you claim you believe in the physical world only… This is nonsense…

    “No shunya or emptiness does not mean “nothingness” no one claims that everything comes from “nothing” (except foolish Christians) nor does it dissolve into “nothingness” either.”

    Emptiness means nothingness only…You have also said Shunya or existence is NOT a thing….then it is nothing….what is wrong in calling shunya as nothing then as it is hollowness?

    Emptiness implies lack of any “intrinsic property”……that which lacks any property is nothing….What do you say when a volume of space consists of nothing? nothing as space contains nothing…..

  63. why? says:

    Steve,

    YOU HAVE MISSED MY POST ON WHY INTRINSIC PROPERTIES NECESSARILY EXIST…READ THE POST BEFORE POSTING YOUR TIRELESS SAME BULLSHIT AGAIN AND AGAIN…

    “”Read and understand “Consciousness is a particular interaction of particles in the brain.” Consciousness is just a form of energy – just like a candle flame – it is NOT intrinsic to reality.”

    It is intrinsic to reality…read the post on why intrinsic properties exist as a necessity and as a reality.

    “Also tell me why you believe the brain (attached to a body and in an suitable environment) and all its processes are not sufficient to account for consciousness?”

    I have already explained it. You do NOT seem to get it at all…Nothing arises independent of “intrinsic properties” of interacting matter. SO it is with consciousness.

    “Time is the measurement of change, no change no time.” NO…its exactly reverse…no time, no change…no space no change….no space-time, no matter, no change…

    “Here I’m thinking of memory in the sense of the RAM chips in your computer. Such memory on its own is not consciousness, but is one of the things necessary for consciousness.”

    NO…

    “Its a logical necessity that the all is “quality less”, you have provided no reason why your imaginary Alien creator god being is good.”

    There is NO logical reason why your imaginary “qualityless” which no one has seen or none can see (as the one seeing is also “qualityless” in your philosophy) is reality….There is no possibility of seeing this and yet ur philosophy suggests existence of such things…At the least God can be seen, but in your stupid philosophy there is no one to see this Shunya…

    “So destroying the brain is a cure for brain damage is it? Fool.”

    This would be definitely a state of nirvana in your dumb-ass philosophy as it is a cessation and returning to shunya fool… 🙂

    “Only if they regain consciousness and if they don’t you will hear the doctors say “he/she never regained consciousness”, what a imbecile joker you are.”

    So coma patients do NOt exist and that is why doctors treat such coma patients..right twit 🙂

    “If the person isn’t conscious then the personality is not their.” But ain’t the patient there knuckle head… 🙂 This is objective reality of some person existing despite NOT being conscious…

    “That is sentience not consciousness.” Sentience is consciousness twit 🙂

    “No it’s not, no dictionary defines consciousness as perception/sentience. My computer is capable of perception but not consciousness.”

    Sentience and perception involves conscience idiot… 🙂 Your computer does NOT perceive anything, it simply computes some results…. If you are talking about sensors and machines with a CPU, memories etc., then it merely senses te utput from sensors….You never say that CPU perceives an output from sensors…

    “No belief in souls, intrinsic consciousness, reincarnation and creator gods is wrong and so must be evil.”

    Nothing if the above is in anyway evil….. It sonly Buddhism which denies any evil or good in its hilosophy is essentially evil in nature…

    “So the computer itself is not intrinsic to reality and neither are conscious beings.”

    May be conscious beings (such a humans etc.) are NOT existent and arise and fall….However, what is responsible for consciousness is intrinsic to reality…

    “Okay then how does morality exist independent of mind? And no it doesn’t mean evil and good don’t exist, some things still taste good and some things taste disgusting (like rotted food or battery acid). And their are good evolutionary reasons for that – just like our morality, it doesn’t matter that they are ultimately “subjective”. And even if their is a “objective morality” (which their isn’t) things like robberies, murders, genocide and rape still happen so I don’t know what “objective” would mean in that context.”

    When evil is intrinsic property of certain entities, then it becomes objective…….Sorrowfulness is intrinsic property of evil souls….They cause and spread sorrow…Non-existence of self or annihilation of self is the highest sorrow…and their philosophy also takes sorrowfulness to its highest state…Thus Buddhism is the ultimate formula to cause sorrow….Therefore evil is objective….

    “Its identical to the all or “existence” and hence is the real God and not some imaginary alien creator being which many people choose to call “God”.”

    Shunya is an impossible to exist….Shunya cannot give rise to any kind of properties, as it lacks any kind of properties….It is like saying an completely empty void space suddenly gave rise to matter…in other words, nothing gave rise to solid matter…It is logically absurd claim….God is NOT such a concept…

    “It is NOT nothing or nothingness so it is not nihilism.” It is the same….Absence of any kind of properties is nihilism…

    “No an object of perception is an existent thing and NOT existence itself. Existence is not an object.”

    If we are discussing existence, then it is an object of perception..If it aint, then we cannot even start to talk about it even in abstract sense…

    “No he doesn’t, he merely says perception and the perceiver does not exist and function independently of the rest of the universe, which is the fantasy believed in by Hindus. Perception is just a dependent arising and is essential the same as all other things in the universe.”

    If neither perception nor preceiver exists as per Buddha, then no one has seen Shunya…. What cannot be seen at all and will never be seen by anyone is what is proposed by dimwitted Buddha….Need I say more…

    “True but most Christians don’t follow Jesus and their bible, likewise with Buddhists. So there is no point being associated with them – especially when they do not accept people as Buddhists if they do not believe in their dogmas of reincarnation and independent mind.”

    It is irrelevant again…You as per your own words are following Buddha’s teachings…hence you are a buddhist moron.. end of story…

  64. Steve says:

    @Why

    “You have also completely skipped scientific explanation of how a flame occurs dependent on “intrinsic properties” of matter. I can only assume you are uneducated fool who went to some Buddhist Madrassa and never learned any Science in your life” That’s because I have told you about 10 times now that I do not believe consciousness arises independently. So stop this straw man.

    “THUS “INTRINSIC PROPERTIES” OF THINGS ARE A REALITY OF EXISTENCE.” I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not talking “intrinsic properties” of matter, I am talking about particular forms of matter like candle flames, tables and chairs. These are not intrinsic to reality and asserting consciousness is intrinsic to reality is no different to claiming tables and chairs are intrinsic to reality.

    “THIS LEADS TO TWO LOGICAL FALLACIES:
    1. INFINITELY MANY THINGS EXISTING BETWEEN TWO THINGS IN PROXIMITY WITHIN A FINITE SPACE. YOU CANNOT HAVE INFINITELY MANY THINGS EXISTING IN A FINITE SPACE.
    2. INFINITE REGRESS of differences”

    Let’s say that thing A is caused by thing B, which is a certain distance away. But thing B is caused by thing C, which is further away, and thing C is caused by thing D, which is even further away, etc. Chaining the causes like this gets around the limitation, since the limitation only applies to adjacent things (“direct” causes). Thing A can be said to be caused by thing Z, even though they are a vast distance apart.

    “This obviously leads to the question as to what is responsible for differences. In order for differences to exist (which is observed empirical reality in this world), difference for a “thing” from the “rest of the things” must be intrinsic to it, for otherwise it will lead to infinitely many “things” in existence between two things in proximity and also to infinite regress of differences. THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL ARGUMENT FROM MADHVACHARYA, FOUNDER OF A MONOTHEISTIC SCHOOL CALLED DVAITA IN HINDUISM.” Bullshit. Things are different because they have different causes. If everything had no birth or death we would live in a “frozen” universe – but we don’t so your belief is nonsense.

    “Therefore intrinsic property causing consciousness must exist..” Yes but consciousness is no more intrinsic than a candle flame.

    “IF YOU do NOT believe in anything other than the physical world, then why do you believe in Shunya?” I don’t believe “nothingness” is the ultimate reality or the true state. You don’t understand the concept of void or emptiness it is not “nothingness” it is Everything or existence itself but existence itself doesn’t have any form or being – but it’s not “nothing” either.

    “Your philosophy believes in Shunya and absence of intrinsic properties…..A thing is nothing but bundle of intrinsic properties. If you deny existence of intrinsic properties you deny the existence of the things…” No shunya or emptiness does not mean “nothingness” no one claims that everything comes from “nothing” (except foolish Christians) nor does it dissolve into “nothingness” either.

  65. why? says:

    Stardusty Psyche

    “Hmmm…not sure how much more specificity you require, I thought that was quite specific. The eye, for example, is similar to a digital camera. Light sensing elements produce a signal at each pixel corresponding to the spectral content of light absorbed at that pixel. That signal is sent to the brain and is “sensory information”.”

    In what form is any sensory signal sent to brain? electrical impulses…..How does electrical impulse change into subjective experience?

    “I just told you, but it seems you did not recognize the answer. Think about it some more and search on the key words above an maybe you will comprehend the statement I made.”

    I do NOT think you understand what you have said makes no sense Stardust…..”Pattern making algorithm” in terms of hardware circuits is nothing but bunch of electrons….You have to still explain how awareness of any sort or subjectivity arises…

    “Are you being deliberately obtuse? Electrons can move in bulk in a metal wire. By constructing an electromechanical relay, vacuum tube, or semiconducting device data processing elements can be constructed.”

    Still it is a bunch of electrons….what you call data is mere electrical current which is interpreted by some software as numbers……The software (which by itself is a bunch of electric charges in terms of harware) does NOT create awareness…..

    “It is the difference between your flashlight and your computer. How much more explanation of this common set of facts do you require?”

    A computer is NOT conscious….

    “That’s like saying a computer cannot perform a self diagnostics routine because a flashlight is just a bunch of electrons heating a little wire.”

    The self-diagnostic routine is just some computation. In terms of hardware, any computational result is just an electrical charge, interpreted by software as that particular result. There is no new phenomenon arising here like consciousness or subjectivity. Subjective experience is the new phenomenon here in discussion.

    “A self diagnostics routine is aware of itself in a very rudimentary sense.”

    A self-diagnostic routine is NOT “aware” in any rudimentary sense……It is merely a routine or program which checks if the device is working as it should. For example, in order to check a car’s emission system, you can install some monitors and check the outputs (temperature, % of gases released, or whatever is required here etc.) to know if catalysts are working properly. The output from the monitors are sent as electrical signals, and the routine checks for monitor outputs and interprets the results. Where is the room for any kind of “subjective awareness” in this situation? NONE….

    “I am sorry you lack the conceptual depth and breadth to see how the vastly more complex self analytical data processing systems of the brain accounts for our consciousness.”

    I think you underestimate the significance of subjective experience itself and therefore you miss the entire point and presume something which is NOT there…

    “Response to sensory data is different than self-awareness. There is no indication that most animals are self aware.”

    Now this is funny….. On the one hand you want me to believe that self-diagnostic routine is “aware of itself in a very rudimentary sense”, but on the other hand you want to negate the “response of animals to sensory data” as no evidence for self-awareness….Which is it? Animals do feel pain and have other experiences of qualia, like unhappiness when one of its members die..You cannot simulate pain through self-diagnostic routine as it is subjective experience….These clearly indicate animals are self-aware…

    “An unbounded finite number is not infinite. Please research the difference.”

    🙂 This is laughable…

    “Nothing. I understand that counting never gets to infinity even if it is never ending.” That is why counting is an infinite process, never ending process…Like counting, beginning-less past is a process without any beginning…

    “Ok, I suggest you do some more research and thinking on this subject. In particular, suppose you never die and you spend your life counting. Think about it.”

    There is nothing to think here… 🙂 Its nonsense… There is NO “unbounded finite number”

    “Sorry, but you have failed to grasp the clear explanation I have provided. Counting can yield a finite number with no particular maximum size, and is thus unbounded. A bounded value is a value that can be no greater than a particular number. An unbounded value has no upper limit.”

    A finite number is a finite number….it is nonsense to say it is unbounded… 🙂 You can say that the process is never ending, but its complete baloney and funny to say a finite number is unbounded…

    “If you start today and keep counting up without end your count is never ending and is thus unbounded but it will never reach infinity.

    Think about it, my friend.”

    I think I had enough of this nonsense…

  66. Phoenix says:

    @Stardusty

    //No, my objection is the assertion, often made, that god somehow exists outside of time. If god existed prior to the big bang then by that language she must have acted in a time sequence of events, falsifying the notion of somehow existing outside of time and merely pushing the problems of first cause and infinite time back a step, solving nothing logically//

    There is nothing inherent in the concept of atemporal being which would preclude its ability to effect causation. I suspect you’re invoking the Principle of Causal Closure, if that’s the case then you’re question begging as it is merely a naturalist metaphysical principle and unproven emprically. Furhtermore, how exactly could time come into existence without any causal conditions in the first place?
    ====
    I said:“The First Cause would then neccessarily have existed prior to the Big bang since leading cosmologists (Hawking et al) all agree that space time and matter began to exist at the Big Bang. ”

    You responded:Argument from authority, and a very naive authority at that. And I say naive charitably. Less charitable assertions include gross egomania, or deceit for the purpose of self aggrandizement, but lacking evidence for these less charitable attributions I am willing to let it go at naiveté.
    Hawking has no clue about the conditions or causes at t=0, much less t=-1. He has applied theories known to fail under those very conditions, an act of gross irrationality. Why anybody can stand to listen to such nonsense is beyond me, maybe they are starstruck or something, I don’t know//

    You seem to have side-stepped my initial point. Did space-time and matter begin to exist at the Big Bang? Or did they exist prior to t=0?

    =======
    Our senses are not necessarily comprehensive. One may invent an unlimited number of proposed fantasmagorical existences beyond our detection and by definition, I cannot absolutely disprove them. But since, by definition, these speculations cannot be positively evidenced I consider the likelihood of such speculations being truly existent to be infinitesimal//

    So it’s not metaphysical naturalism you’re asserting but Radical Skepticism. To assert that nothing can be known, trusted or proven to be absolutely the case is in fact an internal incoherence. This failure is at least two-fold:
    One, your assertion cannot be trusted to contain any knowledge per admission.
    Two, your assertion has no external validation and relies on itself for validity, thus circular.

  67. Steve says:

    @Why

    “read above….” Read and understand “Consciousness is a particular interaction of particles in the brain.” Consciousness is just a form of energy – just like a candle flame – it is NOT intrinsic to reality.

    Also tell me why you believe the brain (attached to a body and in an suitable environment) and all its processes are not sufficient to account for consciousness?

    “Change is NOT possible to measure without time…” Time is the measurement of change, no change no time.

    “Memory is nothing but awareness of events….One cannot be aware of events, if one is NOT conscious in the first place” Here I’m thinking of memory in the sense of the RAM chips in your computer. Such memory on its own is not consciousness, but is one of the things necessary for consciousness.

    “When one is postulating unseeable things (like your Shunya in Buddhism), it has to be defined properly before going there…So by definition Perfect God is good, just as by definition Shunya is qualityless…” Its a logical necessity that the all is “quality less”, you have provided no reason why your imaginary Alien creator god being is good.

    “The so called mountain of evidence is an assumption and a un-evidenced jump to conclusion….” So destroying the brain is a cure for brain damage is it? Fool.

    “The so called mountain of evidence is an assumption and a un-evidenced jump to conclusion….” Destroying the brain does not cure the damage caused by loss of brain function , idiot.

    “This is why coma patients exist even after an accident….It is objective fact you imbecile….” Only if they regain consciousness and if they don’t you will hear the doctors say “he/she never regained consciousness”, what a imbecile joker you are.

    “So a coma patient (a person and a human being) admitted in hospital is a dogma for you…imbecile” If the person isn’t conscious then the personality is not their.

    “How can anything feel pain without being aware of its existence….Try obstructing the path of an ant with your finger. It clearly moves around showing that it is aware that an external object is obstructing its path…” That is sentience not consciousness.

    “By implication, it is having some kind of self-awareness, although not as extensive as a fully grown human being. This is what I am calling as self-awareness of its body, environment etc….These are all result of existence of subjectivity itself” No it’s not, no dictionary defines consciousness as perception/sentience. My computer is capable of perception but not consciousness.

    “NO…you are wrong…” No belief in souls, intrinsic consciousness, reincarnation and creator gods is wrong and so must be evil.

    ” It does exist because of intrinsic properties of matter involved in making a computer…..” So the computer itself is not intrinsic to reality and neither are conscious beings.

    “You just confirmed my point….that as per Buddhism, there is neither evil nor good….all are shunya…..thus it completely trivializes all actions, including that of Hitler, which is neither good nor evil…..Thus Buddhism is the ultimate relativist and inherently evil religion.” Okay then how does morality exist independent of mind? And no it doesn’t mean evil and good don’t exist, some things still taste good and some things taste disgusting (like rotted food or battery acid). And their are good evolutionary reasons for that – just like our morality, it doesn’t matter that they are ultimately “subjective”. And even if their is a “objective morality” (which their isn’t) things like robberies, murders, genocide and rape still happen so I don’t know what “objective” would mean in that context.

    “There ain’t any God in Buddhism….Shunya is NOT God….” Its identical to the all or “existence” and hence is the real God and not some imaginary alien creator being which many people choose to call “God”.
    “It is mere absence of any qualities….thus nihilistic” It is NOT nothing or nothingness so it is not nihilism.

    “Mere word play here…….”thing” is NOT “existence” etc…… “Existence” is an object of perception and hence a “thing” only…If you call it is formless and changeless you are ascribing inherent properties of an object….” No an object of perception is an existent thing and NOT existence itself. Existence is not an object.

    “He denies what s perceived…and proposes that no one can perceive for there is none to perceive, including Buddha….This is heights of nonsense….” No he doesn’t, he merely says perception and the perceiver does not exist and function independently of the rest of the universe, which is the fantasy believed in by Hindus. Perception is just a dependent arising and is essential the same as all other things in the universe.

    “If one who follows jeebus’ teachings/believs in him is christian, then one who believes in abuddha’s teachings is also an abuddhist” True but most Christians don’t follow Jesus and their bible, likewise with Buddhists. So there is no point being associated with them – especially when they do not accept people as Buddhists if they do not believe in their dogmas of reincarnation and independent mind.

  68. Steve says:

    @Stardust
    “Counting down is a process through time just as counting up. A never ending process never gets to infinity, rather the count simply gets larger and larger (or smaller and smaller), and is thus unbounded.” Infinity or the infinite past is not something you ever “get to” that’s the whole point. It’s already here.
    “An unbounded finite number is just that, finite.” This reveals you do not understand the concept of the “infinite past” the infinite past is NOT a moment in time.
    “You begin your count at a finite number. Each successive count yields a finite number. A never ending count never yields anything other than a finite number” The whole process is infinite and their is no reason why it can’t go back for ever. You have bought into this “infinite regress logic” which is taught by theologians like William Lane Craig and I am advising you not to buy into their bullshit.

  69. @why?
    }I can read words, but NOT sure if you understand what you are saying above 🙂 What is “sensory information” or “brain computed information”? You have substituted one vague word with a coupe of more ambiguous words…You have to learn to write in concrete terms..”
    Hmmm…not sure how much more specificity you require, I thought that was quite specific. The eye, for example, is similar to a digital camera. Light sensing elements produce a signal at each pixel corresponding to the spectral content of light absorbed at that pixel. That signal is sent to the brain and is “sensory information”.

    “ “Are you familiar with correlation scores? Correlation algorithms? Pattern matching algorithms? Very roughly, an emotion is the output signal from a data processing subnetwork that correlates stored patterns with sensory data.” “
    “Still “emotion is the output signal”, an electrical signal or bunch of moving electrons. How does mere motion of electrons create subjective experience?”
    I just told you, but it seems you did not recognize the answer. Think about it some more and search on the key words above an maybe you will comprehend the statement I made.

    “ “Because in metal electrons move in bulk absent the signal processing features of data processing structures.” “
    “What is “data procesing feature” but bunch of moving electrons again?”
    Are you being deliberately obtuse? Electrons can move in bulk in a metal wire. By constructing an electromechanical relay, vacuum tube, or semiconducting device data processing elements can be constructed.

    It is the difference between your flashlight and your computer. How much more explanation of this common set of facts do you require?

    “ “Yes” Then your answer is nothing but an assertion. Whether bunch of electrons move in a longer sequence of networks or shorter sequence of netweorks, it makes no difference. The final outcome is still current of electrons. There is no reason to believe mere electrical signals give rise to consciousness. “
    That’s like saying a computer cannot perform a self diagnostics routine because a flashlight is just a bunch of electrons heating a little wire.

    “A self-diagnostic routine merely checks if all systems are working as it should. No matter how “sophisticated” it is, it still checks if the system works as it should and does NOT give rise to consciousness or awareness of its own existence.”
    A self diagnostics routine is “aware” of itself in a very rudimentary sense. I am sorry you lack the conceptual depth and breadth to see how the vastly more complex self analytical data processing systems of the brain accounts for our consciousness.

    “Even a lower animal is aware of its own existence. Even insects experience pain, unlike a robot. So these lower life forms are self-aware.” Response to sensory data is different than self-awareness. There is no indication that most animals are self aware.

    “ “Your core misunderstanding thus stated.” There is none…..When you say something is never ending, then it has no limit at the least one the never-ending side. So to say it is finite is contradiction of terms. This is an oxymoron.”
    An unbounded finite number is not infinite. Please research the difference.

    “ “Suppose I never die. My life never ends. I have a never ending life. Suppose further I count up every second of my life. My counting never ends as my life never ends since I never die.
    My counting up is never ending.
    At what point in my never ending life do I count up to infinity? A million years? A billion? 10^100000000000000000000 years?” “
    “Wen you say at “what point” you automatically assuming a finite process. One cannot realize infinite process through a finite process. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?”
    Nothing. I understand that counting never gets to infinity even if it is never ending.

    “ “An unbounded finite number is not an infinity.”
    “unbounded finite number” is an oxymoron….In numbers it is either unbounded (infinite) or bounded (finite). There is nothing called as “unbounded finite number”…Its nonsense…”
    Ok, I suggest you do some more research and thinking on this subject. In particular, suppose you never die and you spend your life counting. Think about it.

    “A never ending count is a process, NOT a number or a bound….The process can continue without bound…So there can exist infinite/unbounded process or events…You have failed to disprove/prove anything here….”
    Sorry, but you have failed to grasp the clear explanation I have provided. Counting can yield a finite number with no particular maximum size, and is thus unbounded. A bounded value is a value that can be no greater than a particular number. An unbounded value has no upper limit.

    If you start today and keep counting up without end your count is never ending and is thus unbounded but it will never reach infinity.

    Think about it, my friend.

  70. Steve – “If I count backwards the process can indeed go back infinitely.”
    You know far less than you think you know. That is not an insult to your level of knowledge since nobody else knows either and billions of people have considered this problem for thousands of years yet it remains unsolved.

    If you count backwards you cannot possibly “go back to infinity”. That is a profound misunderstanding on your part, not a matter of radical agnosticism on my part..

    Counting down is a process through time just as counting up. A never ending process never gets to infinity, rather the count simply gets larger and larger (or smaller and smaller), and is thus unbounded.

    An unbounded finite number is just that, finite.

    You begin your count at a finite number. Each successive count yields a finite number. A never ending count never yields anything other than a finite number

  71. Steve says:

    @Stardust

    “I don’t know.
    You don’t know.
    Nobody knows.
    Welcome to the human condition” Nothing can happen without a cause, so this means time is beginning less. So this “I don’t know” answer is not true.

    “We are not stuck with any particular absurdity or speculation.
    We are stuck with the reality that nobody knows.”
    Beginning less past is not an absurdity or speculation and the reality is not that “nobody knows”. You might not know or want to know but that doesn’t mean other people don’t know. This is radical agnosticism or skepticism – which is nonsense.

    “However, infinite time remains an incoherent oxymoron.” Not its not, this a result of your misunderstanding. If I count backwards the process can indeed go back infinitely. You are thinking however that the “infinite past” is a actual point in time which cannot be reached. But the “infinite past” is NOT a point in time. Any point in the past that you wish to nominate their is a finite amount of time to it. But that point is still proceeded by a “infinite past”.

    @phoenix
    “Your question implies that time is an object but in reality time is a measurement of distances between objects and events. So clearly for time to exist the event must be presupposed.” Huh? How can God (or anything else) create time if time doesn’t exist? If something created it then time must already have being in existence.

    “1) An infinite universe has no empirical evidence for support, unlike the known evidence for a finite universe.” Their is no evidence of a finite universe this is just an assumption built into the model. As I said from a scientific perceptive their no basis to the claim that what you observe is the entire reality.

    “2) Infinities are a mathematical conception and not a pratical testable theory.” This is also true of finite universe model. This is because these questions – about infinite time and first causes and everything else – enter the realm of metaphysics and are beyond the realm of science.
    “3) An infinite universe would require you to reject the current model of the Big Bang theory which posits the universe is about 14 billion years and instead adopt the unprovable multiverse theory.” No it doesn’t, multiverse models are just as compatible with the data as finite universe models. This is because these models, are just that models. You can build any model you want, you could believe this universe (our observable cosmos) is the result of a super God being sneezing and build a model based on that. That’s because all these models are speculative and not based on data and you can make your model fit the known data.

  72. why? says:

    @Steve

    “You haven’t given any reason why you believe consciousness is intrinsic to reality, are candle flames, computer and chairs intrinsic to reality? No and consciousness is just a form of energy/matter like they are.”

    You have NOT understood anything about my argument after so many posts…If you claim consciousness is extrinsic property, then it has to arise dependent on intrinsic properties of interacting matter. If one cannot even identify what intrinsic property leads to awareness, then it is obvious to propose a thing which has an intrinsic property than can lead to consciousness or has consciousness as intrinsic property itself….

    “Consciousness is a particular interaction of particles in the brain. As stardust has explained to you the brain is a tool that receives information from the environment and processes an output. This is what consciousness is, it is not magical. Their is no reason why the brain (and body) is not sufficient to account for consciousness.”

    read above….

    “Memory is one of the causes of consciousness, so it cannot exist without memory.”

    No…..

    “That’s because he still has long term memory (he still remembers who his wife is).”

    Agreed…about this case..

    ” I said memory is a cause of consciousness (which it obviously is) and not consciousness itself.”

    Then the baby in the womb in the first instance of consciousness is without any memory for memory is not possible without one being conscious…….You have proved yourself wrong….

    “Time is just the measurement of change.” Change is NOT possible to measure without time…

    “No this is objectively not true, if every last memory is erased from storage nothing of the person is going to be left. And a person couldn’t think or remember anything if he was independent of his memories or lack of it nor would things like Alzheimers have any effect on the personality, if lack of memory made no difference.”

    For a thousandth time, memory is NOT consciousness…….Memory is NOT possible without consciousness first existing…Memory is nothing but awareness of events….One cannot be aware of events, if one is NOT conscious in the first place…

    “No your fathers case is exactly the same. People are judged on the empirical evidence of their actions and thoughts nobody is defined to be “perfect”. Since nobody has observed any God being, if one (or more likely a group of them) exist it’s quite possible that they enjoy watching the suffering.”

    The empirical evidence is valid when one can see the evidence and the person…When one is postulating unseeable things (like your Shunya in Buddhism), it has to be defined properly before going there…So by definition Perfect God is good, just as by definition Shunya is qualityless…

    “You don’t have an argument here.” You still have NOT understood anything…

    “All things like reasoning, moral judgement, memory, impulse control etc are dependent on structures in the physical brain. so how is destroying the whole brain going to cure the personality?”

    Irrelevant……

    “Rather it’s backed by a mountain of evidence from neuro science.” The so called mountain of evidence is an assumption and a un-evidenced jump to conclusion….

    “Nonsense.” This is why coma patients exist even after an accident….It is objective fact you imbecile….

    “Nonsense if they are not conscious, then the person is not their.” What an imbecile joker you are…. 🙂

    “This idea is nonsense.” Absolutely NOT…. You are a first order imbecile….

    “Yes it is.” So a coma patient (a person and a human being) admitted in hospital is a dogma for you…imbecile… 🙂

    “How did this consciousness arise independent of memory? How does the child think if it has no memories? If you talking about the “consciousness” of a newborn baby then this is sentience not consciousness. Things such as ants and flies have sentience but not consciousness.”

    Sentience is consciousness only…It is subjectivity only….imbecile…

    “Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception.”

    Now it is clear that there is confusion of terms used……

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

    “Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.”

    How can anything feel pain without being aware of its existence….Try obstructing the path of an ant with your finger. It clearly moves around showing that it is aware that an external object is obstructing its path…By implication, it is having some kind of self-awareness, although not as extensive as a fully grown human being. This is what I am calling as self-awareness of its body, environment etc….These are all result of existence of subjectivity itself….

    “Your belief in souls and reincarnation, intrinsic consciousness and a creator God is wrong so what are you talking about?”

    NO…you are wrong…

    “So, the statement is true.” yes that some schools are crypto-budhist and evil….

    “No it doesn’t, is your computer useless because it doesn’t exist inherently?” It does exist because of intrinsic properties of matter involved in making a computer…..

    “What do you mean by “real morality”? Morality is about human concerns namely the well being of conscious creatures. Morality is not inherent to the universe it’s a product of consciousness.”

    You just confirmed my point….that as per Buddhism, there is neither evil nor good….all are shunya…..thus it completely trivializes all actions, including that of Hitler, which is neither good nor evil…..Thus Buddhism is the ultimate relativist and inherently evil religion.

    “The Buddha was talking about God – the real God the all.”

    There ain’t any God in Buddhism….Shunya is NOT God….It is mere absence of any qualities….thus nihilistic

    “I am talking about existence itself, not an existent thing. Existence doesn’t change and doesn’t have form – because if it did it would become a “thing” and would not be existence.”

    Mere word play here…….”thing” is NOT “existence” etc…… “Existence” is an object of perception and hence a “thing” only…If you call it is formless and changeless you are ascribing inherent properties of an object….

    “He doesn’t deny existence.”

    He denies what s perceived…and proposes that no one can perceive for there is none to perceive, including Buddha….This is heights of nonsense….

    “What would be the point in calling myself a Buddhist if all forms of Buddhism today disagree with my view?”

    If one who follows jeebus’ teachings/believs in him is christian, then one who believes in abuddha’s teachings is also an abuddhist.

  73. Steve says:

    @Why

    “There are “intrinsic properties” of matter and “extrinsic properties” of matter. Extrinsic properties of matter are relational properties that arise in relation to some other “thing”. So they arise and die in he proximity of other things. Flames are extrinsic properties of matter. They arise dependent on intrinsic properties of interacting matter” You haven’t given any reason why you believe consciousness is intrinsic to reality, are candle flames, computer and chairs intrinsic to reality? No and consciousness is just a form of energy/matter like they are.

    “If you claim consciousness is extrinsic property of matter, then what intrinsic property of interacting matter lead to this property. Explain the mechanism.” Consciousness is a particular interaction of particles in the brain. As stardust has explained to you the brain is a tool that receives information from the environment and processes an output. This is what consciousness is, it is not magical. Their is no reason why the brain (and body) is not sufficient to account for consciousness.

    “It is your assumption that consciousness cannot exist without memory.” Memory is one of the causes of consciousness, so it cannot exist without memory.

    “Your example, in your example, Clive who remembers nothing past 5 minutes, does he lose consciosness or self-awareness the moment he crosses 5-minutes?” That’s because he still has long term memory (he still remembers who his wife is).

    “What about the child in the womb? If one cannot have consciousness without memories, then explain how the child in the womb gains consciousness for the very first time? This clearly proves that consciousness is something other than mere memory…” I said memory is a cause of consciousness (which it obviously is) and not consciousness itself.

    “No…if time is dependent on change, not every change is identical….so for every change different time should exist. So this claim of yours is nonsense logically…” Time is just the measurement of change.

    “A person may exist independent of his memories or lack of it….This is the objective truth I amt talking about here…” No this is objectively not true, if every last memory is erased from storage nothing of the person is going to be left. And a person couldn’t think or remember anything if he was independent of his memories or lack of it nor would things like Alzheimers have any effect on the personality, if lack of memory made no difference.

    “A perfect God by definition is so..We are discussing possibility of existence of such a God….My father’s case is different.” No your fathers case is exactly the same. People are judged on the empirical evidence of their actions and thoughts nobody is defined to be “perfect”. Since nobody has observed any God being, if one (or more likely a group of them) exist it’s quite possible that they enjoy watching the suffering.

    “You clearly do NOT understand my argument at all…”‘ You don’t have an argument here.

    “Again why would your proposition be taken against mine? Your proposition is proven wrong from my argument.” All things like reasoning, moral judgement, memory, impulse control etc are dependent on structures in the physical brain. so how is destroying the whole brain going to cure the personality?

    “This is your dogma that it is brain function.” Rather it’s backed by a mountain of evidence from neuro science.

    “A man can have a brain damage and lose all memories and still exist as a person. ” Nonsense.

    “A person in coma exists as a person or an objective entity regardless of his memories or consciousness. ” Nonsense if they are not conscious, then the person is not their.

    “This is the idea of self-existence I am talking about.” This idea is nonsense.

    “This objective identity is independent of memories of that person or social identity of that person. This is NO dogma at all.” Yes it is.

    “This condition is simulated by the first time a child has symptoms of consciousness.” How did this consciousness arise independent of memory? How does the child think if it has no memories? If you talking about the “consciousness” of a newborn baby then this is sentience not consciousness. Things such as ants and flies have sentience but not consciousness.
    “Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception.”

    “Tolerating other views is NOT same as NOT bringing out real nature of certain views. Saying some view is wrong or evil is NOT intolerance. It is truth.” Your belief in souls and reincarnation, intrinsic consciousness and a creator God is wrong so what are you talking about?

    “NOT all Hindus claim God alone is real. The school which claims so is crypto-Buddhist one. I will leave it here regarding this…” So, the statement is true.

    “That which negates intrinsic qualities of a “thing”, negates its existence as well” No it doesn’t, is your computer useless because it doesn’t exist inherently?

    “Thus there is no real morality as morality also is NOT valid intrinsically. That which denies morality and its own intrinsic worth, is evil by definition.” What do you mean by “real morality”? Morality is about human concerns namely the well being of conscious creatures. Morality is not inherent to the universe it’s a product of consciousness.

    ” I thought you denied all “things” have a beginning…thus how can a “thing” be changeless. If it is changeless, then it has no beginning. If something can be change-less, then sou can the soul be.” The Buddha was talking about God – the real God the all.

    “What is then formless and changeless thing, if it is NOT inherently existing as formless and changeless….Self-contradicting claims…” I am talking about existence itself, not an existent thing. Existence doesn’t change and doesn’t have form – because if it did it would become a “thing” and would not be existence.

    “If Buddha denies existence of “intrinsic properties”, he denies existence in essence…then you cannot claim that reality is formless and changeless when it denies unchanging ” inherent things” whatever it means…” He doesn’t deny existence.

    “Irrelevant…so you are a Buddhist moron then…” What would be the point in calling myself a Buddhist if all forms of Buddhism today disagree with my view?

  74. why? says:

    STEVE,

    SINCE YOU DENY EXISTENCE OF INTRINSIC PROPERTIES, HERE IS A LOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM HINDU TEACHERS (THAT I HAVE ADAPTED TO THIS SITUATION) THAT INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER MUST EXIST. You have also completely skipped scientific explanation of how a flame occurs dependent on “intrinsic properties” of matter. I can only assume you are uneducated fool who went to some Buddhist Madrassa and never learned any Science in your life.

    BUDDHIST NONSENSE CLAIM:

    All matter or things are nothing but relational properties.

    LOGICAL PROOF AGAINST THIS NONSENSE CLAIM:

    Relational properties (like forces between two charged particles or particles in general) arise ONLY when at the least two things are brought in proximity of each together.

    Let us call the two things by labels “A” and “B”.

    Lets call this relational property C. SInce in Buddhism, things are relational property itself, “relational property C” is also another “thing”.

    Now one could ask, if there is a difference between “relational property C” and the things (“A” and “B”) that stand here in relation to each other.

    The obvious answer is yes, there is a difference between “relational property C” and “A” and “B”. Lets call the differences as “A-C” and “A-B” and “B-C”. Now these are also relational properties and hence things in its own right as per Buddhism.

    Now we can again ask the same question. Is there a difference between “A”, “A-C” and “B-C”? Again affirmative answer yes….which leads to another set of relational properties “A-A-C”, “A-B-C” and “A-C-B-C”. These are again “things” as per Buddhist philosophy.

    We can ask this question infinite times without end and we will end up with infinitely many “relational properties” or “things” as per Buddhism, just because we brought two “things” together in proximity within finite space.

    THIS LEADS TO TWO LOGICAL FALLACIES:

    1. INFINITELY MANY THINGS EXISTING BETWEEN TWO THINGS IN PROXIMITY WITHIN A FINITE SPACE. YOU CANNOT HAVE INFINITELY MANY THINGS EXISTING IN A FINITE SPACE.

    2. INFINITE REGRESS of differences.

    CONCLUSION:

    Hence the Buddhist claim that all things are relational properties in logically untenable.

    This obviously leads to the question as to what is responsible for differences. In order for differences to exist (which is observed empirical reality in this world), difference for a “thing” from the “rest of the things” must be intrinsic to it, for otherwise it will lead to infinitely many “things” in existence between two things in proximity and also to infinite regress of differences. THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL ARGUMENT FROM MADHVACHARYA, FOUNDER OF A MONOTHEISTIC SCHOOL CALLED DVAITA IN HINDUISM.

    THUS “INTRINSIC PROPERTIES” OF THINGS ARE A REALITY OF EXISTENCE.

  75. why? says:

    Steve,

    “Consciousness is just a form of energy the result of a particular interaction of particles in the brain. It is no more fundamental than a candle flame. Consciousness is just a form matter/energy – just like a candle flame is.”

    If that is so, then just as flame is caused ultimately by “intrinsic property named electric charge” of electrons and protons ultimately, what intrinsic property of matter ultimately causes Consciousness? If no “electric charge” was there for electrons and protons, no flame can occur. So neither can consciousness…Therefore intrinsic property causing consciousness must exist..

    “No my philosophy is the exact opposite of that. Nothing can arise without a cause/condition and I do not believe their is anything other than the physical/material world. So things arising out of nothing is the very OPPOSITE of my philosophy.”

    IF YOU do NOT believe in anything other than the physical world, then why do you believe in Shunya?

    Your philosophy believes in Shunya and absence of intrinsic properties…..A thing is nothing but bundle of intrinsic properties. If you deny existence of intrinsic properties you deny the existence of the things…

    I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. BUT YOUR IDIOTIC BRAIN IS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING…BUDDHISM HAS DESTROYED YOUR BRAIN AS IT HALSO HAS BECOME SHUNYA LIKE YOUR PHILOSOPHY.

  76. Steve says:

    @Why

    “Now, what intrinsic property of interacting matter leads to consciousness?” Consciousness is just a form of energy the result of a particular interaction of particles in the brain. It is no more fundamental than a candle flame.

    “So, similarly which “intrinsic property” of known matter leads to consciousness?” Consciousness is just a form matter/energy – just like a candle flame is.

    “Your philosophy implies that something arises out of nothing and so is logically absurd.” No my philosophy is the exact opposite of that. Nothing can arise without a cause/condition and I do not believe their is anything other than the physical/material world. So things arising out of nothing is the very OPPOSITE of my philosophy.

  77. why? says:

    “Consciousness depends on the self. How I ask can self awareness exist without a self? It can’t so stop repeating this.”

    Agreed and that is why your statement made previously to my post is meaningless.

    “Candles flames can be destroyed and so can consciousness.”

    There are “intrinsic properties” of matter and “extrinsic properties” of matter. Extrinsic properties of matter are relational properties that arise in relation to some other “thing”. So they arise and die in he proximity of other things. Flames are extrinsic properties of matter. They arise dependent on intrinsic properties of interacting matter. Please see my previous post.

    If you claim consciousness is extrinsic property of matter, then what intrinsic property of interacting matter lead to this property. Explain the mechanism.

    “Yes but consciousness can’t exist without those things – as it would not be aware of anything if their was no thoughts.”

    It is your assumption that consciousness cannot exist without memory. Self-awareness exists even without memory. Self-existence is one thing that one does NOT forget. Your example, in your example, Clive who remembers nothing past 5 minutes, does he lose consciosness or self-awareness the moment he crosses 5-minutes?

    What about the child in the womb? If one cannot have consciousness without memories, then explain how the child in the womb gains consciousness for the very first time? This clearly proves that consciousness is something other than mere memory…

    “This is just a belief again and therefore meaningless.”

    Objective existence of a human being without any memories is “belief” for you….:)

    “I am not talking about intrinsic properties, I am talking about things which are not intrinsic. Candles flames, computers, minds and whatever else are not intrinsic to reality.”

    Again read my argument carefully…

    “How the hell could it interact? It couldn’t even start to interact because according to you nothing changes and has no beginning, if however it’s starts to interact with the world of cause and effect then we will have to ask, how did it interact and what caused it to start interacting?”

    If presence of “intrinsic properties” makes a thing “NOT interactable” then no inetraction is ever possible in Universe….Your claim is Buddhist bullshit.

    “No time is simply the measurement of change, if nothing is happening then their is no time. Since time is a reality it disproves your belief in beginning less unchanging things. If something existed outside of time it COULD NOT change or do anything (because if it did it would be changing) and could not interact with the world of cause and effect. We would never be able observe such a thing and we could never have any reason for thinking it exists.”

    No…if time is dependent on change, not every change is identical….so for every change different time should exist. So this claim of yours is nonsense logically…

    “Souls, reincarnation and gods are not “objective truth” they are a product of your imagination.”

    A person may exist independent of his memories or lack of it….This is the objective truth I amt talking about here…So your nonsense claim that consciousness or self-awareness cannot exist without memories is nonsense…

    “You know your father is not a rapist and sadistic criminal because you define him to be the perfect father?”

    A perfect God by definition is so..We are discussing possibility of existence of such a God….My father’s case is different.

    “Another belief and therefore meaningless. Thoughts and memories are dependent on functioning brain so the when brain does so does the self. Does a candle flame which has being snuffed out, leave the candle to find another? Or has it just ceased to exist? We all know the answer and the situation is exactly the same with ourselves.”

    You clearly do NOT understand my argument at all…

    “Because damaging the brain damages – and can destroy – the personality – even while the body is still alive. We have no cure for the damage caused by things such as Alzheimer’s, yet by destroying the whole brain, it is magically cured is it? No that is a fantasy.”

    Again why would your proposition be taken against mine? Your proposition is proven wrong from my argument.

    “This is your dogma in reality self awareness depends on a functioning brain when the brain dies so does the personality.”

    This is your dogma that it is brain function. A man can have a brain damage and lose all memories and still exist as a person. A person in coma exists as a person or an objective entity regardless of his memories or consciousness. This is the idea of self-existence I am talking about. This objective identity is independent of memories of that person or social identity of that person. This is NO dogma at all.

    Now, when this person wakes up, he/she can be aware of his/her own existence without any memory. This condition is simulated by the first time a child has symptoms of consciousness.

    “And why is this evil? This is the reality. And you misunderstand what Buddha means by “emptiness” he does not mean nothing or nothing ness is the reality. He means the true reality is formless and changeless – as the saying goes “God alone is real, all else is illusion”.Are Hindus anti reality? Also I thought you said Hindus tolerate other views, but yet apparently not. Everybody is peaceful and tolerant – until you start talking about their beliefs – and then you start seeing the violence and hatred.”

    Tolerating other views is NOT same as NOT bringing out real nature of certain views. Saying some view is wrong or evil is NOT intolerance. It is truth.

    NOT all Hindus claim God alone is real. The school which claims so is crypto-Buddhist one. I will leave it here regarding this…

    That which negates intrinsic qualities of a “thing”, negates its existence as well. Thus there is no real morality as morality also is NOT valid intrinsically. That which denies morality and its own intrinsic worth, is evil by definition.

    “He means the true reality is formless and changeless” I thought you denied all “things” have a beginning…thus how can a “thing” be changeless. If it is changeless, then it has no beginning. If something can be change-less, then sou can the soul be.

    “That’s right he ruled out the existence of any personal God. And no he rejects the existence of any INHERENTLY EXISTENT thing, since the existence of such things or beings is against his entire philosophy.”

    What is then formless and changeless thing, if it is NOT inherently existing as formless and changeless….Self-contradicting claims…

    “It doesn’t deny existence itself it denies the existence of unchanging uncaused inherent existent things. This is different from denying existence itself you moron and liar.”

    Hmmm……really….then what is formless and changeless reality, if it does NOT exist and exists at the same time you moron…..Being change-less is a inherent quality….

    If Buddha denies existence of “intrinsic properties”, he denies existence in essence…then you cannot claim that reality is formless and changeless when it denies unchanging ” inherent things” whatever it means…

    “Yes but as I said the vast majority of Buddhists of today believe in the same fantasy the Hindus – I.e a permanent unchanging self that travels from life to life. Also many Buddhists believe that Buddhas have magical powers – such as omniscients – and that’s the same as believing in God. I do not identify as a buddhist no mainstream form of Buddhism accepts the things I have been saying. They no more accept these ideas than mainstream Christianity accepts the ideas of Ali Sina and new age.”

    Irrelevant…so you are a Buddhist moron then…

  78. why? says:

    Steve,

    “No consciousness doesn’t arise independently. How does a flame arise? Your question makes no sense.”

    Flame is an exothermic chemical reaction of gaseous substance….means heat, light etc. are outputs from the chemical reaction. What is chemical reaction. Rearrangement of chemical bonds between atoms, accompanies by release of energy from electrons occupying different lower/higher energy orbitals around nucleus. All of the above processes take place because of “intrinsic properties” of electrons and protons in nucleus. Heat and light do NOT arise independent of charges of electrons and protons.

    Now, what intrinsic property of interacting matter leads to consciousness?

    “I am not claiming that consciousness arises independently. So why are you repeating this?”

    I cannot help you here…read below again…..read again and again until you understand the point Buddhist. Think outside of Buddhist framework…

    “Since a thing is nothing but merely bundle of “intrinsic properties”, if you claim that consciousness arises independent of intrinsic properties, you are saying that consciousness arises independent of the “thing” as well. Thus it is a logical fallacy as nothing can give rise to something.”

    “The point is the flame came about through a process, and did not come from “previously flame”. Which is Exactly the same for consciousness.”

    I am NOT claiming a flame arises from another flame or an atom from another atom.

    This is where you cannot understand even the very basics of Science…..For the flame, the process involves “one or other intrinsic properties” of interacting matter here….The appearance of flame depends on chemical reactions….Chemical reactions depend on rearrangement of electrons around atomic orbitals and formation/breaking of bonds with other atoms. These in turn depend on the “intrinsic properties” of electron and proton in the nucleus of each atom, namely “charges (intrinsic property)” of an electron or proton. If the electrons and protons did NOT have “electric charge” as “intrinsic property”, there will NOT exist any forces between particles and therefore no atoms will exist as we see today, we will NOT see any formation/breaking of bonds with other atoms, consequently no chemical reactions, and therefore we will NOT see any flame at all. Do you get this?

    So, similarly which “intrinsic property” of known matter leads to consciousness?

    Since in your philosophy, there exists no “intrinsic property” of matter but only “relational properties” of matter, it implies that “all things” arise as “relational properties” only. THE above IS IMPORTANT POINT. In other words, all “things” are “Shunya” or they lack “intrinsic properties” and arise only as relational property, what will lead to “relational property” itself in the first place?

    Your philosophy implies that something arises out of nothing and so is logically absurd.

  79. why? says:

    “Yet you have not come to understand it, so I shall endeavor to assist you in that regard :-)”

    Yet it is you who has not come understand it, so I shall also endeavor to assist you in this regard. 🙂

    “Data is sensory information and brain computed information. An output is a computational result that a processing subnetwork transmits to other systems in the organism.”

    I can read words, but NOT sure if you understand what you are saying above 🙂 What is “sensory information” or “brain computed information”? You have substituted one vague word with a coupe of more ambiguous words…You have to learn to write in concrete terms..

    “There is also a great deal of chemistry and cellular activity involved but OK, I basically agree with you.”

    So what you call as information, output etc. are all mere electrical signals to whatever end (from motor control to abstract thoughts) the living organism uses it. So how does mere “electrical signals” translate to subjective experience?

    “Are you familiar with correlation scores? Correlation algorithms? Pattern matching algorithms? Very roughly, an emotion is the output signal from a data processing subnetwork that correlates stored patterns with sensory data.”

    Still “emotion is the output signal”, an electrical signal or bunch of moving electrons. How does mere motion of electrons create subjective experience?

    “Because in metal electrons move in bulk absent the signal processing features of data processing structures.”

    What is “data procesing feature” but bunch of moving electrons again?

    “Yes” Then your answer is nothing but an assertion. Whether bunch of electrons move in a longer sequence of networks or shorter sequence of netweorks, it makes no difference. The final outcome is still current of electrons. There is no reason to believe mere electrical signals give rise to consciousness.

    “You mean like a consciousness particle or something? No. Self awareness is just a self monitoring function of a complex sensory input/data processing system.”

    Read above….

    “I clearly to not employ the notion of an emergent property, which is in my view a nonsensical construct.”

    I agree….

    “If by that you mean self awareness that is just a sophisticated version of a self diagnostics routine in your car’s computer.”

    A self-diagnostic routine merely checks if all systems are working as it should. No matter how “sophisticated” it is, it still checks if the system works as it should and does NOT give rise to consciousness or awareness of its own existence.

    “A lower animal, say, an insect, is a stimulus response machine. It’s brain receives data and acts upon it based on a pre-programmed algorithm embedded in the data processing structures of its brain. When a brain becomes sufficiently complex to turn those analytical processes upon itself it becomes self aware.”

    Even a lower animal is aware of its own existence. Even insects experience pain, unlike a robot. So these lower life forms are self-aware.

    “Your core misunderstanding thus stated.” There is none…..When you say something is never ending, then it has no limit at the least one the never-ending side. So to say it is finite is contradiction of terms. This is an oxymoron.

    “Suppose I never die. My life never ends. I have a never ending life. Suppose further I count up every second of my life. My counting never ends as my life never ends since I never die.

    My counting up is never ending.

    At what point in my never ending life do I count up to infinity? A million years? A billion? 10^100000000000000000000 years?”

    Wen you say at “what point” you automatically assuming a finite process. One cannot realize infinite process through a finite process. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

    “An unbounded finite number is not an infinity.”

    “unbounded finite number” is an oxymoron….In numbers it is either unbounded (infinite) or bounded (finite). There is nothing called as “unbounded finite number”…Its nonsense…

    “A never ending count is not an infinity. Never ending time is not infinite. No process will ever reach infinity, even if that process never ends.”

    A never ending count is a process, NOT a number or a bound….The process can continue without bound…So there can exist infinite/unbounded process or events…You have failed to disprove/prove anything here….

  80. Phoenix = “Sure but when theists mention First Cause they are generally referring to God, the originator of the universe. What exactly is your objection here? That God could not exist prior to initiating the Big Bang?”

    Ok, I mentioned that way down in this chain somewhereorudder, but that’s kind of needle in a haystack…

    No, my objection is the assertion, often made, that god somehow exists outside of time. If god existed prior to the big bang then by that language she must have acted in a time sequence of events, falsifying the notion of somehow existing outside of time and merely pushing the problems of first cause and infinite time back a step, solving nothing logically.

    “The First Cause would then neccessarily have existed prior to the Big bang since leading cosmologists (Hawking et al) all agree that space time and matter began to exist at the Big Bang. ”
    Argument from authority, and a very naive authority at that. And I say naive charitably. Less charitable assertions include gross egomania, or deceit for the purpose of self aggrandizement, but lacking evidence for these less charitable attributions I am willing to let it go at naiveté.

    Hawking has no clue about the conditions or causes at t=0, much less t=-1. He has applied theories known to fail under those very conditions, an act of gross irrationality. Why anybody can stand to listen to such nonsense is beyond me, maybe they are starstruck or something, I don’t know.

    “However, if you wish to assert metaphysical naturalism; that all reality is limited to what our senses can observe”
    Our senses are not necessarily comprehensive. One may invent an unlimited number of proposed fantasmagorical existences beyond our detection and by definition, I cannot absolutely disprove them. But since, by definition, these speculations cannot be positively evidenced I consider the likelihood of such speculations being truly existent to be infinitesimal.

  81. @Steve – ” Where else did “our time” come from if not the beginning less past? ”
    I don’t know.
    You don’t know.
    Nobody knows.
    Welcome to the human condition.

    “Their is no alternative to an infinite past so we are stuck with it.”
    We are stuck with a set of proposed explanations, every one of which inevitably leads to at least 1 absurdity or fundamental speculation.

    We are not stuck with any particular absurdity or speculation.
    We are stuck with the reality that nobody knows.

    Perhaps there is indeed something that can exist with zero passage of time. According to the Lorenz time dilation transform employed by Einstein is Special Relativity the passage of time slows with increased velocity and becomes precisely zero at c, so in some sense electromagnetic radiation energy “experiences” zero passage of time.

    And no, I am under no delusion that I have somehow singlehandedly solved this profound mystery, only suggested there may be a hint there.

    Further, the conservation of matter/energy strongly evidences eternal existence, another vote in its favor.

    However, infinite time remains an incoherent oxymoron.

  82. Phoenix says:

    Steve
    No it doesn’t.//

    Yeah it does

    //How did God create if time didn’t exist? If you can’t see the incoherency then no one can help you.//

    Your question implies that time is an object but in reality time is a measurement of distances between objects and events. So clearly for time to exist the event must be presupposed.

    //No they don’t all agree. Remember Hawkins model of a finite universe which is beginning less is just that a model. Their are other models in which the universe is infinite and beginning less and these fit the data just as well as Hawkins model. Just from a scientific perspective you can’t say what you are looking at is the entire reality or just a tiny (infinitesimal small) piece of it.//

    I have at least three objections against your “infinite universe” model:

    1) An infinite universe has no empirical evidence for support, unlike the known evidence for a finite universe.

    2) Infinities are a mathematical conception and not a pratical testable theory.

    3) An infinite universe would require you to reject the current model of the Big Bang theory which posits the universe is about 14 billion years and instead adopt the unprovable multiverse theory.

  83. Steve says:

    @Stardusty
    “Indeed, there can be no connection between the notion of an infinite past time and our time since it leads to just this absurdity. Hence, our time cannot be connected to any speculated past infinity of time and any such speculation of a past infinity of our time is incoherent.” Where else did “our time” come from if not the beginning less past? Their is no alternative to an infinite past so we are stuck with it.

    @Phoenix
    ” Secondly, the Kalam Cosmological Argument does indeed provide rational justification for the existence of a First Cause.” No it doesn’t.

    “I don’t follow you. How exactly does existence outside time amount to an incoherency?” How did God create if time didn’t exist? If you can’t see the incoherency then no one can help you.

    “The First Cause would then neccessarily have existed prior to the Big bang since leading cosmologists (Hawking et al) all agree that space time and matter began to exist at the Big Bang.” No they don’t all agree. Remember Hawkins model of a finite universe which is beginning less is just that a model. Their are other models in which the universe is infinite and beginning less and these fit the data just as well as Hawkins model. Just from a scientific perspective you can’t say what you are looking at is the entire reality or just a tiny (infinitesimal small) piece of it.

  84. Phoenix says:

    Stardust
    I am the cause of, well, whatever, say, hitting a nail with a hammer. To be the cause of a thing I must first exist before I cause that thing, unless I come into existence precisely simultaneously with hitting the nail.//

    Sure but when theists mention First Cause they are generally referring to God, the originator of the universe. What exactly is your objection here? That God could not exist prior to initiating the Big Bang?

    //The biblical account of creation recognizes this necessary sequence in creation. In the beginning was the word, the word was god…
    Only after the establishment of the existence of god does the creative process begin. Any other notion is sequentially incoherent.//

    First of all, I do not subscribe to the Genesis account of creation. Secondly, the Kalam Cosmological Argument does indeed provide rational justification for the existence of a First Cause.

    //The speculation of god solves nothing and only adds unevidenced hidden variables. If god can be eternal then something can be eternal and there is no need of god to be that something. Yet, the very notion of something existing outside of time is itself incoherent and has no more grounding than a word salad made of randomly selected words that form a grammatically acceptable sentence yet possess no rational connectivity.//

    I don’t follow you. How exactly does existence outside time amount to an incoherency? If the First cause was restricted to space/time & mass/energy then it could not have effected the universe, since its existence would be contingent on the composites of the universe. The First Cause would then neccessarily have existed prior to the Big bang since leading cosmologists (Hawking et al) all agree that space time and matter began to exist at the Big Bang.

    However, if you wish to assert metaphysical naturalism; that all reality is limited to what our senses can observe then you should provide a logical deduction that is free from circularity and accompanied by empirical data.

    //Rather, I understand that the formulations of theistic arguments are themselves incorrect//

    No worries, we have plenty of time to flesh out any fallacious reasoning. For now, you can respond to the above.

  85. Steve – ” The reason is that the infinite past does not have a starting point and so this thing about “reaching” it is nonsensical. ”
    Indeed, there can be no connection between the notion of an infinite past time and our time since it leads to just this absurdity. Hence, our time cannot be connected to any speculated past infinity of time and any such speculation of a past infinity of our time is incoherent.

  86. Steve says:

    Why
    “I said independent of “intrinsic properties”….bit finally it implies consciousness arises independently only. How?” No consciousness doesn’t arise independently. How does a flame arise? Your question makes no sense.

    “Since a thing is nothing but merely bundle of “intrinsic properties”, if you claim that consciousness arises independent of intrinsic properties, you are saying that consciousness arises independent of the “thing” as well. Thus it is a logical fallacy as nothing can give rise to something.” I am not claiming that consciousness arises independently. So why are you repeating this?

    “Why? Do you know what is flame? Exothermic chemical reactions give rise to release of energy as heat and light and vaporized gaseous chemicals, which is what is flame.” The point is the flame came about through a process, and did not come from “previously flame”. Which is Exactly the same for consciousness.

    @Stardusty

    “Infinite time is an oxymoron. Time is a process. There will never be an infinite future, only never-ending occurrences of future times each a finite time from the present. No matter how long time progresses into the future it will always be a finite time from the present.” This is true of the infinite future but not the infinite past. The reason is that the infinite past does not have a starting point and so this thing about “reaching” it is nonsensical.

    “I don’t pretend to have solved the riddle of the origin of all that exists.” Existence doesn’t have an “origin” so this riddle doesn’t exist. Once you start finding origins you have to look for the origin of that and so on. But existence itself has no origin and is the origin of all origins.

    ” I am only pointing out that the speculation of god has no explanatory value to that riddle” Its just another God of the gaps argument – where a gap doesn’t even exist – as in most cases where “God” is given as a explanation.

  87. Steve says:

    @why
    “Consciousness is awareness….and NOT a thing that would think or act…You make repeatedly meaningless nonsense statements..” Consciousness depends on the self. How I ask can self awareness exist without a self? It can’t so stop repeating this.

    “Intrinsic properties finally can be traced to fundamental Indivisible particles of Universe…So they cannot be destroyed.” Candles flames can be destroyed and so can consciousness.

    “Consciousness is awareness of self-existence….NOT memory, NOT thoughts that arise and go…do you get it?” Yes but consciousness can’t exist without those things – as it would not be aware of anything if their was no thoughts.

    “They do have a self or else they would NOT exist….this self is beyond any social identity we give…its objective existence” This is just a belief again and therefore meaningless.

    “It comes back to intrinsic properties again….You have NOT proven that intrinsic properties do NOT exist….” I am not talking about intrinsic properties, I am talking about things which are not intrinsic. Candles flames, computers, minds and whatever else are not intrinsic to reality.

    “It can interact..why can’t it interact? Again fallacy of presumption” How the hell could it interact? It couldn’t even start to interact because according to you nothing changes and has no beginning, if however it’s starts to interact with the world of cause and effect then we will have to ask, how did it interact and what caused it to start interacting?

    “At a given time there are hell lot of a changes or events taking place simultaneously….If time is change, which change or event is it? You cannot say “time” is simultaneously all changes, for every change or event is unique and different from each other. So “time” exists necessarily independent of changes and causes changes.” No time is simply the measurement of change, if nothing is happening then their is no time. Since time is a reality it disproves your belief in beginning less unchanging things. If something existed outside of time it COULD NOT change or do anything (because if it did it would be changing) and could not interact with the world of cause and effect. We would never be able observe such a thing and we could never have any reason for thinking it exists.

    “It is irrelevant if I or you know something. Objective truth stays as objective truth regardless of your knowledge or lack of it.” Souls, reincarnation and gods are not “objective truth” they are a product of your imagination.

    “I know by definition a perfect God does NOT get satisfaction from outside of Himself.” You know your father is not a rapist and sadistic criminal because you define him to be the perfect father?

    “death is soul leaving the body” Another belief and therefore meaningless. Thoughts and memories are dependent on functioning brain so the when brain does so does the self. Does a candle flame which has being snuffed out, leave the candle to find another? Or has it just ceased to exist? We all know the answer and the situation is exactly the same with ourselves.

    “Death is soul leaving the body and so body cannot communicate anymore. This is alternate explanation. Why would your explanation take precedence over mine?” Because damaging the brain damages – and can destroy – the personality – even while the body is still alive. We have no cure for the damage caused by things such as Alzheimer’s, yet by destroying the whole brain, it is magically cured is it? No that is a fantasy.

    “Self is NOT a subjective idea…you are assuming it is and concluding the same and so another circular reasoning. When I say self-awareness, awareness that He or She exists, it is as an objective idea. ” This is your dogma in reality self awareness depends on a functioning brain when the brain dies so does the personality.

    “Definitely, these are the intrinsically evil souls and Buddhism is the chosen religion of demons.They do NOT believe intrinsic properties of “things” exist, just like you. They believe “all things” are interdependent phenomenon, i.e. all “things” are merely relational properties and that the real nature of Universe is “Sunya” or “emptiness” or they lack any “intrinsic properties”. ” And why is this evil? This is the reality. And you misunderstand what Buddha means by “emptiness” he does not mean nothing or nothing ness is the reality. He means the true reality is formless and changeless – as the saying goes “God alone is real, all else is illusion”.Are Hindus anti reality? Also I thought you said Hindus tolerate other views, but yet apparently not. Everybody is peaceful and tolerant – until you start talking about their beliefs – and then you start seeing the violence and hatred.

    “ALI SINA thinks that Mr. Gowthama Buddha did NOT say anything on God. He is dead wrong on this. Buddha’s philosophy from the core of its fundamental philosophy, rejects any possibility of existence of any “thing” including God, morality and everything people normally believe.” That’s right he ruled out the existence of any personal God. And no he rejects the existence of any INHERENTLY EXISTENT thing, since the existence of such things or beings is against his entire philosophy.

    “but Buddhism denies existence itself and thus it is the most extreme form of negative philosophy” It doesn’t deny existence itself it denies the existence of unchanging uncaused inherent existent things. This is different from denying existence itself you moron and liar.

    “In other words, you are quite aware of what Mr. Gowthama Buddha taught” Yes but as I said the vast majority of Buddhists of today believe in the same fantasy the Hindus – I.e a permanent unchanging self that travels from life to life. Also many Buddhists believe that Buddhas have magical powers – such as omniscients – and that’s the same as believing in God. I do not identify as a buddhist no mainstream form of Buddhism accepts the things I have been saying. They no more accept these ideas than mainstream Christianity accepts the ideas of Ali Sina and new age.

  88. why?
    “This is the same old argument I heard every time.”
    Yet you have not come to understand it, so I shall endeavor to assist you in that regard 🙂

    “You call brain whatever you want, massively parallel or whatever. When you say “data processing outputs” what exactly do you mean by data and outputs? “
    Data is sensory information and brain computed information. An output is a computational result that a processing subnetwork transmits to other systems in the organism.

    “No matter whether brain is centralized or decentralized, dynamic or static parallel or serial, data and outputs are in the form of “electrical signals”, which is why we can measure signals in brain with ECGs.”
    There is also a great deal of chemistry and cellular activity involved but OK, I basically agree with you.

    “What are electrical signals? Bunch of electrons floating around in “networks” or conducting material. Now how can mere “electrical signals” be subjectivity or lead to experience of subjectivity, no matter how complex is the network?
    Are you familiar with correlation scores? Correlation algorithms? Pattern matching algorithms? Very roughly, an emotion is the output signal from a data processing subnetwork that correlates stored patterns with sensory data.

    “It is still bunch of electrons moving around in a conducting material. We have electrons moving around in every conducting material, like metals. Why would mere moving electrons in brain lead to subjective experience, while in metal NOT?”
    Because in metal electrons move in bulk absent the signal processing features of data processing structures.

    “In a rudimentary sense, it is, if it is thus structured.”

    “What structure? No matter how it is structured, it is still mere electrical signals as explained above? Does mere movement of electrons in a more complex (longer path) network somehow lead to subjective experience than mere simple (shorter path) network? “
    Yes

    “Then you agree there is an intrinsic property that leads to consciousness.”
    You mean like a consciousness particle or something? No. Self awareness is just a self monitoring function of a complex sensory input/data processing system.

    ““Straw man, I never used the term “emergent”.” Then there is no clarity from you.”
    I clearly to not employ the notion of an emergent property, which is in my view a nonsensical construct.

    “Fine…..what property of data processing network precisely causes consciousness?”
    If by that you mean self awareness that is just a sophisticated version of a self diagnostics routine in your car’s computer.

    “What certain structural arrangement? Structural arrangement is merely placement of matter in certain order. Why would mere placement of matter, no matter how complex or connected it is lead to consciousness?”
    A lower animal, say, an insect, is a stimulus response machine. It’s brain receives data and acts upon it based on a pre-programmed algorithm embedded in the data processing structures of its brain. When a brain becomes sufficiently complex to turn those analytical processes upon itself it becomes self aware.

    “Contradicting terms “never ending” and “finite” used together…”
    Your core misunderstanding thus stated.

    Suppose I never die. My life never ends. I have a never ending life. Suppose further I count up every second of my life. My counting never ends as my life never ends since I never die.

    My counting up is never ending.

    At what point in my never ending life do I count up to infinity? A million years? A billion? 10^100000000000000000000 years?

    An unbounded finite number is not an infinity. A never ending count is not an infinity. Never ending time is not infinite. No process will ever reach infinity, even if that process never ends.

  89. @Phoenix
    “Good day sir and welcome to this forum.”
    Thank you very much indeed.

    “God did not exist before the First Cause…God IS the First Cause. “
    I am the cause of, well, whatever, say, hitting a nail with a hammer. To be the cause of a thing I must first exist before I cause that thing, unless I come into existence precisely simultaneously with hitting the nail.

    The biblical account of creation recognizes this necessary sequence in creation. In the beginning was the word, the word was god…

    Only after the establishment of the existence of god does the creative process begin. Any other notion is sequentially incoherent.

    “In fact, God is the only logical solution to the creation of the universe, as it avoids an infinite regression”
    The speculation of god solves nothing and only adds unevidenced hidden variables. If god can be eternal then something can be eternal and there is no need of god to be that something. Yet, the very notion of something existing outside of time is itself incoherent and has no more grounding than a word salad made of randomly selected words that form a grammatically acceptable sentence yet possess no rational connectivity.

    “ as well as circular reasoning. So your objection against the first cause stems from an incorrect understanding of the formulation of theist arguments”
    Rather, I understand that the formulations of theistic arguments are themselves incorrect.

  90. why? says:

    Stardusty Psyche,

    “The brain is a massively parallel, decentralized, dynamically reconnecting data processing network system. What we call subjectivity, emotion, intuition are data processing outputs that signal our self monitoring processes (self awareness).”

    This is the same old argument I heard every time.

    You call brain whatever you want, massively parallel or whatever. When you say “data processing outputs” what exactly do you mean by data and outputs? No matter whether brain is centralized or decentralized, dynamic or static parallel or serial, data and outputs are in the form of “electrical signals”, which is why we can measure signals in brain with ECGs.

    What are electrical signals? Bunch of electrons floating around in “networks” or conducting material. Now how can mere “electrical signals” be subjectivity or lead to experience of subjectivity, no matter how complex is the network? It is still bunch of electrons moving around in a conducting material. We have electrons moving around in every conducting material, like metals. Why would mere moving electrons in brain lead to subjective experience, while in metal NOT? This shows the absurdity of the claim that mere electrical output signals lead to subjective experience.

    “In a rudimentary sense, it is, if it is thus structured.”

    What structure? No matter how it is structured, it is still mere electrical signals as explained above? Does mere movement of electrons in a more complex (longer path) network somehow lead to subjective experience than mere simple (shorter path) network? This is absurdly illogical claim.

    “Commander Data is one such example. If you happened to have seen the Star Trek episodes where Picard argues that we must redefine what life is to include the sensuousness of Data.

    Please don’t pummel me about how that is just a TV show, yes, I know that, but it provides a graphic depiction of how data processing networks achieve consciousness.”

    Sorry…does NOT make any sense….

    “Yes.” How can mere structural arrangement independent of intrinsic properties of the matter lead to consciousness? Makes no sense…

    “No.” Then you agree there is an intrinsic property that leads to consciousness.

    “Straw man, I never used the term “emergent”.” Then there is no clarity from you.

    “Yes.” Then you agree that that some fundamental intrinsic property of interacting “things” is responsible. Which is it? Structural arrangement is NOT intrinsic property at all.

    “All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
    All consciousness is the function of data processing networks but not all data processing networks have consciousness (in the sense of self awareness and what we label as subjective experience).”

    Fine…..what property of data processing network precisely causes consciousness?

    “Only data processing networks of certain structural arrangement and sufficient complexity have the function of consciousness.”

    What certain structural arrangement? Structural arrangement is merely placement of matter in certain order. Why would mere placement of matter, no matter how complex or connected it is lead to consciousness?

    “Yes, precisely my point. Time is inherently finite.”

    NO….again circular argument…..You assume time is circular because you started counting in a finite time….This is circular argument.

    “I don’t see how the notion of infinite time bears on the account of consciousness. I suppose you are asserting a general lack of conceptual capacity on my part.”

    Yes….Since you made an argument that infinite past is NOT possible based on the starting your count on a finite time for finite time, that is circular argument…

    “Oxymoron. A counting process in the future is always a particular value at any time in the future. Even if this counting process continues on without end it will never become infinite. At all future times the count will be finite.”

    That is because you started your counting at a finite time….circular reasoning again…..

    “By symmetry there is no such thing as beginingless count.”

    I said symmetry of non-ending future leads to beginning-less past as well..Just do a reflection of the time axis….If you can imagine a never-ending counting process, by symmetry or reflection you can also imagine a beginning-less counting process as well…

    There can exist a beginning-less counting…You cannot disprove/realize beginning-less counting process based on a counting process started at a finite time in past or present for a finite time. This is circular reasoning still.

    “Writing an infinity symbol on paper or putting double asterisks around a sentence does constitute a physical realization of an infinite process.”

    I suppose you are asking if it leads to physical realization…NO….however, since the process started at a finite time for an finite time it is circular reasoning again…

    “You have not presented any sound logic on this point, only empty words of imagination.”

    You have NOT presented any sound logic on this point, only circular reasoning.

    “Never ending counting into the future means we never stop counting up.”

    Beginning-less counting means you never started counting process anywhere in time…If you started counting process at any given time, it is a finite counting process…In any finite counting process you can never realize what is infinite…..To realize infinite process, the counting process must also be infinite….

    “At any particular time in this never ending future we are still at a finite count.”

    If you stop counting after a finite time, either backwards or forwards, it is still a finite counting process and hence circular reasoning…

    “The process never ends and we never count to infinity because infinity is a concept, not the result of a physical process through time. There is no particular end at which we stop counting, rather we just keep counting up, never stopping, never ending, never getting to infinity,”

    Still you assume a finite process and conclude the same..circular reasoning…

    “Symmetry indeed. Since all future counts are finite then all past counts are finite.”

    If it is never ending future, then there is never ending past…..This is symmetry indeed….

    “A beginingless past is of an entirely different nature than a never ending future. A never ending future is finite and will always remain finite. A beginingless past is infinite and thus asymmetrical with a never ending future which is finite.”

    “A never ending future is finite and will always remain finite” Now this is an oxymoron….Contradicting terms “never ending” and “finite” used together….

  91. Phoenix says:

    Stardust Psyche:Many have suggested an eternal god outside of time initiated the first cause. But if god existed before the first cause then a time sequence of events occurred as god acted in a time sequence of events, falsifying the premise of god as outside of time. Thus, the speculation of god only pushes the problem back a step and solves nothing logically.

    A conundrum referencing a mystery referencing an enigma. No brain that has ever existed has solved this situation and communicated that solution to me.
    Anybody care to be the first ?-)//

    Good day sir and welcome to this forum. You have supposedly stumbled upon some sort of paradox which the theist/dulaist has placed himself in. But let’s take a closer look. You say: “But if god existed before the first cause then a time sequence of events occurred as god acted in a time sequence of event…”

    God did not exist before the First Cause…God IS the First Cause. In fact, God is the only logical solution to the creation of the universe, as it avoids an infinite regression as well as circular reasoning. So your objection against the first cause stems from an incorrect understanding of the formulation of theist arguments.

  92. @why?
    “Precisely how does algorithm and data processing networks in our brains give rise to subjective experience?”
    The brain is a massively parallel, decentralized, dynamically reconnecting data processing network system. What we call subjectivity, emotion, intuition are data processing outputs that signal our self monitoring processes (self awareness).

    “Just making assertions does NOT prove anything.”
    Fair enough.

    “Why is a robot with algorithm or data processing network in its hardware NOT conscious?”
    In a rudimentary sense, it is, if it is thus structured.

    Disclaimer: I am not a geeky kid in a basement who thinks warp drives will take us around the galaxy 20 years from now, but science fiction has sometimes presaged science fact, and certain dramatic depictions can provide some communicative and conceptual value.

    Commander Data is one such example. If you happened to have seen the Star Trek episodes where Picard argues that we must redefine what life is to include the sensuousness of Data.

    Please don’t pummel me about how that is just a TV show, yes, I know that, but it provides a graphic depiction of how data processing networks achieve consciousness.

    “Data processing network of the brain is NOT intrinsic property of any matter. It is merely a structural arrangement of matter. You are claiming mere structural arrangement in brain leads to subjectivity itself.”
    Yes.

    “Now, I can raise the same question here as well. Does consciousness arise independent of the intrinsic properties of constituents that make up “Data processing network of the brain”?”
    No.

    “Your speculation that mere structural arrangement of matter leads to emergence of properties is unnecessary, unevidenced, and unfounded.”
    Straw man, I never used the term “emergent”.

    “It is clearly evidenced, founded and found necessary in physics that all macroscopic properties appear dependent on intrinsic properties of interacting individual matter at microscopic and atomic levels. What is found at atomic level is dependent on properties at particle level.”
    Yes.

    “It is you who makes this leap, while you think I make the leap. You made unfounded rather silly conclusion that mere structural arrangement itself leads to consciousness or subjectivity itself. You do NOT even realize that there is unbridgeable “gap” in your claim. Self-monitoring processing networks do NOT lead to consciousness. If it is, then every control system will be conscious and have subjective experience. “
    All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
    All consciousness is the function of data processing networks but not all data processing networks have consciousness (in the sense of self awareness and what we label as subjective experience).

    Only data processing networks of certain structural arrangement and sufficient complexity have the function of consciousness.

    “Is this observed in reality? This is the height of nonsense claims.””
    Hence, not my claim.

    “I am surprised you also have limited thinking capacity.”
    Do you have unlimited thinking capacity? That would be surprising indeed!

    “Your construction of the example itself is based on assumption of starting the counting process in a finite past (or finite present) and continuing your counting up unto a finite present (or finite future) respectively. You do NOT even realize that you have made a circular argument here. When you count for finite time, you will end up with a finite number ONLY. “
    Yes, precisely my point. Time is inherently finite.

    “This is circular reasoning. Is this so difficult to understand? With such erroneous thinking process how do you guys conclude so arrogantly that you know how consciousness arises? “
    I don’t see how the notion of infinite time bears on the account of consciousness. I suppose you are asserting a general lack of conceptual capacity on my part.

    **Now imagine a counting process which did NOT start at all and has been going on without any beginning. Here in this beginning-less counting process, you cannot claim that you ended up with some finite number. **
    Oxymoron. A counting process in the future is always a particular value at any time in the future. Even if this counting process continues on without end it will never become infinite. At all future times the count will be finite.

    By symmetry there is no such thing as beginingless count. Writing an infinity symbol on paper or putting double asterisks around a sentence does constitute a physical realization of an infinite process.

    “Since you cannot understand the logic, you cannot understand my point as well. Beginning-less time is possible and is the solution to your questions as well.”
    You have not presented any sound logic on this point, only empty words of imagination.

    @why?
    “If there are never ending occurrences of future times, then by symmetry we can also see beginning-less past as well….Its never ending on both sides….”
    Never ending counting into the future means we never stop counting up. At any particular time in this never ending future we are still at a finite count. The process never ends and we never count to infinity because infinity is a concept, not the result of a physical process through time. There is no particular end at which we stop counting, rather we just keep counting up, never stopping, never ending, never getting to infinity,

    Symmetry indeed. Since all future counts are finite then all past counts are finite.

    ““Infinite past” or “infinite future” need NOT be oxymoron at all….It merely means “beginning-less past” or “never-ending future”….”
    A beginingless past is of an entirely different nature than a never ending future. A never ending future is finite and will always remain finite. A beginingless past is infinite and thus asymmetrical with a never ending future which is finite.

  93. why? says:

    Stardusty Psyche

    “Infinite time is an oxymoron. Time is a process. There will never be an infinite future, only never-ending occurrences of future times each a finite time from the present. No matter how long time progresses into the future it will always be a finite time from the present. ”

    If there are never ending occurrences of future times, then by symmetry we can also see beginning-less past as well….Its never ending on both sides….

    “Infinite past” or “infinite future” need NOT be oxymoron at all….It merely means “beginning-less past” or “never-ending future”….

  94. why? says:

    !+Stardusty Psyche,

    “We who, my friend? I do think of just that, frequently, when I am not preoccupied with more practical matters.”

    Then what intrinsic property of matter leads to consciousness then?

    “Subjective experience is just another algorithm in our intelligence, our data processing networks in our brains.”

    Precisely how does algorithm and data processing networks in our brains give rise to subjective experience? Just making assertions does NOT prove anything. Why is a robot with algorithm or data processing network in its hardware NOT conscious?

    “Yes, the data processing networks of a brain.”

    Data processing network of the brain is NOT intrinsic property of any matter. It is merely a structural arrangement of matter. You are claiming mere structural arrangement in brain leads to subjectivity itself.

    Now, I can raise the same question here as well. Does consciousness arise independent of the intrinsic properties of constituents that make up “Data processing network of the brain”?

    “Again, my friend., we who? Your speculation of the soul is unnecessary, unevidenced, and unfounded.”

    Your speculation that mere structural arrangement of matter leads to emergence of properties is unnecessary, unevidenced, and unfounded.

    It is clearly evidenced, founded and found necessary in physics that all macroscopic properties appear dependent on intrinsic properties of interacting individual matter at microscopic and atomic levels. What is found at atomic level is dependent on properties at particle level.

    “Why do so many people make this particular leap? There is nothing so mysterious about consciousness that requires some ethereal cloud of soul magic floating about our heads. Self monitoring data processing network paths are sufficient to account for our “minds”.”

    It is you who makes this leap, while you think I make the leap. You made unfounded rather silly conclusion that mere structural arrangement itself leads to consciousness or subjectivity itself. You do NOT even realize that there is unbridgeable “gap” in your claim. Self-monitoring processing networks do NOT lead to consciousness. If it is, then every control system will be conscious and have subjective experience. Is this observed in reality? This is the height of nonsense claims.

    “Absurd indeed, as an assertion of infinite regress of a time sequence of events is. Not my assumption on my part, rather, a construction set up for the very purpose of demonstrating its absurdity.”

    I am surprised you also have limited thinking capacity.

    Your construction of the example itself is based on assumption of starting the counting process in a finite past (or finite present) and continuing your counting up unto a finite present (or finite future) respectively. You do NOT even realize that you have made a circular argument here. When you count for finite time, you will end up with a finite number ONLY. This is circular reasoning. Is this so difficult to understand? With such erroneous thinking process how do you guys conclude so arrogantly that you know how consciousness arises? Even Steve understood your erroneous logic.

    **Now imagine a counting process which did NOT start at all and has been going on without any beginning. Here in this beginning-less counting process, you cannot claim that you ended up with some finite number. **

    “Hmm…I can only guess this is a reference to your speculated god.

    If you make the positive assertion of god it is incumbent upon you to either produce direct evidence or a logical conclusion based on other evidences in support or your palpably unevidenced speculation.”

    🙂 Since you cannot understand the logic, you cannot understand my point as well. Beginning-less time is possible and is the solution to your questions as well.

  95. @Steve – “This is a common misconception – the “infinite past” is not a particular point in time – so this idea about “reaching” it is a result of misunderstanding what the “infinite past” is.”
    Indeed, which makes the notion of an infinite past a logical absurdity when attempting to solve the conundrum of first cause.

    Infinite time is an oxymoron. Time is a process. There will never be an infinite future, only never-ending occurrences of future times each a finite time from the present. No matter how long time progresses into the future it will always be a finite time from the present.

    Thus, the term “infinite future” is an oxymoron, as is the term “infinite past”.

    I don’t pretend to have solved the riddle of the origin of all that exists. I am only pointing out that the speculation of god has no explanatory value to that riddle.

  96. why? says:

    Steve,

    “You keep saying this – even though nowhere have I said consciousness arises independently.”

    I said independent of “intrinsic properties”….bit finally it implies consciousness arises independently only. How?

    Since a thing is nothing but merely bundle of “intrinsic properties”, if you claim that consciousness arises independent of intrinsic properties, you are saying that consciousness arises independent of the “thing” as well. Thus it is a logical fallacy as nothing can give rise to something.

    “This is nonsense, their is very strong evidence that the basis of of subjective experience is the brain. You have given no reason why consciousness can’t arise from the physical world.”

    Duh….aren’t you dumb…You have NOT even scratched at the argument I have given….I cannot help here…Read above again…

    “Following your reasoning a flame could never arise from sparking a match.”

    Why? Do you know what is flame? Exothermic chemical reactions give rise to release of energy as heat and light and vaporized gaseous chemicals, which is what is flame.

  97. why? says:

    [email protected] Steve,

    “No consciousness is subject to time, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t able to think and act.”

    Consciousness is awareness….and NOT a thing that would think or act…You make repeatedly meaningless nonsense statements..

    “Is your computer beginning less? No it’s not. Tell me why you believe consciousness is different to everything else in the universe? Why consciousness can’t be brought to an end just like a candle flame can be snuffed out?”

    Intrinsic properties finally can be traced to fundamental Indivisible particles of Universe…So they cannot be destroyed.

    “And if it’s total, then it’s a totality different personality. For example an good person can become evil, their not “intrinsically evil”. Memory – which is essential to self awareness – (and you can’t have self awareness without a self) – is dependent on a functioning brain when the brain does so does the self.”

    Consciousness is awareness of self-existence….NOT memory, NOT thoughts that arise and go…do you get it?

    “Yes you do people with no memory have no self. When the self is gone it’s a sign consciousness has ceased – just like a candle flame being extinguished.”

    They do have a self or else they would NOT exist….this self is beyond any social identity we give…its objective existence…

    “Nothing can exist independent of the rest of the universe. And even if something did, there is no way anything else could observe it or have any reason to think it exists.”

    Again circular reasoning….You assume and conclude the same…again and again….It comes back to intrinsic properties again….You have NOT proven that intrinsic properties do NOT exist….

    “If it’s independent BY DEFINITION it can’t interact with the world.”

    It can interact..why can’t it interact? Again fallacy of presumption

    “You don’t understand what time is, time is just the measurement of change, if their is no cause and effect their is no time.”

    At a given time there are hell lot of a changes or events taking place simultaneously….If time is change, which change or event is it? You cannot say “time” is simultaneously all changes, for every change or event is unique and different from each other. So “time” exists necessarily independent of changes and causes changes.

    “You don’t know who is “intrinsically bad soul” and who is “intrinsically good soul”.”

    It is irrelevant if I or you know something. Objective truth stays as objective truth regardless of your knowledge or lack of it.

    “In any case in your belief anybody who suffers deserves it as it is divine justice from God for some sin in a past life.”

    and…..

    “You don’t know he doesn’t enjoy this is just something you believe.”

    I know by definition a perfect God does NOT get satisfaction from outside of Himself.

    “First of all you don’t decide to be unconscious, you become unconscious if something causes your body to lose consciousness (such as a blow to the head). And if you don’t ever wake up again, you won’t regain consciousness – and that’s what death is.”

    Somebody else can blindfold you, similarly certain events can blindfold your consciousness…..death is soul leaving the body..

    “You don’t get it, the original soul or self isn’t still in their and just can’t get the words out (so to speak), it’s completely gone. Everything about YOU (the thinking feeling being) can be damaged by damaging the brain. And when the whole brain dies at death so does the personality, death of the brain is not a cure for the changes to the personality caused by brain damage. That is absurd nonsense.”

    Death is soul leaving the body and so body cannot communicate anymore. This is alternate explanation. Why would your explanation take precedence over mine?

    Here comes the argument on impossibility of existence emergent properties…My argument on intrinsic properties….Go back to it..

    “The self that existed before brain damage has GONE it’s not just masked. Destroying the brain is not a cure for the lost memory/personality. This is absurd – brain damage destroys memory and radically changes the personality and yet magically when the whole brain dies it’s suddenly cured, this is absurd nonsense.”

    Self is NOT a subjective idea…you are assuming it is and concluding the same and so another circular reasoning. When I say self-awareness, awareness that He or She exists, it is as an objective idea. Whether one loses his/her social identity is irrelevant here….Man you are one complete dumb fellow.

    “Self awareness is dependent on memories, no memories no thinking. And memories are dependent on the physical brain so when brain dies so does memories.”

    NO….read my definition of self….When you see a tree, you see colors, leaves, stem etc…Now whether you know it as tree or those are leaves or it is green color or it is stem, you will still experience that the tree is existing objectively apart from you. So memories are irrelevant for awareness of existence of self or any thing else…

    “So you believe in demons as well?”

    Definitely, these are the intrinsically evil souls and Buddhism is the chosen religion of demons. They do NOT believe intrinsic properties of “things” exist, just like you. They believe “all things” are interdependent phenomenon, i.e. all “things” are merely relational properties and that the real nature of Universe is “Sunya” or “emptiness” or they lack any “intrinsic properties”.

    ALI SINA thinks that Mr. Gowthama Buddha did NOT say anything on God. He is dead wrong on this. Buddha’s philosophy from the core of its fundamental philosophy, rejects any possibility of existence of any “thing” including God, morality and everything people normally believe.

    Buddhism (teachings of Buddha) by teaching NOT just absence of God, but every “thing” in existence and denies existence itself (in one sense) by denying the very existence of intrinsic properties itself. Thus all existence is mere “Shunya” or “Zero” as no “thing” possesses any property of its own, and properties arise only as relational property. it is thus radically different from every other philosophy, is the anti-thesis of existence itself. Atheism merely denies any existence of God, but Buddhism denies existence itself and thus it is the most extreme form of negative philosophy. Definitely such philosophy belongs to evil souls, for it denying existence, happiness and confirming absence of anything good.

    “And no I am not a Buddhist and the reason is the Buddhists of today believe in the exact same nonsense as the Hindus. They believe in a permanent unchanging self which goes from life to life and is independent of the physical world also. Of course Buddhists *officially* are not supposed to believe in souls, as this contradicts the Buddhas teaching of “no self”. But they just call it the “karmic stream” that passes from life to life. However it’s functionally identical to the Hindu belief in a permanent self or *soul* – which the Buddha himself rejected and criticised the Hindus of his time for believing in.”

    In other words, you are quite aware of what Mr. Gowthama Buddha taught. Only a Buddhist can be aware of teachings of Buddhism to this level and even agree with it. YOU ARE A BUDDHIST “STEVE”. YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ME HERE. I CAUGHT YOU COMING HERE IN THE GARB OF AN ATHEIST AND HIDING YOUR REAL IDENTITY. YOU CANNOT FOOL ME. I KNOW BUDDHISM INSIDE OUT AND HOW EVIL ITS PHILOSOPHY IS.

  98. @why? – “We cannot even think of any known intrinsic property that leads to consciousness,”
    We who, my friend? I do think of just that, frequently, when I am not preoccupied with more practical matters.

    “ the basis of subjective experiences”
    Subjective experience is just another algorithm in our intelligence, our data processing networks in our brains.

    .” So, there must exist some “thing” which has consciousness itself as intrinsic property “
    Yes, the data processing networks of a brain.

    “or must lead to consciousness as an extrinsic property based on its some “X-labelled” intrinsic property. We can call this soul.”
    Again, my friend., we who? Your speculation of the soul is unnecessary, unevidenced, and unfounded.

    “Circular reasoning here. You assume brain is the cause of consciousness and conclude the same.”
    Sorry, didn’t provide sufficient grounding on my first post, my bad. In my defense I took a few shortcuts to avoid a ridiculously long post.

    “ Reason brain cannot lead to consciousness given above.”
    Why do so many people make this particular leap? There is nothing so mysterious about consciousness that requires some ethereal cloud of soul magic floating about our heads. Self monitoring data processing network paths are sufficient to account for our “minds”.

    “Now, the logical mistake you have here is that you started the counting process at a finite time in past or the present and expect your counting NOT be finite..that is logically absurd conclusion”
    Absurd indeed, as an assertion of infinite regress of a time sequence of events is. Not my assumption on my part, rather, a construction set up for the very purpose of demonstrating its absurdity.

    “his has been solved long before beginning-less time.:)”
    Hmm…I can only guess this is a reference to your speculated god.

    If you make the positive assertion of god it is incumbent upon you to either produce direct evidence or a logical conclusion based on other evidences in support or your palpably unevidenced speculation.

  99. Steve says:

    @why
    “So to say that some property arose independent of “intrinsic properties” of interacting things, is to say that that property arose out of “nothing”. This is absurd logically” You keep saying this – even though nowhere have I said consciousness arises independently.

    “We cannot even think of any known intrinsic property that leads to consciousness, the basis of subjective experiences. So, there must exist some “thing” which has consciousness itself as intrinsic property or must lead to consciousness as an extrinsic property based on its some “X-labelled” intrinsic property. We can call this soul.” This is nonsense, their is very strong evidence that the basis of of subjective experience is the brain. You have given no reason why consciousness can’t arise from the physical world.

    “Reason brain cannot lead to consciousness given above.” Following your reasoning a flame could never arise from sparking a match.

    @Stardusty

    “Unfortunately, infinity is not a number, nor can it be achieved by a process over time. No matter how long one counts up, for example, and how fast one counts up, one could never reach infinity, only an arbitrarily large finite number.” This is a common misconception – the “infinite past” is not a particular point in time – so this idea about “reaching” it is a result of misunderstanding what the “infinite past” is.

  100. Steve says:

    @why
    “Since time is reality and beginning-less as per your own statement, NOT all things have a beginning. You have disproved your own statement. So consciousness can also be without beginning.” No consciousness is subject to time, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t able to think and act.

    “If matter/particles do NOT cease, it means they are beginning-less.” Is your computer beginning less? No it’s not. Tell me why you believe consciousness is different to everything else in the universe? Why consciousness can’t be brought to an end just like a candle flame can be snuffed out?

    “Still, it modifies personality. Change is change, if it is total or partial. However, consciousness or self-awareness is common even after “radical change”. And if it’s total, then it’s a totality different personality. For example an good person can become evil, their not “intrinsically evil”. Memory – which is essential to self awareness – (and you can’t have self awareness without a self) – is dependent on a functioning brain when the brain does so does the self.

    “You tweak personality, NOT consciousness or self-awareness or awareness of one’s existence.” Yes you do people with no memory have no self. When the self is gone it’s a sign consciousness has ceased – just like a candle flame being extinguished.

    “You made an assumption that nothing is independent of the world (which assumes there is none) and concluded the same. ….Circular reasoning……” Nothing can exist independent of the rest of the universe. And even if something did, there is no way anything else could observe it or have any reason to think it exists.

    “You assumed if something was independent, it would not interact with the world etc…fallacy of presumption…” If it’s independent BY DEFINITION it can’t interact with the world.

    “You assumed nothing exists without a cause and therefore concluded that “infinite past” same…fallacy of presumption……according to your own statement, time has no beginning….which clearly disproves your claim that “nothing exists without a cause” or “if something was independent, it would not interact with the world” and yet “time” exists without a cause, without beginning and yet interacting with the world.” You don’t understand what time is, time is just the measurement of change, if their is no cause and effect their is no time.

    “Only for intrinsically bad souls, NOT for intrinsically good souls.” You don’t know who is “intrinsically bad soul” and who is “intrinsically good soul”. In any case in your belief anybody who suffers deserves it as it is divine justice from God for some sin in a past life.

    “I know by definition a perfect God does NOT get satisfaction from outside of Himself. People suffering from disasters pay for their deeds. Natural disasters can take place without anybody suffering as well.” You don’t know he doesn’t enjoy this is just something you believe.

    “You MUST BE A REAL TOOL. So you if you tie a blindfold or close your eyes, do you decide you have NO capacity for vision. You have merely disabled yourself to see outside. The capacity for vision is there and NOT destroyed. Similarly, the capacity for consciousness is still there.” First of all you don’t decide to be unconscious, you become unconscious if something causes your body to lose consciousness (such as a blow to the head). And if you don’t ever wake up again, you won’t regain consciousness – and that’s what death is.

    “Yes….this is what I am saying….the soul can be temporarily blindfolded like the eye. ” You don’t get it, the original soul or self isn’t still in their and just can’t get the words out (so to speak), it’s completely gone. Everything about YOU (the thinking feeling being) can be damaged by damaging the brain. And when the whole brain dies at death so does the personality, death of the brain is not a cure for the changes to the personality caused by brain damage. That is absurd nonsense.

    “Just like the blindfolded eye has the capacity of vision, so does the blindfolded soul here….The consciousness OR SELF-AWARENESS (AT PRESENT TIME) still exists there, but it can be overridden or temporarily masked like the eye. MEMORIES ARE NOT SELF-AWARENESS AT PRESENT MOMENT.” The self that existed before brain damage has GONE it’s not just masked. Destroying the brain is not a cure for the lost memory/personality. This is absurd – brain damage destroys memory and radically changes the personality and yet magically when the whole brain dies it’s suddenly cured, this is absurd nonsense.

    “MEMORIES ARE NOT SELF-AWARENESS AT PRESENT MOMENT. Self awareness is dependent on memories, no memories no thinking. And memories are dependent on the physical brain so when brain dies so does memories.

    “STEVE…I THINK YOU HAVE NO NEW POINTS TO GIVE ANYMORE. YOU ARE COMING BACK TO THE SAME POINT AGAIN AND AGAIN LIKE A BOT. YOUR EVIL BUDDHIST YOGA PRACTICES PROBABLY HAS MADE YOU INTO A BOT, UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING OR COMPREHEND WHAT IS OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF BUDDHISM. WE KNOW BUDDHISM THE COMPLETE ANTI-THESIS OF VEDAS IS EVIL IN THE CORE. THIS IS WHY BUDDHISM IS THE RELIGION OF THE DEMONS in HINDUISM.” So you believe in demons as well? And no I am not a Buddhist and the reason is the Buddhists of today believe in the exact same nonsense as the Hindus. They believe in a permanent unchanging self which goes from life to life and is independent of the physical world also. Of course Buddhists *officially* are not supposed to believe in souls, as this contradicts the Buddhas teaching of “no self”. But they just call it the “karmic stream” that passes from life to life. However it’s functionally identical to the Hindu belief in a permanent self or *soul* – which the Buddha himself rejected and criticised the Hindus of his time for believing in.

  101. why? says:

    !+Stardusty Psyche,

    “Agree, if even 1 thing can have no beginning then the statement that ‘all things have a beginning’ is falsified.”

    I was getting bored. At the least you understand my statement.

    “Non sequitur, because you have failed to establish that consciousness is in the class of things that can have no beginning.”

    Perfectly right argument. That is why I gave the following argument.

    Leaving aside biology (consciousness, life etc.), in Physics we are NOT aware of any extrinsic property that arises independent of the intrinsic properties of interacting particles. I am a reductionist in this respect and do NOT think there is any “emergent” property. You cannot have properties emerge out of nothing or emerge independent of interacting matter or “things” or independent of intrinsic properties of interacting matter or “things”. A “thing” is nothing but a bundle of intrinsic properties. So to say that some property arose independent of “intrinsic properties” of interacting things, is to say that that property arose out of “nothing”. This is absurd logically.

    We cannot even think of any known intrinsic property that leads to consciousness, the basis of subjective experiences. So, there must exist some “thing” which has consciousness itself as intrinsic property or must lead to consciousness as an extrinsic property based on its some “X-labelled” intrinsic property. We can call this soul.

    “Conscious activity is always associated with a living brain. When the brain dies consciousness dies. Prior to the existence of a brain their is no conscious activity. All brains have had a beginning. Therefor all consciousnesses have had a beginning. Your assertion thus falsified.”

    Circular reasoning here. You assume brain is the cause of consciousness and conclude the same. Reason brain cannot lead to consciousness given above.

    “It seems that reality progresses by cause and effect. Also, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and exists, therefore is eternal. If these are the case then we must have an infinite regress of cause and effect.

    Unfortunately, infinity is not a number, nor can it be achieved by a process over time. No matter how long one counts up, for example, and how fast one counts up, one could never reach infinity, only an arbitrarily large finite number.”

    Infinite means NOT finite. Obviously it aint a number. It is an unending potential.

    Now, the logical mistake you have here is that you started the counting process at a finite time in past or the present and expect your counting NOT be finite..that is logically absurd conclusion…..Now imagine the counting never started at all, but has been going on without beginning. **So we can reach the present time with an infinite past provided the counting process is beginning-less.**

    “So, if an infinite regress of cause and effect is not possible then there must have been a first cause. But, that would require something from nothing, another logical absurdity.”

    Please read above….

    “Many have suggested an eternal god outside of time initiated the first cause. But if god existed before the first cause then a time sequence of events occurred as god acted in a time sequence of events, falsifying the premise of god as outside of time. Thus, the speculation of god only pushes the problem back a step and solves nothing logically.”

    A very good point and it is perfectly logical. In Hinduism, no “thing” (be it matter, space, time, God, souls and whatever exists) have a beginning. All are beginning-less. Matter as a whole is beginning-less in one form or other. So does space, time, God, souls etc., however, existence and operation/functioning of all else at every moment of time other than God is dependent on God from beginning-less time. Time itself is an attribute of God.

    “A conundrum referencing a mystery referencing an enigma. No brain that has ever existed has solved this situation and communicated that solution to me.

    Anybody care to be the first ?-)”

    This has been solved long before beginning-less time.:)

  102. @why? – “Since time is reality and beginning-less as per your own statement, NOT all things have a beginning. You have disproved your own statement.”
    Agree, if even 1 thing can have no beginning then the statement that ‘all things have a beginning’ is falsified.

    “So consciousness can also be without beginning.”
    Non sequitur, because you have failed to establish that consciousness is in the class of things that can have no beginning. Conscious activity is always associated with a living brain. When the brain dies consciousness dies. Prior to the existence of a brain their is no conscious activity. All brains have had a beginning. Therefor all consciousnesses have had a beginning. Your assertion thus falsified.

    It seems that reality progresses by cause and effect. Also, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and exists, therefore is eternal. If these are the case then we must have an infinite regress of cause and effect.

    Unfortunately, infinity is not a number, nor can it be achieved by a process over time. No matter how long one counts up, for example, and how fast one counts up, one could never reach infinity, only an arbitrarily large finite number.

    So, if an infinite regress of cause and effect is not possible then there must have been a first cause. But, that would require something from nothing, another logical absurdity.

    Many have suggested an eternal god outside of time initiated the first cause. But if god existed before the first cause then a time sequence of events occurred as god acted in a time sequence of events, falsifying the premise of god as outside of time. Thus, the speculation of god only pushes the problem back a step and solves nothing logically.

    A conundrum referencing a mystery referencing an enigma. No brain that has ever existed has solved this situation and communicated that solution to me.

    Anybody care to be the first ?-)

  103. why? says:

    +!Steve,

    “All things are the same in that they operate by cause and effect. The life and death of a ripple is the same as all life and death. There’s nothing special about consciousness – it’s just another thing, the same as all other things.”

    “time is a reality, this disproves your belief in a beginning less thing. All things operate by cause and effect,if they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to interact with the rest of the universe.”

    Since time is reality and beginning-less as per your own statement, NOT all things have a beginning. You have disproved your own statement. So consciousness can also be without beginning.

    “Any particular form of matter/energy is not “intrinsic”. It not the same as their being fundamental particles.”

    Again useless meaningless blabber. I can read, but your statements are without any meaning.

    “Our consciousness for instance is particles in the brain interacting in a particular way. When that formation no longer exists “consciousness” (the particular patter of interacting particles) no longer exists. Nobody claims that the matter/particles ceases but what they become (or the new arrangement) is very different to what it was.”

    If matter/particles do NOT cease, it means they are beginning-less.

    “So me and you are both made of atoms. Does that mean we are both the same person? No we are different people with different identities.”

    We are NOT made of the same carbon atoms. 🙂

    “It doesn’t just “modify” personality it can be radically changed AND destroyed by damaged to the brain.”

    Still, it modifies personality. Change is change, if it is total or partial. However, consciousness or self-awareness is common even after “radical change”.

    “Okay we “tweak” the brain and the consciousness changes. If consciousness was immaterial, permanent and unchanging this would NOT happen. This disproves this belief in the fantasy *soul*.”

    You tweak personality, NOT consciousness or self-awareness or awareness of one’s existence.

    “What observation? Nobody has ever observed any “past life”.” Neither have anyone observed causes are without beginning.

    “Nothing is independent of the world and the force that it has to change things. If anything was it would not be able to interact with the rest of the universe. We could never observe such a thing or have any reason to think it exists. As far as the “infinite past” is concerned nothing can happen without cause that’s why they have to go back to infinity. Their is no other possibility. Also your assumptions or assertions about God, karma and rebirth are based on nothing, their is no reason to believe such things nor has anyone observed these things.”

    You made an assumption that nothing is independent of the world (which assumes there is none) and concluded the same. ….Circular reasoning……

    You assumed if something was independent, it would not interact with the world etc…fallacy of presumption…

    You assumed nothing exists without a cause and therefore concluded that “infinite past” same…fallacy of presumption……according to your own statement, time has no beginning….which clearly disproves your claim that “nothing exists without a cause” or “if something was independent, it would not interact with the world” and yet “time” exists without a cause, without beginning and yet interacting with the world.

    “Your false belief claims the unfortunate deserves their suffering. This creates lack of empathy and hatred which has an effect on the real world. “”Pigs wallowing in their own stool” as you said.”

    Only for intrinsically bad souls, NOT for intrinsically good souls.

    “It’s definitely possible that he does enjoy since he causes the natural disasters. How do you know he does NOT? You don’t and have nothing to base this belief on.”

    I know by definition a perfect God does NOT get satisfaction from outside of Himself. People suffering from disasters pay for their deeds. Natural disasters can take place without anybody suffering as well.

    “If you can’t see that means you have no vision. Likewise if you are unconscious it means you are unconscious.”

    You MUST BE A REAL TOOL. So you if you tie a blindfold or close your eyes, do you decide you have NO capacity for vision. You have merely disabled yourself to see outside. The capacity for vision is there and NOT destroyed. Similarly, the capacity for consciousness is still there.

    “He cannot remember anything past 5 minutes. Why this soul can’t remember and form these memories? Because it doesn’t exist that’s why. this mans condition is explained by the damage to his brain. Or else the soul is powerless and completely overridden by physical biochemistry”

    Yes….this is what I am saying….the soul can be temporarily blindfolded like the eye. Just like the blindfolded eye has the capacity of vision, so does the blindfolded soul here….The consciousness OR SELF-AWARENESS (AT PRESENT TIME) still exists there, but it can be overridden or temporarily masked like the eye. MEMORIES ARE NOT SELF-AWARENESS AT PRESENT MOMENT.

    “A perfect God would have provided evidence for these doctrines, he hasn’t that means he doesn’t exist.”

    Back to the same argument again….I have already answered this. God does NOT need to do anything without the soul putting proper effort to know it.

    STEVE…I THINK YOU HAVE NO NEW POINTS TO GIVE ANYMORE. YOU ARE COMING BACK TO THE SAME POINT AGAIN AND AGAIN LIKE A BOT. YOUR EVIL BUDDHIST YOGA PRACTICES PROBABLY HAS MADE YOU INTO A BOT, UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING OR COMPREHEND WHAT IS OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF BUDDHISM. WE KNOW BUDDHISM THE COMPLETE ANTI-THESIS OF VEDAS IS EVIL IN THE CORE. THIS IS WHY BUDDHISM IS THE RELIGION OF THE DEMONS in HINDUISM.

  104. Steve says:

    @Why
    “So if water is liquid and transparent, is it necessary for your wife or house to be liquid and transparent? ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY ONE AFTER ANOTHER.” All things are the same in that they operate by cause and effect. The life and death of a ripple is the same as all life and death. There’s nothing special about consciousness – it’s just another thing, the same as all other things.
    “SO “time” is beginning-less then, which is a subset of “all” just like things which are other than time are subset of “all”. Therefore your belief is a fantasy.” time is a reality, this disproves your belief in a beginning less thing. All things operate by cause and effect,if they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to interact with the rest of the universe.

    “Meaningless statement….I cannot understand what you blabbered here. Intrinsic property belongs to a particular form of matter, like negative charge attributed to an electron.” Any particular form of matter/energy is not “intrinsic”. It not the same as their being fundamental particles. Our consciousness for instance is particles in the brain interacting in a particular way. When that formation no longer exists “consciousness” (the particular patter of interacting particles) no longer exists. Nobody claims that the matter/particles ceases but what they become (or the new arrangement) is very different to what it was.

    “Whether it is fire wood or ashes, both contain Carbon atoms in one form or other.” So me and you are both made of atoms. Does that mean we are both the same person? No we are different people with different identities.

    “Perhaps you did NOT understand my point as usual….The fact that tweaking brain modifies our emotions or personality only shows that chemicals can change our behavior, just like one can change the color of white light through a colored translucent paper. Your link proves my point.” It doesn’t just “modify” personality it can be radically changed AND destroyed by damaged to the brain.

    “You need considerable amount of belief to jump from this observation of “connection between chemicals and mood swings” to conclusion that chemicals in bran cause consciousness.” Okay we “tweak” the brain and the consciousness changes. If consciousness was immaterial, permanent and unchanging this would NOT happen. This disproves this belief in the fantasy *soul*.

    “I gave you a reason which is compatible with a Perfect God based on observation made in the present.” What observation? Nobody has ever observed any “past life”.

    “Can you provide direct evidence that everything has a cause and chain of causes are beginning-less? You made an assumption that chain of causes have to be beginning-less based on observing something in the present. Then my assertions are NO more a fantasy than your fantasy.” Nothing is independent of the world and the force that it has to change things. If anything was it would not be able to interact with the rest of the universe. We could never observe such a thing or have any reason to think it exists. As far as the “infinite past” is concerned nothing can happen without cause that’s why they have to go back to infinity. Their is no other possibility. Also your assumptions or assertions about God, karma and rebirth are based on nothing, their is no reason to believe such things nor has anyone observed these things.

    “No it does NOT..” Your false belief claims the unfortunate deserves their suffering. This creates lack of empathy and hatred which has an effect on the real world. “”Pigs wallowing in their own stool” as you said.

    “On the contrary it is you who made the claim that God enjoys suffering repeatedly. I merely said, a perfect God by definition does NOT enjoy suffering of others.” It’s definitely possible that he does enjoy since he causes the natural disasters. How do you know he does NOT? You don’t and have nothing to base this belief on.

    “It does exist, but just is masked like your eyes when masked eyesight does NOT disappear.” If you can’t see that means you have no vision. Likewise if you are unconscious it means you are unconscious.

    “Does the man lose capacity to conscious itself in every 5-minutes? You are speaking Buddhist BUTTSHIT from Buddha’s behind now.” He cannot remember anything past 5 minutes. Why this soul can’t remember and form these memories? Because it doesn’t exist that’s why. this mans condition is explained by the damage to his brain. Or else the soul is powerless and completely overridden by physical biochemistry

    “I have merely showed it is possible that Perfect God, Souls, karma etc. can exist without any logical/moral inconsistencies.” A perfect God would have provided evidence for these doctrines, he hasn’t that means he doesn’t exist.

  105. why? says:

    !++Steve Says:

    “What’s true of one thing is true of all things. Their is no reason to think we are any different to a ripple in the water.”

    So if water is liquid and transparent, is it necessary for your wife or house to be liquid and transparent? ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY ONE AFTER ANOTHER.

    “Time is a reality, things are born and things die. Therefore your belief is a fantasy.”

    🙂 SO “time” is beginning-less then, which is a subset of “all” just like things which are other than time are subset of “all”. Therefore your belief is a fantasy.

    “Yes but that instrinsic property is not a particular form of matter.”

    Meaningless statement….I cannot understand what you blabbered here. Intrinsic property belongs to a particular form of matter, like negative charge attributed to an electron.

    Fire wood burns and becomes something else. What things become however is very different to what they once was. Consciousness is EXACTLY the same as everything else in the universe, when consciousness dies its reborn as something else, such as wormfood for example. Its no more permanent than fire wood.”

    Whether it is fire wood or ashes, both contain Carbon atoms in one form or other.

    “You obviously have no idea about the neuroscience see this to see why what you are saying is complete nonsense. http://www.humantruth.info/emotions.html

    Perhaps you did NOT understand my point as usual….The fact that tweaking brain modifies our emotions or personality only shows that chemicals can change our behavior, just like one can change the color of white light through a colored translucent paper. Your link proves my point.

    The neuroscientists made an unnecessary leap from this point. What they observed is that there exists a connection between chemicals and mood swings in human beings and ONLY this connection. You need considerable amount of belief to jump from this observation of “connection between chemicals and mood swings” to conclusion that chemicals in bran cause consciousness.

    “He obviously doesn’t then since everything you have said and believe in is complete nonsense.”

    You just made a quantum leap, just like the neuroscientists.

    “YOU are claiming this a reason why suffering exists and how this suffering is compatible with the existence of a good god. So you do need to provide evidence of “past life sins”. You don’t have any evidence, this means what you believe is a fantasy.”

    I gave you a reason which is compatible with a Perfect God based on observation made in the present.

    Can you provide direct evidence that everything has a cause and chain of causes are beginning-less? You made an assumption that chain of causes have to be beginning-less based on observing something in the present. Then my assertions are NO more a fantasy than your fantasy.

    “It’s proves your false doctrine has a harmful effect on the world.”

    No it does NOT..

    “You claimed he doesn’t enjoy watching people suffer. There is no way you can know that, this is just blind faith on your part (just like all your other beliefs). So don’t claim to know things you have no possibility of knowing.”

    On the contrary it is you who made the claim that God enjoys suffering repeatedly. I merely said, a perfect God by definition does NOT enjoy suffering of others.

    “It doesn’t exist when you are unconscious. So this is another fantasy.”

    It does exist, but just is masked like your eyes when masked eyesight does NOT disappear.

    “It’s not irrelevant, the whole personality can be dramatically changed and destroyed though things like brain damaged. For example in my link above their is a man who cannot remember more than 5 minutes back. Where is his *soul*? It doesn’t exist this is more nonsense from you.”

    Does the man lose capacity to conscious itself in every 5-minutes? You are speaking Buddhist BUTTSHIT from Buddha’s behind now.

    “What is your belief in eternal consciousness, reincarnation and divine justice from God? If not assertions (based on nothing but imagination and wish thinking).?”

    I have merely showed it is possible that Perfect God, Souls, karma etc. can exist without any logical/moral inconsistencies.

  106. Steve says:

    Why
    “It IS NOT a Universal observation. All you have is empty assertions BUDDHIST IDIOT. I KNOW YOU ARE A BUDDHIST MORON” What’s true of one thing is true of all things. Their is no reason to think we are any different to a ripple in the water.

    “You have NOT offered even ONE argument against it, because there is NONE.” Time is a reality, things are born and things die. Therefore your belief is a fantasy.

    “However, Scientifically intrinsic property does exist, even if the particle or matter can be destroyed to form other particles…This is why you can tell that a photon is made up of quarks and bosons etc.” Yes but that instrinsic property is not a particular form of matter. Fire wood burns and becomes something else. What things become however is very different to what they once was. Consciousness is EXACTLY the same as everything else in the universe, when consciousness dies its reborn as something else, such as wormfood for example. Its no more permanent than fire wood.

    “As for the soul, the intrinsic property does NOT change, it merely becomes masked. If you cover a source of white light with a red translucent paper or pastic cover, it shines red. However, the source is still a white light. In a similar way, the intrinsically good soul can become masked by evil.” You obviously have no idea about the neuroscience see this to see why what you are saying is complete nonsense. http://www.humantruth.info/emotions.html

    “This God provides evidence if one approaches Him properly through proper procedure. Yoga is the only way for this” He obviously doesn’t then since everything you have said and believe in is complete nonsense.

    “There is NO need for judge to provide evidence to the criminal or those outside the justice system.” YOU are claiming this a reason why suffering exists and how this suffering is compatible with the existence of a good god. So you do need to provide evidence of “past life sins”. You don’t have any evidence, this means what you believe is a fantasy.

    “Irrelevant arguments…..Proves nothing….” It’s proves your false doctrine has a harmful effect on the world.

    “How do you know He enjoys? You know what God thinks? Don’t claim to know things you have no possibility of knowing.” You claimed he doesn’t enjoy watching people suffer. There is no way you can know that, this is just blind faith on your part (just like all your other beliefs). So don’t claim to know things you have no possibility of knowing.

    “is aelf-awareness which always exists” It doesn’t exist when you are unconscious. So this is another fantasy.

    “so is the soul. It is irrelevant if social identity changes.” It’s not irrelevant, the whole personality can be dramatically changed and destroyed though things like brain damaged. For example in my link above their is a man who cannot remember more than 5 minutes back. Where is his *soul*? It doesn’t exist this is more nonsense from you.

    “NOW SINCE YOU ARE GOING BACK TO THE SAME ARGUMENTS, I ASSUME YOU HAVE NOTHING NEW TO ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION, EXCEPT YOUR STUPID ASSERTIONS. I do NOT THINK I AM GOING TO WASTE ANY TIME ON IMBECILES LIKE YOU.” What is your belief in eternal consciousness, reincarnation and divine justice from God? If not assertions (based on nothing but imagination and wish thinking).?

  107. why? says:

    !+Steve Says:

    “1)Beginning less ness – You Wasted your time talking infinities and all the rest of it. ……… You have no proof it’s just your fantasy.”

    Since you did NOT and clearly CANNOT argue against the clear evidence on infinite sets, you have resorted to idiotic analogies. Now the analogy you showed (ripples in water) in limited to exactly the case of ripples in water. It IS NOT a Universal observation. All you have is empty assertions BUDDHIST IDIOT. I KNOW YOU ARE A BUDDHIST MORON.

    Now I have clearly proved through set theory, that space, time, chain of causes and things resulting from chain of causes are ALL WITHOUT beginning in all conditions AND it is UNIVERSAL OBSERVATION. You have NOT offered even ONE argument against it, because there is NONE. You have failed.

    “You must be dreaming, you have nothing proven nothing, everything you believe in is a fantasy, which I am demonstrating.”

    You have demonstrated that you are an imbecile BUDDHIST already.

    “1)Their is no thing as “intrinsic” everything depends on causes, if something causes it’s nature to change, it won’t be “intrinsically evil” or “intrinsically good” anymore.”

    ONLY A BUDDHIST CAN DENY INTRINSIC PROPERTY. Intrinsic property of matter does change and when it changes it becomes another entity. However, Scientifically intrinsic property does exist, even if the particle or matter can be destroyed to form other particles…This is why you can tell that a photon is made up of quarks and bosons etc.

    Now lets leave this here. As for the soul, the intrinsic property does NOT change, it merely becomes masked. If you cover a source of white light with a red translucent paper or pastic cover, it shines red. However, the source is still a white light. In a similar way, the intrinsically good soul can become masked by evil.

    ” 2) How do you know the difference between an “intrinsically good” soul who is temporarily “under the influence of bad karma” and a person who is inherently evil? You are in no position to make that judgment, as you yourself admitted lack of knowledge.”

    If sufficient spiritual knowledge is gained through yoga, God gives that knowledge to ONLY intrinsically good souls. In the absence of such knowledge, default is compassionate behavior.

    “Again your belief REQUIRES that anybody who suffers MUST be getting punishment which God has set up. Forget about whether the person is evil or not who carried out the punishment, the fact is their behaviour is ordained by God and therefore what they do is not immoral. ”

    The behavior is ordained by the deeds of the soul and its intrinsic nature. So the locus of fault in in the soul.

    “This God needs to provide evidence, just like a human judge needs to provide evidence. Otherwise he doesn’t exist or is evil.”

    This God provides evidence if one approaches Him properly through proper procedure. Yoga is the only way for this. Even a human judge will provide evidence only to those involved in justice system. If any other party wants information, there is a procedure to get this information as per the justice system rules and you have a good reason to obtain this information. Similarly, you have to approach God through Yoga, if you have the qualification to obtain this information.

    “You are confirming what I wrote two messages up. It means you won’t show empathy to such people as you believe there suffering is divine justice from God. And yes your God does need to provide evidence for this doctrine. Let’s see the claims. 1……4) Hindus claim such people are not innocent but being punished for past life sins. 5) An all good/morally perfect God would have a duty to provide evidence that they have committed crimes and their suffering fits the crime and is justified. ……..God doesn’t exist.”

    There is NO need for judge to provide evidence to the criminal or those outside the justice system.

    “You don’t get it. 1)Their is no evidence of a cosmic judge (“God”). …..ir is no evidence for this delusion, since this false doctrine has an effect on the real world.”

    Irrelevant arguments…..Proves nothing….

    “How do you know he does not enjoy? You know what “God” thinks? Don’t claim to know things you have no possibility of knowing.”

    How do you know He enjoys? You know what God thinks? Don’t claim to know things you have no possibility of knowing.

    “I notice you didn’t respond on this. 1)Theirs no point saying people don’t lose consciousness as their is evidence that this happens. 2) Consciousness/ thoughts are dependent on a functioning brain. When brain dies so does the personality. It does not go floating of into cats and dogs and new born babies. 3) Their is a mountain of evidence that the brain is the seat of personality/mind. 4) The personality by the time it gets to the “new life” loses its very identity. This means rebirth doesn’t happen and again is nothing but a fantasy.”

    Consciousness is NOT social identity, it is aelf-awareness which always exists….Just like DNA is same, so is the soul. It is irrelevant if social identity changes.

    NOW SINCE YOU ARE GOING BACK TO THE SAME ARGUMENTS, I ASSUME YOU HAVE NOTHING NEW TO ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION, EXCEPT YOUR STUPID ASSERTIONS. I do NOT THINK I AM GOING TO WASTE ANY TIME ON IMBECILES LIKE YOU.

  108. Steve says:

    +Why

    I will try to keep this short as you have again made very long replies so I will just give my main points on the subjects.

    1)Beginning less ness – You Wasted your time talking infinities and all the rest of it. Let me make my point when I drop a stone into a body of water it causes a ripple and when the ripple hits the edge it ceases to exist (or at some point it’s going to cease to exist anyway). In other words the ripple is a dependent arising (its coming into existence is dependent on conditions and when those conditions are removed it ceases to exist). Everything in nature is like that, where is your proof everything is permanent? You have no proof it’s just your fantasy.

    “So I am going to stick to one point at a time to prove you are an imbecile moron of first order…” You must be dreaming, you have nothing proven nothing, everything you believe in is a fantasy, which I am demonstrating.

    2)Karma/evil/Divine Justice. – You wrote “You are one stupid fellow who does NOT understand what is even an intrinsic property? An intrinsically evil soul and an intrinsically good soul who temporarily under the influence of bad karma does evil deeds are two different things. DO you understand the difference?” 1)Their is no thing as “intrinsic” everything depends on causes, if something causes it’s nature to change, it won’t be “intrinsically evil” or “intrinsically good” anymore. 2) How do you know the difference between an “intrinsically good” soul who is temporarily “under the influence of bad karma” and a person who is inherently evil? You are in no position to make that judgment, as you yourself admitted lack of knowledge.

    “The pig wallowing in stool infested water is an analogy for an intrinsically evil soul. Just like pigs enjoy dirty stool infested water, so do the intrinsically evil souls enjoy evil deeds and immorality. So that is their intrinsic property” Again your belief REQUIRES that anybody who suffers MUST be getting punishment which God has set up. Forget about whether the person is evil or not who carried out the punishment, the fact is their behaviour is ordained by God and therefore what they do is not immoral. It does not matter what their motives are for inflicting pain. Just like in Saudi Arabia a person who carries out torture and beheadings on prisoners is not breaking any law of that country indeed what he does to the people is sanctioned by that country. Likewise with the Hindu God and his system of rebirth.

    “is evidence or NOT is the question here…I am giving a possible explanation of how evil can exist consistent with presence of a perfect God.” This God needs to provide evidence, just like a human judge needs to provide evidence. Otherwise he doesn’t exist or is evil.

    “Now, a woman being imprisoned…..if the soul of the woman raped for 24 years did similar crime of raping another woman in past life as a man, then it is ONLY justified that this soul undergo the experience to see the suffering of the other. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth….Punishment is proportional to the crime committed….So there is justification…..Now you can claim there (NOT **Their**, do you get it) is NO evidence blah blah….but nothing logically/morally inconsistent with a belief in a perfect God.” You are confirming what I wrote two messages up. It means you won’t show empathy to such people as you believe there suffering is divine justice from God. And yes your God does need to provide evidence for this doctrine. Let’s see the claims. 1) God is all good. 2) God is morally perfect being. 3) The observable fact that innocent people suffer. 4) Hindus claim such people are not innocent but being punished for past life sins. 5) An all good/morally perfect God would have a duty to provide evidence that they have committed crimes and their suffering fits the crime and is justified. Their is no evidence for past life sins, and all good people do not accuse people of crimes without evidence (this is a behaviour of evil people in fact). 6) Since Hindus don’t believe their God is evil and their is no evidence innocent people are being punished for past life sins it follows their God doesn’t exist.

    “A judge punishing as per deeds of a person is NOT at fault here…A judge neither enjoys torturing anybody nor is overwhelmed by attachments to criminals. He does his duty with detachment.” You don’t get it. 1)Their is no evidence of a cosmic judge (“God”). 2) Their is no evidence of reincarnation and past life sins. 3) This false belief kills empathy and promotes hatred for the most unfortunate people and thus is an evil doctrine. So it very much matters that their is no evidence for this delusion, since this false doctrine has an effect on the real world.

    “He is a perfect God….He is self-satisfied by definition….He does NOT enjoy” How do you know he does not enjoy? You know what “God” thinks? Don’t claim to know things you have no possibility of knowing.

    3) Consciousness/soul – I notice you didn’t respond on this. 1)Theirs no point saying people don’t lose consciousness as their is evidence that this happens. 2) Consciousness/ thoughts are dependent on a functioning brain. When brain dies so does the personality. It does not go floating of into cats and dogs and new born babies. 3) Their is a mountain of evidence that the brain is the seat of personality/mind. 4) The personality by the time it gets to the “new life” loses its very identity. This means rebirth doesn’t happen and again is nothing but a fantasy.

  109. why? says:

    Correction to conclusion (1)

    CONCLUSION:

    (1.) If the set “all(t)” is infinite, then there must exist at the least one subset of “all(t)” that must be infinite. This argument clearly shows the fallacy of your belief that only “ALL” can be infinite and fallacy of the claim ‘if a subset of “all” is infinite, then the subset is the set “all” itself’.

  110. why? says:

    +!+Steve,

    It is crystal clear to me you are one dumb ass idiot of the first order…..

    So I am going to stick to one point at a time to prove you are an imbecile moron of first order…

    Now….

    Consider the “all” which you were talking about. Let us represent it as a set…Are you aware of what is a set? Hope you finished some basic math during your schooling….

    Universal set, “ALL” = {space + time + all forms of matter (over all time) + all phenomenon or events (over all time) + all spiritual entities (lets assume here they exist) + any other entity/thing that can exist}
    This set has dissimilar elements. Observe also that I have included all things/events in existence over all time, as time itself is an element of Universal set.

    Universal set at time “t”, “ALL(t)” = {space(t) + all forms of matter (t) + all phenomenon or events (t) + all spiritual entities (lets assume here they exist at time “t”) + any other entity/thing that can exist at time “t”}

    Your Claim:

    Only Universal set “ALL” is infinite and unbounded……

    You also claimed that chain of causes or events are without beginning.

    DEFINITION OF INFINITE SET:

    What is the meaning when you say a set is infinite?

    It implies that the SET has infinite number of elements in simple terms. In mathematical terms, you can choose any natural number and find a subset whose cardinality (number of elements of subset) is that natural number.

    The definition only says that if the “ALL” is infinite, then definitely the total number of elements of “all” are infinite.

    KNOWN FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS:

    Space is single continuous entity. It can be finite or infinite. Lets leave it at this.

    Time is a subset of “all”. Lets not go into its nature anymore than required here…..This subset can be represented as {set of all real numbers}, which is itself an infinite set.

    Lets assume there are finite number/amount of “things or matter” and also finite number of “events” in existence at a time “t” in “all(t)”.

    ANALYSIS:

    If every subset of Universal set “all” is finite, then the Universal set is also finite. So there must be infinite number of elements in at the least one subset, in order to make a set infinite. This point itself disproves your claim that “all” can be infinite, while all its subsets are finite.

    Now the above argument will hold true, even if you were to assume the Universal set “all(t)” at a particular time “t”, which includes ONLY the “things” and “events” that exist at a particular time “t”.

    Universal set at time “t”, “ALL(t)” = {space(t) + all forms of matter (t) + all phenomenon or events (t) + all spiritual entities (lets assume here they exist at time “t”) + any other entity/thing that can exist at time “t”}

    So there must be at the least infinite number of “things” at time “t” or infinite number of events at time “t” or such similar subsets. Hence the claim that ONLY “all” is infinite and its subsets cannot be infinite is a fallacious illogical claim.

    Now lets consider the set “all” over all time.

    If we go back to the original argument where you claimed that everything has a cause and therefore every cause has a cause leading to argumentum-ad-infinitum, your answer was “chain of causes” are without beginning. Since you claimed that “chain of causes” are without beginning, IT IMPLIES

    (a.) “chain of causes” are without beginning.

    (b.) What ever “chain of things” results from “chain of causes” are without beginning.

    (c.) Both (a.) and (b.) cannot occur without “Space” existing without beginning.

    (d.) (a.), (b.) and (c.) cannot occur without “Time” being an infinite set without any beginning, i.e.
    time = {set of all real numbers} = {-infinity,……,0,………..+infinity} with all real numbers in between –infinity and +infinity

    So from (a.) “chain of causes”, (b.) “chain of things, (c.) “Space” and (d.) “Time”, we can conclude all four subsets cannot have beginning and each of the subsets are infinite by themselves.

    CONCLUSION:

    (1.) If the set “all(t)” is infinite, then number of elements of “all(t)” must be infinite. This argument clearly shows the fallacy of your belief that only “ALL” can be infinite and fallacy of the claim ‘if a subset of “all” is infinite, then the subset is the set “all” itself’

    (2.) If the set “all” is infinite, then “space”, “chain of causes over all time”, “chain of things in existence over all time”, “time which are all subsets of the Universal set “all”, are also infinite, and particularly without any beginning.

    (3.) If you have any infinite set, you can pick any subset of the infinite set by simply deleting some finite number of elements and still the subset will be infinite. Subtracting a finite number from infinity does NOT make infinity finite. This argument also shows the stupidity of your claim that only the “all” can be infinite or without beginning.

    If these subsets are without beginning and infinite, then so can the souls be without beginning and be infinite in number.

    I hope you get it now Steve. If you do NOT respond to this by understanding my arguments properly, then do NOT bother for my replies anymore. I do NOT want to continue arguments with imbeciles.

  111. why? says:

    +!+!+Steve,

    It is crystal clear to me you are one dumb ass idiot of the first order…..

    So I am going to stick to one point at a time to prove you are an imbecile moron of first order…

    Now….

    Consider the “all” which you were talking about. Let us represent it as a set…Are you aware of what is a set? Hope you finished some basic math during your schooling….

    Universal set, “ALL” = {space + time + all forms of matter (over all time) + all phenomenon or events (over all time) + all spiritual entities (lets assume here they exist) + any other entity/thing that can exist}

    This set has dissimilar elements. Observe also that I have included all things/events in existence over all time, as time itself is an element of Universal set.

    Your Claim:

    Only Universal set “ALL” is infinite and unbounded……

    You also claimed that chain of causes or events are without beginning.

    DEFINITION OF INFINITE SET:

    What is the meaning when you say a set is infinite?

    It implies that the SET has infinite number of elements in simple terms. In mathematical terms, you can chose any natural number and find a subset whose cardinality (number of elements of subset) is that natural number.

    The definition only says that if the “ALL” is infinite, then definitely the number of elements of all are infinite.

    KNOWN FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS:

    Space is single continuous entity. It can be finite or infinite. Lets leave it at this.

    Time is a subset of “all”. Lets not go into its nature anymore than required here…..

    Lets assume there are finite number/amount of “things or matter” and also finite number of “events” in existence at a time in “all”.

    ANALYSIS:

    If every element of Universal set “all” is finite in number, then the Universal set is also finite. So there must be infinite number of elements in order to make a set infinite. This point itself disproves your claim that “all” can be infinite, while its elements or all of its subsets are finite.

    Now the above argument will hold true, even if you were to assume the Universal set “all(t)” at a particular time “t”, which includes ONLY the “things” and “events” that exist at a particular time “t”.

    Now lets consider the set “all” over all time.

    Since you claimed that “chain of causes” are without beginning, IT IMPLIES

    (a.) “chain of causes” are without beginning.

    (b.) What ever “chain of things” results from “chain of causes” are without beginning.

    (c.) Both (a.) and (b.) cannot occur without “Space” existing without beginning.

    (d.) (a.), (b.) and (c.) cannot occur without “Time”.

    So from (a.) “chain of causes”, (b.) “chain of things, (c.) “Space” and (d.) “Time”, we can conclude all four subsets cannot have beginning and each of the subsets are infinite by themselves.

    CONCLUSION:

    (1.) If the set “all(t)” is infinite, then number of elements of “all(t)” must be infinite. This argument clearly shows the fallacy of your belief that only “ALL” can be infinite.

    (2.) If the set “all” is infinite, then “space”, “chain of causes over all time”, “chain of things in existence over all time”, “time which are all subsets of the Universal set “all”, are also infinite, and particularly without any beginning.

    If these subsets are without beginning and infinite, then so can the souls be without beginning and be infinite in number.

    I hope you get it now Steve. If you do NOT respond to this by understanding my arguments properly, then do NOT bother for my replies anymore. I do NOT want to continue arguments with imbeciles.

  112. why? says:

    +++!Steve,

    You are just wasting my time without understanding the basics of what I have said.

    “According to you if a person suffers they are an evil person who is getting punished for “past life sins. “So don’t try to lie about it and bullshit me with this “lack of knowledge” codswallop.”

    You are one stupid fellow who does NOT understand what is even an intrinsic property? An intrinsically evil soul and an intrinsically good soul who temporarily under the influence of bad karma does evil deeds are two different things. DO you understand the difference?

    “People who are suffering are EVIL according to you this is Gods divine justice on the evil people. So people like fritz daughter are “pigs wallowing in stool infested water”, who deserve no empathy. And then you wonder why Christians and Muslims attack this evil doctrine while trying to convert Hindus and promote their own religions.”

    I never said that Fritz daughter is a pig wallowing in water….You are a freaking moron wasting my time again….You do NOT understand simple analogies and logic……

    The pig wallowing in stool infested water is an analogy for an intrinsically evil soul. Just like pigs enjoy dirty stool infested water, so do the intrinsically evil souls enjoy evil deeds and immorality. So that is their intrinsic property.

    Do you get it?

    “1) **Their** is no evidence their is a judge. 2)**Their** no evidence the most unfortunate people are criminals. 3) **Their** is definitely no evidence of past life sins. 4) **Their** is no justification being offered for example a women being Imprisoned, raped, and impregnated by her father for 24 years. This means 1)Your god doesn’t exist 2)He is evil and sadist.3)He doesn’t care whether humans suffer or not and this all some strange experiment he set up for whatever reason.”

    Are you from West or are you from some other part of the world? I have an inkling of doubt that you are some Buddhist fellow. It is clear that your first language is definitely NOT English….

    First of all, your English is way off and incorrect……

    Second, if there (NOT **Their**, do you get it) is evidence or NOT is the question here…I am giving a possible explanation of how evil can exist consistent with presence of a perfect God.

    Now, a woman being imprisoned…..if the soul of the woman raped for 24 years did similar crime of raping another woman in past life as a man, then it is ONLY justified that this soul undergo the experience to see the suffering of the other. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth….Punishment is proportional to the crime committed….So there is justification…..Now you can claim there (NOT **Their**, do you get it) is NO evidence blah blah….but nothing logically/morally inconsistent with a belief in a perfect God.

    “How do you know he doesn’t enjoy seeing people suffer?”

    dah…He is a perfect God….He is self-satisfied by definition….He does NOT enjoy…..Now unless you prove that this proposition of perfect God punishing souls committing evil deeds is impossible logically or morally, you have NO point.

    “Their is no possibility you can know that he doesn’t look down and smile. Furthermore if he is bothered about it why does he do it then? And don’t say souls cause it, because you said God puts the souls in that position and knows what’s going to happen.”

    Yes…God puts the souls in that position based on their past deeds…The souls past deeds are always as per their intrinsic nature….there you go….the locus of fault finally rests on the soul.

    “In addition you also said God causes the natural disaster. Your claim that I am the one assuming something which does not exist is a very funny statement from you the believer in past life sins.”

    A judge punishing as per deeds of a person is NOT at fault here…A judge neither enjoys torturing anybody nor is overwhelmed by attachments to criminals. He does his duty with detachment.

  113. Steve says:

    Why
    “No….if it is known that a soul itself is evil, then no good soul will show it empathy. One does NOT show empathy to a pig wallowing in stool infected water. That is its nature. I said in the event of lack of knowledge of the good soul, the default is empathy…” According to you if a person suffers they are an evil person who is getting punished for “past life sins. “So don’t try to lie about it and bullshit me with this “lack of knowledge” codswallop.

    “.An intrinsically good soul regardless of its actions needs to be directed towards the good path and they deserve empathy, for it is a temporary condition” People who are suffering are EVIL according to you this is Gods divine justice on the evil people. So people like fritz daughter are “pigs wallowing in stool infested water”, who deserve no empathy. And then you wonder why Christians and Muslims attack this evil doctrine while trying to convert Hindus and promote their own religions.
    “If a judge gives punishment to criminals, does he do it because of hi liking to induce suffering in the criminal? .” 1) Their is no evidence their is a judge. 2)Their no evidence the most unfortunate people are criminals. 3) Their is definitely no evidence of past life sins. 4) Their is no justification being offered for example a women being Imprisoned, raped, and impregnated by her father for 24 years. This means 1)Your god doesn’t exist 2)He is evil and sadist.3)He doesn’t care whether humans suffer or not and this all some strange experiment he set up for whatever reason.

    ” It is stupidity on your part to assume something that which does NOT exist.” How do you know he doesn’t enjoy seeing people suffer? Their is no possibility you can know that he doesn’t look down and smile. Furthermore if he is bothered about it why does he do it then? And don’t say souls cause it, because you said God puts the souls in that position and knows what’s going to happen. In addition you also said God causes the natural disaster. Your claim that I am the one assuming something which does not exist is a very funny statement from you the believer in past life sins.

    By the way if you continue this discussion it would be easier to start im new (as the length of these messages is now very long) So our topics are
    1)Consciousness/soul
    2)Beginning lessness/ causality / acausality
    3)Past lives and divine justice.

  114. Steve says:

    Why
    “There you go….so until now you have been claiming everything has a cause, but suddenly you declare that some property emerges independent of any property of interacting individual constituents. In other words you believe in magic. ” Nowhere did I say it emerges independently.

    “All Science says it “seems” to emerge from the brain…There is NOT one single property (leave biology, life and consciousness) in physics that says some property emerged independent of the properties of interacting particles. So consciousness cannot be an emergent property.” Following that reasoning it would mean a musical instrument couldn’t produce music (a particular pattern of sound).

    “Consciousness is a property and therefore it must arise from a thing or belong to a thing…This is the soul.” Even though you just said consciousness cannot be an emergent property? Yes it can emerge from the soul (whatever the hell that is) but it can’t emerge from the brain and the physical world? Got it.

    “Call it what you want…but soul does NOT change.” The self changes, you don’t even define w what “soul” is therefore all your talk about soul is nonsense. By the way the all causes consciousness so if you mean by soul “what causes consciousness” then by soul you must mean the all.

    “It is NOT known as such. You claim this as the fact.” Take LSD and see what happens. So itis known, you are making things up again.
    “If merel chemical cause consciousness, why is a brain required?” Why does a laser beam require the laser? Your question is nonsensical.
    “Can these chemical cause consciousness without a brain?” Can a laser beam exist without the laser?
    “You are making empty meaningless statements.” No you are making meaningless statements.
    “The link I provided shows that even the so called coma patient has consciousness by the brain scans.” That’s why your own link said they wasn’t conscious?
    ” First the memory was stimulated and then the awareness was “triggered”, NOT came into existence.” Fool if I type or “trigger” a letter or word was the word in existence before I typed it? No you fool it did not exist before it existed, likewise those people where not conscious before their awareness was “triggered” by their long term memory circuits being stimulated.
    “The awareness was merely “triggered”. You trigger an engine which exists already. Similarly the awareness is triggered here by memories, which was triggered by sound waves.” Your car is not running when it’s switched off, likewise the consciousness was not “running” before it was “switched on”.

    “You still do NOT have any explanation as to how consciousness arose independent of intrinsic properties of interacting matter” Nowhere have I claimed it arose independently this is your bullshit which you have made up.
    “You are deceptively quoting only half of what I say. I asked you are the “sequence of causes” or “sequence of things created by cause” a subset of the “all”. You said yes.” The “sequence of causes” is infinite, they are not a “subset” of the all. In other words those sequence of events is the (infinite) past history of the universe, “the past history of the universe” is the same as the all.
    “if you claim sequence of causes or sequence of things caused by “all” are beginning-less, then so can its constituents be beginning-less” The infinite past isn’t caused. The infinite past is not a particular moment in time.

    “Sequence of causes” is subset of “all”. This sequence occurred in “all” and therefore subset.” No it’s not “sequence of causes” or “past history of the universe” is same as the all. For example if I say something was caused by the past history of the universe that’s the same as saying it was caused by the all.

    “A phenomenon is NOT a thing. An event is NOT the “things” its creates” An event is made up of things, event is the label we give to a collection of things that happen. For example a car crash is just a collection of things interacting a certain way which we then call “car crash” which is an event.

    “Since we can form a set of “beginning-less chain of causes or phenomenon or events without the things these causes create”, then a subset of Universe is without beginning.” You are talking about the whole chain and not a part of the chain.
    “You have failed to understand this simple statement for last 10 messages. Since the subset of “all” is without beginning, so can the souls be without beginning.” No you have failed to understand that a part of the chain is a part and cannot be a whole.

    “Read above…..Since there are at the least two subsets of “all” that is without beginning, so can te souls be without beginning.” No souls are part of the chain whether that chain is for example “the universe up to ten minutes ago” or “the universe from ten minutes ago until the present moment”. The first ‘chain” is without beginning (since the past is infinite) but the second is not. How can soul be the beginning less chain of causes or events? That would mean it would have to include the entire universe which would mean it’s another name for the all.
    ” Actually all things in existence are without beginning.” Only in the sense that they a part of the all.

    “Why?” Because theirs nothing that could possibly cause it.

    “The “all” which is made of all the “things” in existence is a thing as well…” It’s not a thing.

    “A beginning-less finite and bounded thing does NOT create itself. It is always in existence” Which is the as saying it created itself. Beginning-less finite bounded thing is a contradiction in Terms.

    “So no problem of anything creating itself here as it has no beginning.” If it had no beginning then that means it created itself, if “ice” is created by “previous ice” it means it created itself since it has never changed and has always existed.
    “If you claim a finite and bounded object must have a beginning, because it is finite and bounded, this claim of yours is insufficient reason.” That’s why we call it finite and bounded.
    “If you claim, that a finite object requires space and time to exist, I have already said that all things in nature like space, time, matter, souls etc. are all without beginning.” Ganges river is without beginning? Your computer is without beginning? The only way they are without beginning is in the ultimate sense that they are part of the all. A thing with a particular nature and form needs a cause with which to create that nature and boundaries. It can’t get out of its own existence to create its self.
    “If you claim that chaos will result without cause, this claim of yours is also answered by saying that from beginning-less time all things in existence obey law of causality and laws of physics and any other laws. Thus here is no loss of order in existence.” Eh? How can anything arise without cause if the law of causality is in operation? The law of causality says everything needs a cause, and that cause can’t be itself as that would mean it would be uncaused.
    “So you do NOT have sufficient reasons for your claim that finite bounded objects in this fraework is impossible logically.” All “things” are the same in the sense that they are all “things”. The quality of all things is that they are born and die. Without birth nothing would die and without death nothing would be born. Since things are born and die it means that they are not without beginning.
    “Cyclical argument….You assume only the “all” is without beginning and then conclude the same, just like christians and islamists do..” It has to be without beginning, since their is nothing that can have caused it. While everything else – which is subject to law of causality- has to have a cause of its identity, which means it can’t be beginning-less.

    “What makes you think it is NOT possible.” Because NEW THINGS come into existence they don’t just exist forever. For example a ice cube has not existed forever, it’s a conditioned phenomenon that is dependent on conditions and when those conditions necessary for the existence of that ice cube no longer exist the ice cube ceases to exist. This is reality. Where is your evidence that anything – let alone everything – is beginning-less? And it’s existence can’t be brought to an end? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and you don’t have any evidence for me to think minds or anything else are “beginning-less”. So no the logic says it’s not possible and you have no evidence to think is possible. You are no different to Christians who start out with a creator God and don’t bother to ask how they God got their, you likewise start out with “soul” and don’t bother to ask how that soul got their. “Soul can only come from previous soul” is no different to believing ice can only come from previous ice.

    “I am claiming all components of the “all” (space, time, matter, souls etc.) have no beginning just as the “all” also has no beginning. Logically, one cannot imagine an “all” without any component of “all” in any of its forms.” Your computer has a beginning and everything we observe has a beginning, therefore your belief is false. Nothing can create its own self.

    “What sufficient reason will logically explain the moral failure of punishing an innocent being for faults of others? None…A completely innocent being cannot be punished for moral failure of others. This is immoral. You are bullshitting with a forked tongue again” How do you know their is no sufficient reason? it’s logically possible he has good reasons just like it’s logically possible a father who terrorises his family is in fact a good father with good moral reasons for his behaviour. This is what you was arguing before, now are you saying something different you forked tongued bullshiter.

    “On the other hand, it is logically possible and moral to say that a soul suffers because of the evil deeds it did in past” You say that only because it’s your belief. Your God Inflicts horrendous amounts of suffering on people and provides no evidence they have done anything in any “past life”. This God is evil.

    “God simply removed the protection here for the soul who did wrong.” No he set the situation up.

    “No for the actions of Fritz…as Fritz is doing an action that is wrong out of his own lust and lack of morality in him” You are lying again to try to protect your evil doctrine, in your belief he is carrying out Gods sentence on an evil person their is nothing wrong in his behaviour. This is like an executioner has done nothing wrong by exciting a criminal sentenced to death in a country where death penalty is legal. It doesn’t matter what his reasons for being an executioner are or if he enjoys killing the criminals or not, the fact is his behaviour is not illegal and is in fact sanctioned by the state.
    “Not at all… God gives results as per the actions of the soul in past lives…..One who gets punished for their evil deeds is NOT getting injustice” God has given no evidence they fritz daughter committed horrific evil in a past life. A morally perfect being would have a moral duty to provide the evidence. He hasn’t which means he either doesn’t exist or he is evil.

    “A judge need NOT provide evidence for anybody outside his court system. The court carries out the punishment for those who deserve it, whether you agree with it or not. The justice system has no need to disclose it to you, and if it does discloses it to you, it is when you approach the justice system within the parameters and conditions it sets.” The judge himself is subject to the law of the land (just like everybody else). A judge sentencing people to truly horrific punishments would have to provide evidence. A judge that sentenced people to suffer truly horrific levels of cruelty without providing any evidence at all that they are guilty of any crime is an insane sadistic malignant narcissist to the most extreme degree. And would be banned from practicing in any civilised country and himself would be charged with crimes against humanity. Your God is a sadistic malignant narcissist.

    “Similarly for God. The way to approach God for reasons is through yoga. There is no other way.” Your own imagination then, because that’s what’s needed to believe in crazy shit like reincarnation, beginning less souls and past life sins and of course gods having “sufficient reasons” for not providing evidence to explain all the suffering.

    . “In case of Islam, there is neither past deed of souls nor any other sufficient reason other than that they are unbelievers. ” How do you know their isn’t a sufficient reason? Allah is omniscient apparently and hence his knowledge is infinite while you are seeing virtually nothing of the entire picture either in this life or in the eternal afterlife.

    “Besides Allah knowingly created unbeievers ex-nihilo in Islam destining them for hell. So clearly there is no sufficient reason, unlike the Hindu belief.” It’s *logically possible* that Allah has good reasons for destined them to hell. How can you disprove that? You can’t.

    “Absolutely possible, just like the case of Fritz.” Rather it MUST be the case given your belief and not a possibility.

    “This is your limited thinking. In 4-D space-time continuum, Universe has a boundary.” The all doesn’t have any boundary for reasons I gave before.

    “So nobody has observed this so called “all” and yet you believe it exists without any sufficient reason.” That fact we exists means existence or the all exists. You are trying to say something clever and failing miserably.

    “However, you blindly reject existence of souls even with sufficient reason.” You don’t even define what you mean by soul so how can I reject it? This is like Christians who talk about “rejecting” their God when they don’t even define their God and don’t know themselves what they mean by “God” – and the reason you don’t define your “soul” is because it is something that you “feel” just like Christians “feel” there God, which is because no thinking is place and it is not based on any coherent idea.

    “NO…..order means behaving as per laws of physics…..laws of physics can be obeyed from beginning-less time and hence order would be preserved from beginning-less time.” Acausal means coming into being from nothing, you was speaking here from sciences theory of Big Bang theory which says “our” universe had a beginning. Nothing means nothing, laws being in existence is not “nothing” nothing means absence of literally everything. No matter, no minds, no God beings, no laws, no potential, no nothing.

    “No evidence for your claim, despite showing examples….You are an idiot.” A thing = a thing which is finite and bounded. The all – the totality of all existent things. A thing has to have boundary, that what it means to exist to have a particular nature and identity. You are talking utter bullshit, someone who believes consciousness can’t ever not be conscious, someone who doesn’t believe anything can have a beginning, someone who believes suffering is the result of past life sins and can’t be due to ordinary cause and effect, that the self is permanent and unchanging, and you why who believes in all this impossible, insane and fantasy bullshit has the cheek to call others idiot.

    “All of the things in nature, namely matter, space, souls, time etc. can be without any beginning” Where the evidence anything *can be* without beginning? All things arise due to conditions which allow them to arise and then ends when those conditions are taken away. What you believe is a fantasy.

    “No…space is everywhere…..Nothing can exist without space for all things exist in space…” So it’s another word for the all then.
    “Stupid assertions” Part of the all – limited and finite, The all – Infinite, unbounded. One necessarily has beginning while the other cannot.

    “Who said anything created itself..I said it is without any beginning.” Which is the same as saying it created itself. For example what is the cause of “why”, you belief says “why” that is causing itself. You don’t even realise the implications of your bullshit because as I said you don’t know what you talking about and no thinking has done into any of these ideas.

    “No…there is no such logical necessity…..Who said that? you ….” Yes these is, what caused for example whys belief in reincarnation? He has this belief for a reason – and that reason is not “why” himself as Mr why will notice if he actually can do some thinking, he doesn’t know the reason why he has that belief. That reason is not of his making. Also notice your belief in soul is exactly identical to the Christian belief in a self caused “free will” – even though you claim not to believe in free will.

    “Now that is a strawman and it is irrelevant here what cause created the radioactive substance.” We already now some of the causes, just like we know some of the causes of this message – such as oxygen in the brain. Since their are already causes we know, It means it can’t be uncaused nor can something be “partial uncaused”.

    “What I said is the radioactivity of substance is caused by the instability within the atom and there is NO immediate cause for radioactivity outside of it. Similarly the Universe can have causes within it for it to have a beginning.” It entirely depends on outside causes. This is no different to believing your car can start itself without any outside cause.
    “Similarly the Universe can have causes within it for it to have a beginning.” If their are causes within it it means it already existed.

    “Personality is NOt consciousness” Personality is the “I” that thinks so it is consciousness.

    “Because it is the soul that is aware, we can be aware without the body.” No you can’t, for example you can’t be aware of this message without your eyeballs. No senses means no awareness of your body and environment then you have no consciousness as that what it means to be conscious – to be aware of something.

    “You are still asserting that your assertions are facts. You do NOT know it as a fact.” Consciousness needs an object of consciousness. If I had nothing to be aware of – like this message and the environment I am in – I wouldn’t be conscious.

    “Because we have consciousness which a robot does not possess” We are robots and yet we possess it.

    “….What is a “Darwinian program”?” A program that instructs an organism to behave in a certain way. In the case of humans our “programs” are intelligence, awareness, social interactions, intentions and planning etc.

    “It exists…that is why oone reacts to sounds in sleep…” That are not reacting when they are asleep. You wouldn’t able be to wake up if you was in fact already awake.

    Sel-awareness is awareness of one’s existene….not social identity” You can’t be self aware if “you” don’t exist.

    “When you say a person kicked the bucket, do you take it literally?” If you say a person is dead or unconscious or has gone insane and lost their mind do you take it literally? Yes sane people usually do, except of course if it disproves their religious belief then they might say all sorts of silly things to deny the obvious.

    “Nature does NOT create clones…..So it is irrelevant…” In the future it’s probably going to happen will you then be claiming their are 2 whys or whatever are in existence just because they have same DNA?

    “similarly there are NO cloned souls…” How do you know? This belief wouldn’t be based on blind faith and not science and reason by any chance would it?

  115. why? says:

    Steve Says:

    “yet your *all good* God likes to inflict extreme amount of suffering on them. Interesting.””

    If a judge gives punishment to criminals, does he do it because of hi liking to induce suffering in the criminal? It is stupidity on your part to assume something that which does NOT exist.

  116. why? says:

    +!+Steve Says:

    “So “good souls” have empathy even for people they believe are evil, yet your *all good* God likes to inflict extreme amount of suffering on them. Interesting.”

    No….if it is known that a soul itself is evil, then no good soul will show it empathy. One does NOT show empathy to a pig wallowing in stool infected water. That is its nature. I said in the event of lack of knowledge of the good soul, the default is empathy…

    Now God is omniscient. So He gives the results as per soul’s intrinsic nature and deeds of the souls. If a good soul is punished for his/her misdeed, He also guides them to salvation after the punishment.

    “According to you if a person suffers it must because of “past life sins”. So you must be lying here to protect your belief from being shown to be the evil doctrine that it is. Or otherwise you must withdraw your claim and give up your belief that suffering is due to evil committed in past lives. Which means your whole claim about “karma” being divine justice is absolute nonsense.”

    No…not necessarily…..An intrinsically good soul regardless of its actions needs to be directed towards the good path and they deserve empathy, for it is a temporary condition. All spouls are subject to temporary conditions. This empathy extends to even intrinsically mixed souls, for they are NOT completely evil. The only exception is the evil soul. They deserve no empathy at any time for they are like pigs wallowing in stool infested water.

  117. why? says:

    +++!+!Steve Says:

    “f I break a CD the information contained in it is gone – so far as we can tell. Same for consciousness when the hardware – the physical brain – is destroyed the information or consciousness stored in that brain is gone – so far as we can tell.”

    I did NOT declare complete equivalence between software and soul. It is an analogy.

    “There is none” Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of the brain.” “The position of science – based on a mountain of evidence – is that consciousness is a emergent property of brain function.” “Science doesn’t say consciousness arises independently of the brain. Indeed the science says that mind appears to “emerge” from the brain.”

    There you go….so until now you have been claiming everything has a cause, but suddenly you declare that some property emerges independent of any property of interacting individual constituents.

    In other words you believe in magic. All Science says it “seems” to emerge from the brain…There is NOT one single property (leave biology, life and consciousness) in physics that says some property emerged independent of the properties of interacting particles. So consciousness cannot be an emergent property.

    “Consciousness can’t be aware of its self, it needs something other than its self to be aware of. Just like a finger tip can’t touch itself.”

    I never said Soul is consciousness. I said Soul has the property of consciousness, just like an electron possesses charge as its intrinsic property.

    “You can call consciousness whatever you what to.”

    Consciousness is a property and therefore it must arise from a thing or belong to a thing…This is the soul.

    “I will call it material because it interacts with the matter and is effected by it. I don’t see any basis for the claim that consciousness is “immaterial”.”

    Call it what you want…but soul does NOT change.

    “Anaesthetic destroys awareness.” If it destroys awareness, it cannot arise again. The potential is still there.

    “Okay how can we test for this soul? If such test is not possible then it means soul belief is pseudoscience.”

    Electrons were NOT discovered by one single day. It is a series of experiments followed by measurement of its properties that lead to proposal that it exists. Until this day nobody has observed electron as such, yet it is accepted to exist based on its properties and phenomenon it exhibits at macro-level. So something similar has to be done to discover existence of souls. We know consciousness is the macro phenomenon which has no explanation based on mere known material properties.

    “It is known that consciousness is chemicals in the brain. Physically tamper with the brain and the consciousness changes, destroy the brain and the person consciousness no longer exists – as thoughts are dependent on a functioning brain.”

    It is NOT known as such. You claim this as the fact. What chemicals in brain cause consciousness? If merel chemical cause consciousness, why is a brain required? Can these chemical cause consciousness without a brain? You are making empty meaningless statements.

    “The “souls” are mixing together, for example something of your “soul” is going into my “soul”, their is no permanent self or soul the Buddha demonstrated this to the foolish Hindus of his time.”

    Let Buddha say whatever he wants. That is his claim, which need not be true at all which foolish atheists like you do NOT understand. The souls do NOT mix.

    “The FACT that things such as anaesthetic knocks out the consciousness, and that brain dead people are not conscious, this is a fact not assertion. Also your link says”

    The link I provided shows that even the so called coma patient has consciousness by the brain scans.

    ““We believe hearing those stories in parents’ and siblings’ voices exercises the circuits in the brain responsible for long-term memories,” Pape explained. “That stimulation helped trigger the first glimmer of awareness” First glimmer of awareness? You read that mister why? It means that before those voices stated having an effect on long term memory circuits the person was not conscious. Also why do you think it needs to stimulate the circuits responsible for long term memory? It’s because thinking/consciousness cannot place without memory. So stop wasting my time with proving links that actually CONFIRM what I am saying.”

    So you agree Mr. Steeve that consciousness and memory are two different phenomenon or properties in brain. You just proved my case :). First the memory was stimulated and then the awareness was “triggered”, NOT came into existence. The awareness was merely “triggered”. You trigger an engine which exists already. Similarly the awareness is triggered here by memories, which was triggered by sound waves.

    “Software is dependent on hardware, so is the consciousness or *soul*.”

    Foolish assertion. You still do NOT have any explanation as to how consciousness arose independent of intrinsic properties of interacting matter. You made a foolish claim about emergent property, a property arising independent of properties of interacting individual particles. Leaving biology outside (that includes consciousness and questions of life), give me an example of emergent property in material which operated independent of intrinsic properties of individual particles?

    “No part of the all is infinite – by definition.”

    You are deceptively quoting only half of what I say. I asked you are the “sequence of causes” or “sequence of things created by cause” a subset of the “all”. You said yes.

    if you claim sequence of causes or sequence of things caused by “all” are beginning-less, then so can its constituents be beginning-less.

    “Their is no possibility that any part of the all is infinite, so it’s not possible for the self or anything else to be infinite.”

    “Sequence of causes” is subset of “all”. This sequence occurred in “all” and therefore subset.

    “No the all is the infinite chain of causes, it is not a part of the chain but the totality of it. No subset of the all can be without beginning so no it’s no possible for *souls* to be without beginning.” “Their is no exception to the rule that the only possibly “thing” without beginning is the all.” If the sequence is infinite then it’s just another name for the all.”

    Infinite chain of causes are the phenomenon occurring in all. The causes need NOT include the things that result from the causes, although things can be included.

    A phenomenon is NOT a thing. An event is NOT the “things” its creates. Since we can form a set of “beginning-less chain of causes or phenomenon or events without the things these causes create”, then a subset of Universe is without beginning. You have failed to understand this simple statement for last 10 messages. Since the subset of “all” is without beginning, so can the souls be without beginning.

    “No all bounded things – such as souls or the Ganges river or your computer or whatever – must by logical necessity have a beginning – otherwise they wouldn’t be bounded, and the only “thing” that is not bounded – again by logical necessity – is the all.”

    Read above…..Since there are at the least two subsets of “all” that is without beginning, so can te souls be without beginning. Actually all things in existence are without beginning.

    “The all is not a thing that “happens”. It cannot be caused because their is nothing “else” that can possibly cause it. I shouldn’t need to repeat that again I have made that point a number of times now.”

    Why? The “all” which is made of all the “things” in existence is a thing as well…You make Illogical nonsense claims.

    “Since a thing necessarily is finite and bounded and a thing can’t create its self it follows it must have a cause/beginning.” “Rather I have proven it 1)A finite bounded thing needs something “else” to create it boundaries and nature. 2)If anything happened without cause no order would be possible in the universe, since their is order it means nothing happens without cause.”

    A beginning-less finite and bounded thing does NOT create itself. It is always in existence. So no problem of anything creating itself here as it has no beginning.

    If you claim a finite and bounded object must have a beginning, because it is finite and bounded, this claim of yours is insufficient reason.

    If you claim, that a finite object requires space and time to exist, I have already said that all things in nature like space, time, matter, souls etc. are all without beginning.

    If you claim that chaos will result without cause, this claim of yours is also answered by saying that from beginning-less time all things in existence obey law of causality and laws of physics and any other laws. Thus here is no loss of order in existence.

    So you do NOT have sufficient reasons for your claim that finite bounded objects in this fraework is impossible logically.

    “If a thing didn’t have a beginning it wouldn’t be a thing but the all.”

    Cyclical argument….You assume only the “all” is without beginning and then conclude the same, just like christians and islamists do..

    “A uncaused thing couldn’t be subject or constrained by anything – by definition. For example you could gets frogs popping into being in the quantum realm. Or a physical mouse suddenly appearing in your brain. Those kinds of things would be happening all the time – since nothing can constrain an uncaused event – by definition.”

    No…….First of all, an event is NOT a thing. I hope you understand the difference between the two. I can agree that an uncaused event is NOT constrained.

    However, to suggest that some “thing” is without beginning is NOT the same as saying some event is uncaused. There is NO bloody event whatsoever, when you say a “thing” is without beginning. When you say some “thing” has no beginning, automatically no event caused its existence suddenly as this “thing” was and is always in existence and does NOT pop into existence as the frog or rat in your brains…Do you get this simple concept….

    Now, this beginning-less “thing” from beginning-less time always obeyed the laws of causality and laws of physics….Even a beginning-less thing can be constrained by the laws of physics due to its intrinsic properties of the beginning-less thing. I gave you the hypothetical example of a beginning-less electron obeying the laws of forces due to charged particles….What makes you think it is NOT possible.

    If you claim that the “all” has come into existence then it is a different question. I am claiming all components of the “all” (space, time, matter, souls etc.) have no beginning just as the “all” also has no beginning. Logically, one cannot imagine an “all” without any component of “all” in any of its forms.

    “Remember your argument that it’s possible God can have sufficient reasons for allowing evil/suffering? Following your logic it’s logically possible that the Christian God has “sufficient reasons” for allowing Jesus to suffer and die.”

    What sufficient reason will logically explain the moral failure of punishing an innocent being for faults of others? None…A completely innocent being cannot be punished for moral failure of others. This is immoral. You are bullshitting with a forked tongue again.

    On the other hand, it is logically possible and moral to say that a soul suffers because of the evil deeds it did in past.

    “According to your belief Fritz must have been carrying out Gods divine justice on the *soul* of his daughter. God must have have brought that situation about otherwise this *divine justice* wouldn’t have taken place.”

    Both NO and YEs…..Yes for placing a soul that committed injustice in such an environment, he punishes the soul that committed evil deeds. God simply removed the protection here for the soul who did wrong.

    No for the actions of Fritz…as Fritz is doing an action that is wrong out of his own lust and lack of morality in him.

    “Yes God put the soul of Fritz daughter in that situation, therefore God is responsible for it.”

    Not at all… God gives results as per the actions of the soul in past lives…..One who gets punished for their evil deeds is NOT getting injustice.

    “God hasn’t provided any evidence of any “past life sin” on her part to deserve being raped and impregnated in a cellar for a quarter of a century. Therefore your God is either evil or doesn’t exist.” “This must mean fritz daughter must be evil, God then set up the situation that this evil soul would have punishment. However since God has provided no evidence of any “past lives” it means this God is either evil or doesn’t exist. Just like the nazis where evil because they whipped up hatred – with no evidence to support their claims – against the Jews which resulted In them being massacred.” “That’s the problem your God has provided no evidence that the likes of Fritz daughter committed evil crimes in a “past life” therefore he must be an insane and evil judge who would be thrown out of court in any civilised country.”

    A judge need NOT provide evidence for anybody outside his court system. The court carries out the punishment for those who deserve it, whether you agree with it or not. The justice system has no need to disclose it to you, and if it does discloses it to you, it is when you approach the justice system within the parameters and conditions it sets.

    Similarly for God. The way to approach God for reasons is through yoga. There is no other way.

    “t’s logically possible that God has “sufficient reasons” (remember that card you used which makes God unfalsifiable) for ordering the killing of non-believers.”

    There is no sufficient reason here, unlike the claims of past deeds of souls. I have given explicitly that the sufficient reason is past deeds of souls. In case of Islam, there is neither past deed of souls nor any other sufficient reason other than that they are unbelievers. Besides Allah knowingly created unbeievers ex-nihilo in Islam destining them for hell. So clearly there is no sufficient reason, unlike the Hindu belief.

    “Just like you claim God had “sufficient reasons” for sentencing Fritz daughter to be raped by her father for 24 years. By the way ISIS must also must carrying out divine justice on evil people even according to the Hindu view of God and afterlife.”

    Absolutely possible, just like the case of Fritz.

    “ISIS terrorists are the tools he is using to deliver his justice on evil people according to you belief.”

    In my belief, the locus of faults lie in the soul being punished, unlike Islam or christianity.

    “No it can’t be, you only share a boundary if their is something “else” to share a boundary with. In the case of the all there is nothing “else” so it’s logically impossible for the all to be bounded.”

    This is your limited thinking. In 4-D space-time continuum, Universe has a boundary.

    “The scientists are talking about the observable universe they are NOT talking about the all.”

    So nobody has observed this so called “all” and yet you believe it exists without any sufficient reason. However, you blindly reject existence of souls even with sufficient reason.

    “See above.” same here…see above…

    “If our universe came into existence without cause, no order would be possible, given that their is order their means their is a cause.”

    NO…..order means behaving as per laws of physics…..laws of physics can be obeyed from beginning-less time and hence order would be preserved from beginning-less time.

    “Something which is a part of the universe by definition can’t be unbounded.”

    No evidence for your claim, despite showing examples….You are an idiot.

    “If space is “everywhere” then it’s just another name for the all and the all by definition can’t be a part.”

    No…space is everywhere…..Nothing can exist without space for all things exist in space…

    “No all parts of the all have beginning and end, if they had no beginning and end then they would necessarily be the all and not some particular thing with a particular identity.”

    Stupid assertions…

    “A bounded finite object needs something “other” to cause its boundaries and create its nature it cannot by definition have created itself.” “The rule is they are finite things with boundaries since they can’t have created their own boundaries it means something else had to create their boundaries and nature.”

    All of the things in nature, namely matter, space, souls, time etc. can be without any beginning. Who said anything created itself..I said it is without any beginning.

    “Their is no possibility of that.” There is when it has no beginning.

    “See two messages up.”

    You also see the same..

    “No it’s a logical necessity that a finite, bounded thing has a beginning – otherwise it wouldn’t be a “thing” and would in fact be the all.”

    No…there is no such logical necessity…..Who said that? you ….

    “My “assumption” is a logical necessity, a thing which is bounded and finite by definition has to have been created/caused.”

    No…your assumption is that “your assumption is a logical necessity”.

    “Which it must do – since it cannot have created its own nature and boundaries.” There is NO must here…and who said anything created itself….If it did, it would have beginning…I said it is beginning-less…do you get it at the least now? 🙂

    “That substance depends on causes – just like everything else. Believing it decays without cause is like believing that this message I am writing is uncaused – despite the fact that I need oxygen to be going into my brain cells to be able think and write this message.”

    Now that is a strawman and it is irrelevant here what cause created the radioactive substance.

    I never said, radioactive substance has no cause for its radioactivity or nothing created this substance.

    What I said is the radioactivity of substance is caused by the instability within the atom and there is NO immediate cause for radioactivity outside of it. Similarly the Universe can have causes within it for it to have a beginning.

    “No it can’t possible change. The properties within the all can’t be applied to the all. For example evil people are part of the all, but the all its self can’t be called evil. Likewise things within the all change but the all itself hasn’t.”

    An atom consists of electrons, protons and neutrons. The mass of an atom is decidedd as the sum of the masses of individual components. Sometimes, an atom can be neutral or negatively charged or positively charged.

    Similarly, the “all” can have properties, although it changes.

    “Personality changes people, who suffer brain damage have a very personality than the one before. Or people with Alzheimers and who can’t remember most of the things in their life have a different personality therefore the “intrinsic properties” definitely do change.”

    Personality is NOt consciousness.

    “If I did not have a body I wouldn’t be aware of anything, therefore the consciousness is limited to the body. Unless you can explain how we could possible be aware of our environment without our body?”

    Because it is the soul that is aware, we can be aware without the body.

    “I am not asserting I am giving a fact and to be conscious you need to be aware of your body and the environment which you are in, without those things your you can’t be conscious.”

    You are still asserting that your assertions are facts. You do NOT know it as a fact.

    “We are robots being programmed by the universe, we are programmed by our our senses/ environmental stimuli and memory (and those things are programmed by genes and brain functions and such things). You don’t believe in free will so can you tell me how we are NOT machines?”

    Because we have consciousness which a robot does not possess.

    “Consciousness is a “Darwinian program” being run on the brain just like our sex drive and hunger and all such things are “Darwinian programs” that nature has installed in her creatures.”

    Explains nothing on awareness….What is a “Darwinian program”? Nonsense….

    “It doesn’t exist when are you in unconscious sleep. If you had no thoughts then you wouldn’t be aware of anything as the “you” – the thinking being – wouldn’t be there.”

    It exists…that is why oone reacts to sounds in sleep…

    “Since without memory their won’t be any “you” to be are aware of anything it follows it won’t remain.”

    Social identity is NOT self-aawareness….You are a waste of my time…we are NOT going anywhere…

    “If they have lost enough memories that they are not their, it means their is no “they” to be aware of anything.
    If you didn’t have thoughts “you” wouldn’t be their, which means their would be nobody to be aware of anything.”

    Sel-awareness is awareness of one’s existene….not social identity…

    “If the personality is gone then we say the person has lost their mind – and for good reason.”

    When you say a person kicked the bucket, do you take it literally?

    “It does matter because we are talking about that particular person surviving their “rebirth”. If the personality doesn’t survive the process it means they have ceased to exist.” “They are not same people, the 90 year old man has nothing or virtually nothing to do with that baby that once existed.” ”
    It can’t be identified – since it’s a completely different soul.”

    Just as DNA does NOT change for baby turned into an old man, so does the soul NOT change…

    “If you had a clone they would have the same DNA but obviously just having the same DNA and looking the same doesn’t make them the same person – they would to have the same memories and experiences also.”

    Nature does NOT create clones…..So it is irrelevant…similarly there are NO cloned souls…

  118. Steve says:

    @Why
    “A good soul regardless of the condition, does NOT enjoy suffering of others. Such good souls always help when opportunities arise as it is its intrinsic nature to empathize or show sympathy to suffering, especially when one knows they did wrong deeds. Good souls know they are as fallible as anyone due to forces of karma. Nobody knows the intrinsic nature of souls, unless one has achieved great powers through yoga. Hence the default action of good souls is always empathy and help to others, even if the other is perpetrator or the victim. Empathy is shown to victims by providing the help needed, while to the perpetrator by teaching him/her what is dharma (right) and adharma (wrong). So my belief does NOT lead to loss of empathy, but increase empathy here as he/she can understand better how things work in reality and offer right help to people in need” So “good souls” have empathy even for people they believe are evil, yet your *all good* God likes to inflict extreme amount of suffering on them. Interesting.

    “Nobody knows the intrinsic nature of souls,” According to you if a person suffers it must because of “past life sins”. So you must be lying here to protect your belief from being shown to be the evil doctrine that it is. Or otherwise you must withdraw your claim and give up your belief that suffering is due to evil committed in past lives. Which means your whole claim about “karma” being divine justice is absolute nonsense.

  119. Steve says:

    @Why
    “Mind altering drugs merely disable the medium or body through which the soul expresses itself. Again just because of hardware damage of a robot you do NOT declare the software is non-existent.” If I break a CD the information contained in it is gone – so far as we can tell. Same for consciousness when the hardware – the physical brain – is destroyed the information or consciousness stored in that brain is gone – so far as we can tell.

    I already gave one which you are deceptively avoiding. Which intrinsic property of matter is responsible for consciousness? There is none” Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of the brain.

    “I have defined soul as the thing that has consciousness as its intrinsic property.” Consciousness can’t be aware of its self, it needs something other than its self to be aware of. Just like a finger tip can’t touch itself.

    “Your LSD did NOT change any of that, neither did it create or destroy awareness.” Anaesthetic destroys awareness.

    “I never said souls cannot be scientifically researched.” Okay how can we test for this soul? If such test is not possible then it means soul belief is pseudoscience.

    “It can be falsifiable if you prove that consciousness arises from known matter through known processes and if consciousness is replicated.” It is known that consciousness is chemicals in the brain. Physically tamper with the brain and the consciousness changes, destroy the brain and the person consciousness no longer exists – as thoughts are dependent on a functioning brain.

    “Now, there is no need for another soul’s past life to be mixed with this soul as karma is what is shared between souls in different proportions” The “souls” are mixing together, for example something of your “soul” is going into my “soul”, their is no permanent self or soul the Buddha demonstrated this to the foolish Hindus of his time.

    “Do not waste my time with same assertions” The FACT that things such as anaesthetic knocks out the consciousness, and that brain dead people are not conscious, this is a fact not assertion. Also your link says

    “We believe hearing those stories in parents’ and siblings’ voices exercises the circuits in the brain responsible for long-term memories,” Pape explained. “That stimulation helped trigger the first glimmer of awareness” First glimmer of awareness? You read that mister why? It means that before those voices stated having an effect on long term memory circuits the person was not conscious. Also why do you think it needs to stimulate the circuits responsible for long term memory? It’s because thinking/consciousness cannot place without memory. So stop wasting my time with proving links that actually CONFIRM what I am saying.

    “Irrelevant here. I never claimed software and souls are equivalent in all respects. It is just an analogy. Just like the software exists, so does the soul.” Software is dependent on hardware, so is the consciousness or *soul*.

    “So you have something that part of “all” that is infinite. Then so can the soul be beginning-less.” No part of the all is infinite – by definition.

    “If there is a possibility of at the least one subset of “all” to be infinite, then so can the soul be infinite.” Their is no possibility that any part of the all is infinite, so it’s not possible for the self or anything else to be infinite.

    ‘Chain or sequence of causes are a subset of “all” and NOT the “all” itself” No the all is the infinite chain of causes, it is not a part of the chain but the totality of it.

    “If there is even one subset of “all” that is without beginning, then so can souls be without beginning.” No subset of the all can be without beginning so no it’s no possible for *souls* to be without beginning.

    “Now it is perfectly clear that you have totally flipped and that you are a hypocrite Steve. Hitchens argument which you quoted clearly says that it would be immoral to punish an innocent being for the evils by other. You like a typical forked” Remember your argument that it’s possible God can have sufficient reasons for allowing evil/suffering? Following your logic it’s logically possible that the Christian God has “sufficient reasons” for allowing Jesus to suffer and die.

    “God never ordered a soul anything here. Here, an evil soul acts as per its intrinsic nature and past deeds history. The placement of souls deserving punishment is the ONLY thing God does to make them reap the fruits of their actions.” According to your belief Fritz must have been carrying out Gods divine justice on the *soul* of his daughter. God must have have brought that situation about otherwise this *divine justice* wouldn’t have taken place.

    “The placement of souls deserving punishment is the ONLY thing God does to make them reap the fruits of their actions.” Yes God put the soul of Fritz daughter in that situation, therefore God is responsible for it. God hasn’t provided any evidence of any “past life sin” on her part to deserve being raped and impregnated in a cellar for a quarter of a century. Therefore your God is either evil or doesn’t exist.

    ” Fritz actions or actions of any soul is as per the intrinsic nature of that soul and its history of deeds” This must mean fritz daughter must be evil, God then set up the situation that this evil soul would have punishment. However since God has provided no evidence of any “past lives” it means this God is either evil or doesn’t exist. Just like the nazis where evil because they whipped up hatred – with no evidence to support their claims – against the Jews which resulted
    In them being massacred.

    “…No perfect God would order murdering non-believers just because they are non-believers. ISIS follow Islam which has this and therefore such a god if Islam is NOT the perfect God.” It’s logically possible that God has “sufficient reasons” (remember that card you used which makes God unfalsifiable) for ordering the killing of non-believers. Just like you claim God had “sufficient reasons” for sentencing Fritz daughter to be raped by her father for 24 years. By the way ISIS must also must carrying out divine justice on evil people even according to the Hindu view of God and afterlife.

    “There is no such commands from the God of my belief.” ISIS terrorists are the tools he is using to deliver his justice on evil people according to you belief.

    ” If there is sufficient evidence, the criminal is punished, regardless of the criminal’s acceptance of the crime. So, karma is perfect justice system in a similar way.” That’s the problem your God has provided no evidence that the likes of Fritz daughter committed evil crimes in a “past life” therefore he must be an insane and evil judge who would be thrown out of court in any civilised country.

    “Even if there is nothing to share boundary with, it can still be bounded” No it can’t be, you only share a boundary if their is something “else” to share a boundary with. In the case of the all there is nothing “else” so it’s logically impossible for the all to be bounded.

    “This is why scientists consider Universe is finite. Universe is bu definition” The scientists are talking about the observable universe they are NOT talking about the all.

    “Scientifically Universe can be bounded/finite if it has positive curvature.” See above.

    “NOT Scientifically….First of all in geometry, “bounded” and “finite” are two independent concepts. You can have a finite Universe, but yet unbounded Universe (like the surface of a sphere whose surface area is finite, but unbounded in the dimension of the surface). Positive curvature of Universe can lead to unbounded finite Universe (4-D hypersphere) …Still the finite Universe is beginning-less even as per your argument.” If our universe came into existence without cause, no order would be possible, given that their is order their means their is a cause.

    “There is no such rule. Space is part of Universe and still can be unbounded (in 4-D world) and infinite in 3-D world. You are making non-existent rules.” Something which is a part of the universe by definition can’t be unbounded.
    “Space can be infinite which is a part of the “all”. ” If space is “everywhere” then it’s just another name for the all and the all by definition can’t be a part.
    “So souls can be without beginning.” No all parts of the all have beginning and end, if they had no beginning and end then they would necessarily be the all and not some particular thing with a particular identity.

    “Now there is no rule that bounded finite objects must be caused” A bounded finite object needs something “other” to cause its boundaries and create its nature it cannot by definition have created itself.

    “There is a possibility of some thing being uncaused” Their is no possibility of that.

    “Give me a logical reason for why you believe bounded finite things CANNOT BE uncaused” See two messages up.
    “The reason must be other than it is bounded and finite as it is your assumption that finite and/or bounded things have a beginning.” No it’s a logical necessity that a finite, bounded thing has a beginning – otherwise it wouldn’t be a “thing” and would in fact be the all.

    “If there are at the least two subsets of the “all” consisting of finite bounded “things” that are without beginning, there can be similarly other subsets without beginning. So souls can be without beginning.” No all bounded things – such as souls or the Ganges river or your computer or whatever – must by logical necessity have a beginning – otherwise they wouldn’t be bounded, and the only “thing” that is not bounded – again by logical necessity – is the all.
    “There is NO rule that all finite things that are subsets of the “all” must have a beginning.” The rule is they are finite things with boundaries since they can’t have created their own boundaries it means something else had to create their boundaries and nature.
    “We have already seen two exceptions as per your own claims” Their is no exception to the rule that the only possibly “thing” without beginning is the all.
    “There is NO such “obvious” reason other than your assumption without sufficient reason” My “assumption” is a logical necessity, a thing which is bounded and finite by definition has to have been created/caused.

    ” I said sequence of things…” If the sequence is infinite then it’s just another name for the all.

    “Only if the thing has a beginning.” Which it must do – since it cannot have created its own nature and boundaries.

    “NO…radioactive substance decays because of instability within the substance. Instability is the cause, and there is no cause outside of this cause. Now the process by which it takes place may involve time, space etc. but the cause itself is inside the atom” That substance depends on causes – just like everything else. Believing it decays without cause is like believing that this message I am writing is uncaused – despite the fact that I need oxygen to be going into my brain cells to be able think and write this message.

    “Similarly the “all” itself is also changing its properties every minute or second.” No it can’t possible change. The properties within the all can’t be applied to the all. For example evil people are part of the all, but the all its self can’t be called evil. Likewise things within the all change but the all itself hasn’t.

    “Souls’ intrinsic properties do NOT change and therefore are immutable.” Personality changes people, who suffer brain damage have a very personality than the one before. Or people with Alzheimers and who can’t remember most of the things in their life have a different personality therefore the “intrinsic properties” definitely do change.

    ” Since you assume everything is limited to the body you conclude it is limited to the body.” If I did not have a body I wouldn’t be aware of anything, therefore the consciousness is limited to the body. Unless you can explain how we could possible be aware of our environment without our body?

    “You are still asserting something without answering my question.” I am not asserting I am giving a fact and to be conscious you need to be aware of your body and the environment which you are in, without those things your you can’t be conscious.

    “Again an assertion and cyclical argument based on assumptions.” We are robots being programmed by the universe, we are programmed by our our senses/ environmental stimuli and memory (and those things are programmed by genes and brain functions and such things). You don’t believe in free will so can you tell me how we are NOT machines?
    “What is a “program”?” Consciousness is a “Darwinian program” being run on the brain just like our sex drive and hunger and all such things are “Darwinian programs” that nature has installed in her creatures.
    “Consciousness is self-awareness that always exists. Thoughts arise and stop. They are NOT same.” It doesn’t exist when are you in unconscious sleep. If you had no thoughts then you wouldn’t be aware of anything as the “you” – the thinking being – wouldn’t be there.

    “Still self-awareness will remain regardless of memory” Since without memory their won’t be any “you” to be are aware of anything it follows it won’t remain.

    “Still they are self-aware” If they have lost enough memories that they are not their, it means their is no “they” to be aware of anything.

    “This only proves that self-awareness is something other than thoughts.” If you didn’t have thoughts “you” wouldn’t be their, which means their would be nobody to be aware of anything.

    “Mind is NOT lost. It still exists. It is merely saying they have lost social identity.” If the personality is gone then we say the person has lost their mind – and for good reason.
    “Doesn’t matter……It is still the same as fundamental unit of matter.” It does matter because we are talking about that particular person surviving their “rebirth”. If the personality doesn’t survive the process it means they have ceased to exist.
    “If nothing can happen without a cause, then the “all” also cannot happen without a cause and thus has a beginning.” The all is not a thing that “happens”. It cannot be caused because their is nothing “else” that can possibly cause it. I shouldn’t need to repeat that again I have made that point a number of times now.

    “The law of causality says that **everything that has a beginning**, must have a cause. There is NO law which says that “things” which have no beginning must have a cause. Neither is there a law which says that all things must have a beginning. This is all your assertion” Since a thing necessarily is finite and bounded and a thing can’t create its self it follows it must have a cause/beginning. If a thing didn’t have a beginning it wouldn’t be a thing but the all.

    “Now you have made an assumption, that nothing can exist without a cause. Making such a claim assumes that one has seen everything that is to be seen and that nothing can exist without a cause. This is nothing short of arrogance.” Rather I have proven it 1)A finite bounded thing needs something “else” to create it boundaries and nature. 2)If anything happened without cause no order would be possible in the universe, since their is order it means nothing happens without cause.

    “Now order can exist in Universe as long as the “thing” that is in existence without a cause is subject to the laws of nature. Let us take an example. Let us hypothetically assume an electron came into existence without a cause, i.e. it is beginning-less. However, this electron has intrinsic properties like charge, mass etc. This electron will still be subject to the physical laws of forces. It will still be subject to forces from nucleus of an atom or protons or other charged particles and other forces. Thus there is no chaos just because of this hypothetical electron being beginning-less.” A uncaused thing couldn’t be subject or constrained by anything – by definition. For example you could gets frogs popping into being in the quantum realm. Or a physical mouse suddenly appearing in your brain. Those kinds of things would be happening all the time – since nothing can constrain an uncaused event – by definition.

    “I asked you what known intrinsic property of known matter leads to consciousness” The position of science – based on a mountain of evidence – is that consciousness is a emergent property of brain function.

    “There is NOT a single evidence that any observed property (leaving consciousness outside which is in question here) occurs independent of the intrinsic properties of individual constituents.” Science doesn’t say consciousness arises independently of the brain. Indeed the science says that mind appears to “emerge” from the brain.

    “Either way we can call this “thing” as soul” You can call consciousness whatever you what to.

    “Now whether you call it material or immaterial is irrelevant here.” I will call it material because it interacts with the matter and is effected by it. I don’t see any basis for the claim that consciousness is “immaterial”.

    “DNAs even for a double are NOT the same” If you had a clone they would have the same DNA but obviously just having the same DNA and looking the same doesn’t make them the same person – they would to have the same memories and experiences also.

    “Just as the baby or old man with same DNA.” They are not same people, the 90 year old man has nothing or virtually nothing to do with that baby that once existed.

    “It is still the same soul, just as old man and baby can be identified with unique DNA, so can this soul be identified by its immutable nature. Just as DNA does NOT change, the substance of soul is immutable” It can’t be identified – since it’s a completely different soul.

  120. Sakat says:

    @ Why ?
    / A good soul regardless of the condition, does NOT enjoy suffering of others. Such good souls always help when opportunities arise as it is its intrinsic nature to empathize or show sympathy to suffering, especially when one knows they did wrong deeds. Good souls know they are as fallible as anyone due to forces of karma. Nobody knows the intrinsic nature of souls, unless one has achieved great powers through yoga. Hence the default action of good souls is always empathy and help to others, even if the other is perpetrator or the victim. Empathy is shown to victims by providing the help needed, while to the perpetrator by teaching him/her what is dharma (right) and adharma (wrong). So my belief does NOT lead to loss of empathy, but increase empathy here as he/she can understand better how things work in reality and offer right help to people in need./

    Yes you are on the right track,but i don’t know how many will understand it (including erudite Ali). It needs fundamental understanding of eastern philosophy and above all needed practical experiment on subtle level (self inquiry ). Hope this world will come to the terms one day.

  121. why? says:

    +!+Steve Says:
    +!+———————————-
    “It also kills empathy for the most unfortunate people and claims they are evil and deserve their suffering. This belief has very harmful effects on the real world and for this reason such nonsense doctrines should be very closely scrutinised and very harshly criticised.”
    +!+———————————-

    Now this is based on an your assumption, which typically christians/islamist missionaries provide.

    A good soul regardless of the condition, does NOT enjoy suffering of others. Such good souls always help when opportunities arise as it is its intrinsic nature to empathize or show sympathy to suffering, especially when one knows they did wrong deeds. Good souls know they are as fallible as anyone due to forces of karma. Nobody knows the intrinsic nature of souls, unless one has achieved great powers through yoga. Hence the default action of good souls is always empathy and help to others, even if the other is perpetrator or the victim. Empathy is shown to victims by providing the help needed, while to the perpetrator by teaching him/her what is dharma (right) and adharma (wrong). So my belief does NOT lead to loss of empathy, but increase empathy here as he/she can understand better how things work in reality and offer right help to people in need.

  122. why? says:

    ++!Steve,

    “Consciousness is physical, by physical tampering with the brain we change consciousness with things such as mind altering drugs.”

    Mind altering drugs merely disable the medium or body through which the soul expresses itself. Again just because of hardware damage of a robot you do NOT declare the software is non-existent.

    “Where did you give one? You have t even defined “soul”.”

    I already gave one which you are deceptively avoiding. Which intrinsic property of matter is responsible for consciousness? There is none. I have defined soul as the thing that has consciousness as its intrinsic property.

    “Consciousness is a pattern of neurological activity in the brain, this is proven by the fact that if you take a substance like LSD it alters your mind. If consciousness was “immaterial” this would not be possible.”

    First of all consciousness is self-awareness and awareness of things around us and that the two are different. Your LSD did NOT change any of that, neither did it create or destroy awareness.

    “That what are you conducting? Claims of past life CAN’T be scientifically researched and are not falsifiable, this is why this belief is nonsense just like existence of Allah or Jehovah cannot be scientifically researched.”

    I never said souls cannot be scientifically researched. I said we cannot do this over internet. All we can do here is through arguments find if such a thing can possibly exist. Now, I agree that existence of God cannot be proved/disproved through logic ONLY.

    “”I think you forget to say “possibility” which is what makes this claim unfalsifiable, since the fact their is no evidence of an elephant being in the room with me doesn’t disprove the “possibility” that their is a elephant in the room.”

    It can be falsifiable if you prove that consciousness arises from known matter through known processes and if consciousness is replicated.

    “It does contradict it because it reality cause and effect or “rebirth” happens all the time not just at physical birth or death. So in reality your wife’s killer would also be one of your “past lives” (along with other countless past lives) since he is one of your causes, but this is NOT the belief of Hindus and Buddhist who believe their is only one cause of a persons actions “past life” and one effect “future life”. However in reality cause and effect doesn’t work like that since every bodies karma is entangled this means the literal view of reincarnation/rebirth that Hindus and Buddhists believe in is a fantasy.”

    Now this was already said that it is mere STRAWMAN. Karma of souls are linked together with other souls they interact. It is entangled with each other and that is why, when somebody dies in a family, many family members weep and share the sorrow.

    Now, you make a claim that the past life of some other soul and your soul are same. Now there are different answers according to Buddhism and Hinduism.

    In Buddhism, the soul is defined differently and it is NOT immutable. Part of soul of others get stuck with your souls and so on….That is why Buddhism’s rebirth is a different phenomenon, like one billiard mall hitting another and causing them to move, souls interact and exchange and become different soul after interaction. This concept is very different than Hinduism.

    In Hinduism, THE KARMA is shared between immutable souls. Any one action has a series of causes and therefore it is a shared phenomenon. Now, there is no need for another soul’s past life to be mixed with this soul as karma is what is shared between souls in different proportions.

    “No it’s not their, that’s why we say they are unconscious. When you are in unconscious sleep they say you are “dead to the world”. Also if they didn’t lose consciousness you wouldn’t hear doctors says things such as “they lost consciousness” and “they never regained consciousness”.”

    Steve, for the umpteenth time. Do not waste my time with same assertions. Look at the following link, where it clearly says that comatose patients slowly respond to stories from relatives and voices of close relatives. Brain scan proves it. This means they is some mental activity., which in turn implies there is consciousness, just NOT the normal state.

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/can-coma-patients-hear-you-families-should-tell-stories-loved-ones-coma-319148

    “Software can’t exist or function without the hardware.”

    Irrelevant here. I never claimed software and souls are equivalent in all respects. It is just an analogy. Just like the software exists, so does the soul.

    “Yes the sequence or chain of causes is infinite, that is not the same as every individual cause/individual piece of that chain being infinite.”

    So you have something that part of “all” that is infinite. Then so can the soul be beginning-less.

    “No because I have said several times now in the case of the all their can be no *other*.”

    Still, it is part of “all”, a subset of “all” which is infinite without beginning. If there is a possibility of at the least one subset of “all” to be infinite, then so can the soul be infinite.

    “Unless soul is synonymous with the all then it can’t be beginning less and uncaused.
    Yes the chain or sequence of causes is beginning-less but every individual cause or thing is not beginning-less. Why are you struggling to understand this?”

    Chain or sequence of causes are a subset of “all” and NOT the “all” itself. If there is even one subset of “all” that is without beginning, then so can souls be without beginning.

    “If in fact Christian doctrine was true I.E if their God actually existed and if Adam and Eve existed and passed on sin and everything else was true then it would be morally acceptable. ”

    Now it is perfectly clear that you have totally flipped and that you are a hypocrite Steve. Hitchens argument which you quoted clearly says that it would be immoral to punish an innocent being for the evils by other. You like a typical forked tongued person, flipped totally here. This is funny 🙂

    “That’s a question for your God.”

    Now that is your assumption.

    “How do you know? If Fritz was just carrying out Gods sentence then his behaviour would be good. Unless you are saying God was wrong to order him to do that? In which case this argument may now finally be penetrating your brain.”

    God never ordered a soul anything here. Here, an evil soul acts as per its intrinsic nature and past deeds history. The placement of souls deserving punishment is the ONLY thing God does to make them reap the fruits of their actions.

    “Your God ordered him to do it, so if Fritz actions are evil so is your God, you just admitted my argument is true.”

    You just misunderstood…Fritz actions or actions of any soul is as per the intrinsic nature of that soul and its history of deeds.

    “Past lives is just as much fantasy as the Christian and Islamic Gods. Can you “disprove the possibility” of the existence of the god and afterlife of ISIS?”

    Yes…simple…No perfect God would order murdering non-believers just because they are non-believers. ISIS follow Islam which has this and therefore such a god if Islam is NOT the perfect God.

    There is no such commands from the God of my belief.

    “Their is, if he carries out sentences on evil people he needs to provide evidence that they are guilty of a crime. If a judge carried out sentences on people without any evidence they had committed any crime he would be a evil and incompetent judge who would be barred from practicing in any civilised country. Is your God an insane and evil judge?”

    There is none. The judge does NOT provide evidence for convincing the criminal…The criminal knowingly did the crime and tried/tries to escape punishment always.. The judge and court system finds if there is sufficient evidence that the criminal has committed the crime, regardless if the criminal accepts the crime or NOT. If there is sufficient evidence, the criminal is punished, regardless of the criminal’s acceptance of the crime. So, karma is perfect justice system in a similar way.

    “Because their is nothing but nature, their is no outside of existence. Infinite means without boundary and the existence is without boundary (since their is nothing with which it could possible share a boundary with). Ironic you also said without evidence.”

    Even if there is nothing to share boundary with, it can still be bounded. This is why scientists consider Universe is finite. Universe is bu definition

    “Because their is nothing it can possible be bounded by.”

    It can still have a boundary. You do not need another thing necessarily to bound it. Scientifically Universe can be bounded/finite if it has positive curvature.

    “When I say nature is infinite I mean in the sense that their is nothing other or outside of it. Their is nothing BUT nature that is how it is infinite.”

    NOT Scientifically….First of all in geometry, “bounded” and “finite” are two independent concepts. You can have a finite Universe, but yet unbounded Universe (like the surface of a sphere whose surface area is finite, but unbounded in the dimension of the surface). Positive curvature of Universe can lead to unbounded finite Universe (4-D hypersphere) …Still the finite Universe is beginning-less even as per your argument.

    “No something within the all by definition is NOT infinite since their exists things which are not itself.”

    There is no such rule. Space is part of Universe and still can be unbounded (in 4-D world) and infinite in 3-D world. You are making non-existent rules.

    “Yep souls being infinite no problem, yet the existence itself being infinite and without beginning, nah it’s absolutely ridiculous not buying it. “although souls are bounded finite objects” Because they are bounded and finite means they can’t be uncaused and beginning less.”

    If chains of causes, which is subset of the “all” and NOT the “all” itself can be without beginning, then so can the soul be. Space can be infinite which is a part of the “all”. So the soul can be beginning-less.

    Now there is no rule that bounded finite objects must be caused. There is a possibility of some thing being uncaused. Give me a logical reason for why you believe bounded finite things CANNOT BE uncaused. The reason must be other than it is bounded and finite as it is your assumption that finite and/or bounded things have a beginning.

    “Not in any form – since any particular form is by definition bounded and finite.”

    It does NOT matter. If you consider the “forms” as a sequence of things, still something that is a subset of “all” consisting of finite objects is without beginning, just like sequence of causes. If there are at the least two subsets of the “all” consisting of finite bounded “things” that are without beginning, there can be similarly other subsets without beginning. So souls can be without beginning.

    There is NO rule that all finite things that are subsets of the “all” must have a beginning. We have already seen two exceptions as per your own claims.

    “Only in the sense that all things are part of the all, in this ultimate sense you can in fact say that all things are beginning less and uncaused. This is not the same as saying any PARTICULAR FORM (such as a “soul”) is uncaused and beginning less which is obviously nonsense.”

    Why would it be “obviously” nonsense? There is NO such “obvious” reason other than your assumption without sufficient reason. It there are at the least two subsets (consisting of finite things) of “all” can be without beginning, then there is nothing logical that stops “things” of the “all” can be without beginning.

    “No because a “thing” by definition is not infinite.” I said sequence of things…

    “I explained this 2 messages up.” same here…..

    “Because that’s what we mean by cause. A cause is something necessary for the existence of something else.”
    Only if the thing has a beginning.
    “We already know that radiocative decay has causes – for example, the radiocative material in question, time and space, atoms, nuclei, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. These are all contributory causes of radioactive decay.”

    NO…radioactive substance decays because of instability within the substance. Instability is the cause, and there is no cause outside of this cause. Now the process by which it takes place may involve time, space etc. but the cause itself is inside the atom.

    Similarly the “all” itself is also changing its properties every minute or second. So Your claim that nature is beginning-less is also questionable, just like the thing changes form and properties, so does the “all” continuously change its properties and therefore it also has a beginning as per your definition.

    “No that which has no boundaries – the all – cannot be thought of as changing.”

    It is changing as its properties are continuously changing.

    “Completely independent of it.” Then it is strawman.

    “The self or “soul” is constantly changing therefore this unchanging permanent soul doesn’t exist.”

    Soul interacts with the Universe, just as an electron can interact with the Universe through forces without changing its intrinsic properties. Souls’ intrinsic properties do NOT change and therefore are immutable.

    “If you did not have a body you wouldn’t be aware of the physical world and you wouldn’t have any memories. When body dies so does your senses and the memory which means that “you” cease to exist.”

    No…this is cyclical argument. Since you assume everything is limited to the body you conclude it is limited to the body.

    “I am stating the fact that your consciousness is not independent of the body – otherwise you wouldn’t to be able to read these words.”

    You are still asserting something without answering my question.

    “We are robots yet we are aware.”

    Again an assertion and cyclical argument based on assumptions.

    “Consciousness is a program being run on the brain, when the brain dies or if someone suffers brain damage or has a mental illness like Alzheimer’s the program no longer works or no longer works properly.”

    What is a “program”? Empty meaningless assertions. What intrinsic property of matter leads to consciousness?

    “Consciousness is thoughts, thoughts are dependent on a functioning brain, when the brain ceases to function thoughts are no longer generated.”

    Consciousness is self-awareness that always exists. Thoughts arise and stop. They are NOT same.

    “No it can’t for example you wouldn’t be able to think anything without memory, for example you couldn’t think of what to write if words are not stored in memory nor could you learn anything new if you couldn’t retain memories.”

    Still self-awareness will remain regardless of memory. This only proves that self-awareness is something other than thoughts.

    “Amnesia patients don’t lose all memories that’s why they are still conscious.”

    Still they are self-aware.

    “Which means they have lost their mind, which is also true of these “past lives”.”

    Mind is NOT lost. It still exists. It is merely saying they have lost social identity.

    “The identity “firewood” does not, just like the identity/personality of “Mary” no longer exists.”

    Doesn’t matter……It is still the same as fundamental unit of matter.

    “Because nothing can happen without a cause, if anything ever happened without a cause the whole universe would be entirely chaotic no order would be possible. You can’t have ordered have effects coming of pure chaos (acausality). Since their is order this means our universe has a cause, that cause is the all or multiverse,”

    If nothing can happen without a cause, then the “all” also cannot happen without a cause and thus has a beginning.

    The law of causality says that **everything that has a beginning**, must have a cause. There is NO law which says that “things” which have no beginning must have a cause. Neither is there a law which says that all things must have a beginning. This is all your assertion.

    Now you have made an assumption, that nothing can exist without a cause. Making such a claim assumes that one has seen everything that is to be seen and that nothing can exist without a cause. This is nothing short of arrogance.

    Now order can exist in Universe as long as the “thing” that is in existence without a cause is subject to the laws of nature. Let us take an example. Let us hypothetically assume an electron came into existence without a cause, i.e. it is beginning-less. However, this electron has intrinsic properties like charge, mass etc. This electron will still be subject to the physical laws of forces. It will still be subject to forces from nucleus of an atom or protons or other charged particles and other forces. Thus there is no chaos just because of this hypothetical electron being beginning-less.

    “ Their is no reason to think their is any “immaterial” soul, you are making things up.”

    There is a reason I have repeatedly given which you neglect it.

    I asked you what known intrinsic property of known matter leads to consciousness. There is NOT a single evidence that any observed property (leaving consciousness outside which is in question here) occurs independent of the intrinsic properties of individual constituents. So consciousness also cannot occur independent of intrinsic properties. Hence, there is a need to postulate that some “thing” possesses consciousness as intrinsic property or this “thing” possesses an intrinsic property which leads to consciousness. Either way we can call this “thing” as soul. Now whether you call it material or immaterial is irrelevant here.

    “If you have a double would they be you? Unless they have the same personality as you and the same experiences they are not “why” but some other person. Also the body is constantly changing as well as you correctly pointed out before, the “why” that was a new born baby is not going to be recognisable as the 90 year old “why”.”

    DNAs even for a double are NOT the same, however, for a single person whether he is a child or old man remains the same. We can still identify that person. Similarly for souls. I do NOT understand why it is so difficult to understand this simple concept. You an wake a sleeping person, but not a person who is pretending to sleep.

    “ No if this soul has no memories it has no personality. And if it has a identity “Steve” it can’t be the same “soul” as the soul that has the identity “Mary”. You are talking nonsense.”

    Even if it does NOT have the same memory, it is still the same soul, just as the baby or old man is identified as the same guy through DNA. The same soul substance just as same DNA.

    “ How can it “remain the same” if it has a completely new identity?”
    Just as the baby or old man with same DNA.

    “That “particularly soul” who was Mary is not the “particular soul” who is Steve. These are two completely different souls just like “why” is not “Steve”. Also since “Steve” has a different body to “”Mary” and you was saying body is needed to identity “you” it means I am also not Mary following your statement that body is needed to identify.”

    It is still the same soul, just as old man and baby can be identified with unique DNA, so can this soul be identified by its immutable nature. Just as DNA does NOT change, the substance of soul is immutable.

  123. Steve says:

    @Madfijian
    “In the meantime live life love others do the best you can as a human being and when it is time to go just hope that it is your deeds that matter not who one calls God.” Takes Whys fantasy that innocent people are being “punished” for “past life sins”. This delusion needs to be spoken against, not only is it a delusional fantasy, it also kills empathy for the most unfortunate people and claims they are evil and deserve their suffering. This belief has very harmful effects on the real world and for this reason such nonsense doctrines should be very closely scrutinised and very harshly criticised.

    “Shall we all just wait to die to find out the truth” Not if your no longer conscious you won’t. When your dead it’s to late. People can only know things and care about things while they are alive.

  124. Steve says:

    +Phoenix
    “That’s why I asked for a link of a peer reviewed study. It would confirm that the study was either observational or experimental. The former only implies correlation but the latter could infer causation. Without this knowledge we could only speculate.” It’s known the psychopaths have malfunctions in the brain this is confirmed by the brain imaging.

    ” I agree. But…substance abuse is abnormal behavior too and what substance abuse led them to abuse substances prior to that, and prior to that, etc.? You may have placed yourself inside a paradox.” Okay then imagine the most normal person who does something very strange and out of character. Now to understand what I am saying lets make an analogy, imagine Tiger Woods misses the most easiest put. Now the question is why did Tiger miss that put? He doesn’t have any physical or mental disability, heck his one of the best golfers to have ever lived. He missed that put, because some condition necessary for him making it was absent. Now let’s say the condition that resulted in him screwing up his shot was a neuron Misfired in his brain caused by a cosmic ray bombardment hitting it. (It doesn’t matter what it was I am just using that to illustrate my point). The point is the condition responsible (whatever that is) for him making that put was missing. So applying this to abnormal human behaviour done by the most normal people, it means their is a cause for the behaviour. Now the more we learn about the brain and the roots of these abnormal behaviours the more and more it’s going to all start looking like brain tumours and cosmic ray bombardments.

    “I think that link I gave above demonstrates that psychopaths can be taught to love and have empathy for others. This would require the ingredient of free will of course.” Like doctor Park said it depends on how they was raised as kids if they given love they do fearless “pro social” things. For example people who work in special forces operations to rescue hostages from armed kidnappers has to have a lot fearlessness and a lot selflessness. That’s because that part – the low stress response – is determined by the genes. If however they are severely abused in their early life then it’s pretty much impossible for them to love and feel empathy. Indeed that is how the monsters are created they have these genes which means they are fearless, then combined with extreme abuse which results in them lacking empathy and being cruel and sadistic to people you have one extremely dangerous individual on your hands.

    “See this link where Dr Jimmy Fallon’s end result seem to contradict the Materialist’s doctrine of Determinism. Free will is able to override genetic personality traits.” “Free will” doesn’t switch of personality traits for example a pschopath cannot choose (in any sense) to feel fear. Doctor Fallon changes his behaviour to be kind and empathic to other people not because he cares about people but because of his narcissism in wanting to prove to himself that he can do it.

    “Of course, there’s also a third ingredient, in addition to genetics and environment: free will. “Since finding all this out and looking into it, I’ve made an effort to try to change my behavior,” Fallon says. “I’ve more consciously been doing things that are considered ‘the right thing to do,’ and thinking more about other people’s feelings.” He means the illusion of free will or compatibilist “Free will”. I seriously doubt Dr fallon believes in CCFW.
    Also in that link he said.
    “But he added, “At the same time, I’m not doing this because I’m suddenly nice, I’m doing it because of pride—because I want to show to everyone and myself that I can pull it off.”

    “Hmmm…Sam Vaknin’s theories and even credentials appear to be a hotly disputed. He admits himself that academics in his field reject his theories.” Vaknin has contributed more to the field of narcissism than any academic. I know I have a book on abnormal psychology (written in 2001) at home and it contains virtually nothing on NPD now if you search google and look at abnormal psychology textbooks its full of things. All the concepts of inverted narcissist, cerebral narcissist, somatic narcissist etc are from him. Also he has contributed more than anyone else in talking about the false self and how it develops and the concept of narcissistic supply, narcissist rage etc than anyone academic. Indeed Ali Sina (yes this Ali sina) writes on Vaknin,

    “Dr. Vaknin is a foremost authority on the subject of narcissism. He has authored over 30 books. They are based on the latest research in the field and on scholarly works by the leading experts on personality disorders. Many of the chapters contain detailed bibliographies. That is the hallmark of a true scholarly book.”

    Vaknin’s seminal book – Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited (now in its eighth, revised, impression) and the content of his Web site are based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of people suffering from Narcissistic Personality.

    “Dr. Vaknin’s online mailing lists alone sport well over 26,000 members – of which 1000 are therapists, social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists.

    “Everything he writes is backed by extensive bibliography You can download some of them”

    “. Vaknin has stated on several occasions that he has been diagnosed with the disorder and spent time in therapy and almost a decade discussing it in depth (mainly through correspondence) with mental health professionals the world over. It is his personal experience with this disorder that makes his work so thorough, so perceptive, and so enlightening. Unlike other psychologists, Vaknin’s understanding of narcissism does not come merely from books and second hand sources, but also from his own personal experience. With ruthless honestly, Vaknin lays bare the inner impulses of a narcissist like no other mental health professional can ever do. That is why so many of them gobble his books and have joined his long mailing list.”

    To say one who suffers from NPD is disqualified to write on this subject is preposterous. It’s like saying those who have suffered from eating disorder are disqualified to talk about it or alcoholic anonymous is a fraud because it relies on alcoholics helping each other. My best friend suffers from borderline personality disorder or extreme mood swings. She is a highly intelligent woman. No one can describe her disorder better than her. In fact the sites that she finds most helpful are those created and run by other BPD sufferers.

    Out of 30 books Dr. Vaknin has written, 24 of them are available for download. (hardly a commercial practice). Is this man a fraud?”

    Vaknin has never claimed to be a mental health professional, any more than I claimed to be a theologian. Nonetheless he is regarded as an authority on this field by thousands of therapists, psychologists and psychiatrist just as I am considered to be among the few who understands Islam and Muhammad.

    The fact that Dr. Vaknin is recognized as an authority on narcissism is witnessed by the media and many mental health professionals”

    The only problem with Vaknin is that his descriptions of NPD tends to overlap with psychopathy – which is probably due to the fact he has both conditions but did not find out about the psychopath part until much later.

  125. madfijian says:

    I have read through everyone’s posts here and one thing is abundantly clear that all us of have our own hypothesis on faith religion soul and the afterlife. The fact is none of us really know anything. All we have is our own deep beliefs or the lack of it in Stevens and my case. If indeed their is an entity that created the entire Universe with its trillions of planets than our few thousand year old brains is just too puny to comprehend the context and magnitude of it all. If this was all random chance then what the hell live life to the best you can. Nothing baffles me more than peoples arrogance when it comes to their beliefs. This blog was created to show the fallacy of the Islamic faith which it is doing well and i commend Ali Sina for that. The rest of the arguments that everyone is making is irrelevant.

    Shall we all just wait to die to find out the truth in the meantime live life love others do the best you can as a human being and when it is time to go just hope that it is your deeds that matter not who one calls God.

  126. Steve says:

    +Why
    “Similarly, souls existence can be known only through the effects it shows, namely consciousness. Please go back to the argument I gave for existence of souls.” Consciousness is physical, by physical tampering with the brain we change consciousness with things such as mind altering drugs.

    “Please go back to the argument I gave for existence of souls.” Where did you give one? You have t even defined “soul”.

    “Again go back to the argument and answer me which known intrinsic property of known matter gives rise to rise of awareness? There exists none. Therefore the need to postulate the existence of souls, just like electrons.” Consciousness is a pattern of neurological activity in the brain, this is proven by the fact that if you take a substance like LSD it alters your mind. If consciousness was “immaterial” this would not be possible.
    “We are NOT conducting Scientific research here. When we do together such a research, you let me know.” That what are you conducting? Claims of past life CAN’T be scientifically researched and are not falsifiable, this is why this belief is nonsense just like existence of Allah or Jehovah cannot be scientifically researched.

    “Does not disprove existence of past deeds.” I think you forget to say “possibility” which is what makes this claim unfalsifiable, since the fact their is no evidence of an elephant being in the room with me doesn’t disprove the “possibility” that their is a elephant in the room.

    “It still does NOT contradict as you history of deeds is connected to others as well.” It does contradict it because it reality cause and effect or “rebirth” happens all the time not just at physical birth or death. So in reality your wife’s killer would also be one of your “past lives” (along with other countless past lives) since he is one of your causes, but this is NOT the belief of Hindus and Buddhist who believe their is only one cause of a persons actions “past life” and one effect “future life”. However in reality cause and effect doesn’t work like that since every bodies karma is entangled this means the literal view of reincarnation/rebirth that Hindus and Buddhists believe in is a fantasy.

    “No it is there, otherwise neither a person who is asleep not the comatose patient will show any reaction to sounds.” No it’s not their, that’s why we say they are unconscious. When you are in unconscious sleep they say you are “dead to the world”. Also if they didn’t lose consciousness you wouldn’t hear doctors says things such as “they lost consciousness” and “they never regained consciousness”.

    ” If by chance a robot fails to function because of hardware damage, do you conclude that software is faulty. Your argument is similarly foolish.” Software can’t exist or function without the hardware.

    “But just now you claimed that sequence of causes themselves have no beginning.” Yes the sequence or chain of causes is infinite, that is not the same as every individual cause/individual piece of that chain being infinite.

    “So according to you, something other than the “All”, which is the sequence of causes (which is a subset of the “all”) is without beginning” No because I have said several times now in the case of the all their can be no *other*.

    “. So soul is without beginning.” Unless soul is synonymous with the all then it can’t be beginning less and uncaused.
    “So then there must exist a FIRST CAUSE, before which there is no other cause. You claimed sequence of causes have no beginning” Yes the chain or sequence of causes is beginning-less but every individual cause or thing is not beginning-less. Why are you struggling to understand this?

    “You even quoted Hitchens to show why Jeebus’ case of dying is NOT morally acceptable and consistent with existence of a perfect God. Now you have flipped just for argument’s sake.” If in fact Christian doctrine was true I.E if their God actually existed and if Adam and Eve existed and passed on sin and everything else was true then it would be morally acceptable. Just like ISIS killing non-believers would be morally acceptable if their God and afterlife exists. Now their God would indeed be evil, but given he existed and his version of afterlife existed you would have no choice. Either you kill other people and rape and torture them. Or if you don’t do it Allah will also torture you for eternity in hell as well and those unbelievers will also go to hell anyway. So if you don’t accept Allah and his commands you would just be contributing to suffering as not believing in Allah would result in eternal hell fire which obviously would increase the suffering of conscious creatures. This would be insane and evil but if the Islamic God and his afterlife existed this is the terrible choice we would face. Thankfully though the Islamic God and his hell fire doesn’t exist but is a delusion of sick man’s mind.
    “Now, how would raping be justified just because of daughter’s past bad deeds” That’s a question for your God.
    “Fritz action is still considered bad, while daughter may have been a similar rapist is past lives.”
    How do you know? If Fritz was just carrying out Gods sentence then his behaviour would be good. Unless you are saying God was wrong to order him to do that? In which case this argument may now finally be penetrating your brain.

    “Fritz actions are as per evil souls’ actions” Your God ordered him to do it, so if Fritz actions are evil so is your God, you just admitted my argument is true.

    “You may call it fantasy or insane. None of these proves anything against the existence of past lives.’ Past lives is just as much fantasy as the Christian and Islamic Gods. Can you “disprove the possibility” of the existence of the god and afterlife of ISIS?

    “There is NO need for God to provide any evidence about spiritual truths.” Their is, if he carries out sentences on evil people he needs to provide evidence that they are guilty of a crime. If a judge carried out sentences on people without any evidence they had committed any crime he would be a evil and incompetent judge who would be barred from practicing in any civilised country. Is your God an insane and evil judge?

    “You are merely asserting without evidence that nature is infinite. I asked you how can nature consisting of FINITE THINGS ONLY be infinite? It is NOT possible and you are making illogical claims here.” Because their is nothing but nature, their is no outside of existence. Infinite means without boundary and the existence is without boundary (since their is nothing with which it could possible share a boundary with). Ironic you also said without evidence.

    “If all existent things in nature have boundaries, then how can nature itself have no boundaries.” Because their is nothing it can possible be bounded by.

    “Let me give an example…If I have a set of apples and oranges which are finite and bounded in form, how can the set itself be infinite? Only if you have infinite apples and oranges with finite bounded forms.” When I say nature is infinite I mean in the sense that their is nothing other or outside of it. Their is nothing BUT nature that is how it is infinite.

    “So some “thing” within the Universe must be infinite or there must be infinite finite things to make Universe infinite” No something within the all by definition is NOT infinite since their exists things which are not itself.

    ” Thus there is nothing wrong in saying Souls are infinite in number and without beginning, although souls are bounded finite objects of Universal set.” Yep souls being infinite no problem, yet the existence itself being infinite and without beginning, nah it’s absolutely ridiculous not buying it. “although souls are bounded finite objects” Because they are bounded and finite means they can’t be uncaused and beginning less.

    “Which means the contents of existence in one form or other are also without beginning. ” Not in any form – since any particular form is by definition bounded and finite.
    “Existence is defined by its contents and existence is NOT something independent of its contents. If existence is without beginning, then so are its contents.” Only in the sense that all things are part of the all, in this ultimate sense you can in fact say that all things are beginning less and uncaused. This is not the same as saying any PARTICULAR FORM (such as a “soul”) is uncaused and beginning less which is obviously nonsense.

    “. If sequence of causes can be infinite, then the sequence of “things” that result from infinite sequence of causes are also infinite” No because a “thing” by definition is not infinite.

    “Since there are infinite sequence of things within Universe, this means things that exist within the Universe in one form or the other are also without beginning.” I explained this 2 messages up.

    “What makes you think that a cause has to be outside of a thing?” Because that’s what we mean by cause. A cause is something necessary for the existence of something else.
    “A radioactive substance decays by itself because of instability of the radioactive substance itself. There is NOT necessarily a cause outside of it, as it is the instability which is the cause of radioactive decay.” We already know that radiocative decay has causes – for example, the radiocative material in question, time and space, atoms, nuclei, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. These are all contributory causes of radioactive decay.

    “Which means the properties of “all” are continuously changing and therefore the “all” always has a beginning at every instant.” No that which has no boundaries – the all – cannot be thought of as changing.
    “What do you mean “separate” from the physical world.” Completely independent of it.
    “The soul exists within the bodies and interact with the body. All I said is that the soul is immutable and beginning-less. What we experience as seeing, hearing etc. is the intrinsic property of the soul arising as knowledge of external world. It is a knowledge base of all things.” The self or “soul” is constantly changing therefore this unchanging permanent soul doesn’t exist.

    “Body is a tool for soul. My argument is what intrinsic property leads to consciousness still stands.” If you did not have a body you wouldn’t be aware of the physical world and you wouldn’t have any memories. When body dies so does your senses and the memory which means that “you” cease to exist.
    “Yo are making an assertion without answering my question” I am stating the fact that your consciousness is not independent of the body – otherwise you wouldn’t to be able to read these words.
    “A robot can also sense or read letters, but it is nOT aware of anything. ” We are robots yet we are aware.
    “Awareness is a quality of soul. What intrinsic property of matter leads to awareness? You cannot identify such a property. This proves existence of souls.” Consciousness is a program being run on the brain, when the brain dies or if someone suffers brain damage or has a mental illness like Alzheimer’s the program no longer works or no longer works properly.

    “A body is never conscious, it is the soul that is conscious.” Consciousness is thoughts, thoughts are dependent on a functioning brain, when the brain ceases to function thoughts are no longer generated.

    “Bullshit. It can happen.” No it can’t for example you wouldn’t be able to think anything without memory, for example you couldn’t think of what to write if words are not stored in memory nor could you learn anything new if you couldn’t retain memories.
    ” If that is true, then amnesia patients cannot have any consciousness” Amnesia patients don’t lose all memories that’s why they are still conscious.

    “however they do NOT remember their social identity.” Which means they have lost their mind, which is also true of these “past lives”.

    “Even animals are self-aware of their existence. That is why they feed themselves and try to extend their lives in danger.” So?
    “Still, the fundamental units of matter exist there.” The identity “firewood” does not, just like the identity/personality of “Mary” no longer exists.

    “There is NO evidence for multiverse…It is a hypothesis…..What scientific evidence you have and still believe in multiverse without sufficient evidence, yet you reject souls when there is sufficient reasons for existence of souls…” Because nothing can happen without a cause, if anything ever happened without a cause the whole universe would be entirely chaotic no order would be possible. You can’t have ordered have effects coming of pure chaos (acausality). Since their is order this means our universe has a cause, that cause is the all or multiverse,

    ” yet you reject souls when there is sufficient reasons for existence of souls…” Their is no reason to think their is any “immaterial” soul, you are making things up.

    “New personality does NOT change anything about your identity by the body.” If you have a double would they be you? Unless they have the same personality as you and the same experiences they are not “why” but some other person. Also the body is constantly changing as well as you correctly pointed out before, the “why” that was a new born baby is not going to be recognisable as the 90 year old “why”.
    “In a similar way the soul remains the same, whether it loses its memory or not.” No if this soul has no memories it has no personality. And if it has a identity “Steve” it can’t be the same “soul” as the soul that has the identity “Mary”. You are talking nonsense.
    “But the soul remains the same” How can it “remain the same” if it has a completely new identity?

    “So your identity as that particular soul who was May and now Steve still exists” That “particularly soul” who was Mary is not the “particular soul” who is Steve. These are two completely different souls just like “why” is not “Steve”. Also since “Steve” has a different body to “”Mary” and you was saying body is needed to identity “you” it means I am also not Mary following your statement that body is needed to identify.

  127. Phoenix says:

    Steve://It’s confirmed by the MRI scans on these peoples brain//

    That’s why I asked for a link of a peer reviewed study. It would confirm that the study was either observational or experimental. The former only implies correlation but the latter could infer causation. Without this knowledge we could only speculate.
    =====
    The scans allow you to predict the personality traits not their behaviour. People with neuro typical brains can also engage in antisocial and abnormal behaviour for example if they have been drinking heavily or have been on drugs or something like that. I also do not agree with this statement that abnormal behaviour is found in people with neuro typical brains, if the behaviour is abnormal then the brain will be abnormal. We simply can’t measure all the brain activity to allow us to for example to see how taking drugs affected a persons brain which resulted in abnormal behaviour.//

    I think there’s a leap of logic in your argument. You assert that people with neuro typical brains may engage in abnormal behavior after substance abuse. I agree. But…substance abuse is abnormal behavior too and what substance abuse led them to abuse substances prior to that, and prior to that, etc.? You may have placed yourself inside a paradox.
    ====
    Yes psychopaths cannot have empathy however their behaviour can be changed very difficult but not impossible, indeed this is what the justice system now tries to do in many countries it tries to change behaviour and not the core traits of psychopaths and inmates with other personality disorders. As far as Islamic terrorists are concerned we have no choice but to either lock them up, kill them, or drug them up etc. if in the future we invent a wonder drug that could install empathy in them then it would make sense to give it to them//

    I think that link I gave above demonstrates that psychopaths can be taught to love and have empathy for others. This would require the ingredient of free will of course.
    =======
    Why would it imply that? In any case all that matters is the evidence not the source, if a psychopath says 1+1=2 or the earth revolves around the sun then they are also correct saying “but your a psychopath” is not an argument in fact it’s a logical fallacy. “Or is it possible to be scientifically minded and psychotic simultaneously?”//

    The reason I asked because Atheists tend to equate religous people with being anti-scientific and dangerous. However, there was a study which showed that religious people tend to be more social and empathic than atheists.

    http://blog.case.edu/think/2016/03/23/the_conflict_between_science_and_religion_lies_in_our_brains

    Extract from the article

    “Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others. ..

    …They found that both spiritual belief and empathic concern were positively associated with frequency of prayer, meditations and other spiritual or religious practices, but neither were predicted by church dinners or other social contact associated with religious affiliation.”

  128. Phoenix says:

    Dr James Fallon claims to have the genetic and neurological correlates of psychopathy, he also says he has been assessed by Robert Hares psychopathy checklist and scored 20 out of a possible 40 (you need 30 to be diagnosed as a psychopath) the average score for normal people is between 4-6 so he has strong psychopathic traits way above the norm but still not enough to be considered a fully fledged psychopath. Park Dietz as far as I am aware is not a psychopath or a partial psychopath nor does he have an other personality disorder or mental illness.//

    See this link where Dr Jimmy Fallon’s end result seem to contradict the Materialist’s doctrine of Determinism. Free will is able to override genetic personality traits.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist

    “Of course, there’s also a third ingredient, in addition to genetics and environment: free will. “Since finding all this out and looking into it, I’ve made an effort to try to change my behavior,” Fallon says. “I’ve more consciously been doing things that are considered ‘the right thing to do,’ and thinking more about other people’s feelings.”
    =======
    If they present evidence that’s all that matters, Sam vaknin is also a psychopath (a diagnosed fully fledged one and not just psychopathic traits) and narcissist yet he is the leading expert on NPD and before him barely anything was written about narcissism and his information comes from examples from his own life as well as from contact with thousands of other narcissists and victims of narcissists. The fact he has both of these disorders does not invalidate his data, likewise the fact fallon has psychopathic traits does not invalidate the data he presents.//

    Hmmm…Sam Vaknin’s theories and even credentials appear to be a hotly disputed. He admits himself that academics in his field reject his theories.

  129. Ron says:

    Madfijian is correct,
    The Author “Chaterjee” of this book “OH YOU HINDU AWAKE” is a Hindu Bengali Brahmin according the Wikipedia. See the description when you search the name “Chaterjee” in Wikipedia below.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Chatterjee/Chatarjee (sometimes Chatterji or Chatterjea or chatarjee) Chêṭarji) is an Indian family name of the Bengali Brahmin caste. It is a variant of Chattopadhyay(a).[citation needed] Chattopadhyay (compound of village name “Chaṭṭa” and “upādhyāya” denoting “priest, teacher” originally granted with the village named Chaṭṭa) is the Sanskritized form of the local Prakrit word “chaturjye”, anglicized to Chatterjee. Upadhyays from Chattol area of gangetic Bengals were popularly known as Chattopadhyay or Chatterjee. The renowned 19th century mystic Gadadhar Chattopadhyay or Sri Ramakrishna is from this caste.

  130. Truth Seeker says:

    Someone asked Question:
    How do I know that I am different from body and mind? Am I not a chemical reaction?

    Answered:
    Very simple! Your body and thoughts have changed since your birth, but you remain the same. Even on regular basis you find body and thoughts changing. Thus you are different from body and mind. The feeling of consciousness or ‘I’ is real you. This I is questioning right now and reading this article and knows that ‘I’ exists. This ‘I’ is the one who is currently keen to explore who this ‘I’ is. Even when you sleep without dreams, you wake up and say I had a good sleep. This ‘I’ enjoyed the peace of sleep as well. Read further and discover the ‘I’ further.

    Some people say that consciousness is nothing but a chemical in brain and there is no soul. They say that all the emotions and feeling of pain and pleasure is simply chemical reaction. Nothing can be more foolish than this to claim as truth. Normally such views are held by people who have dumbed their intellect below a threshold by indulging in a variety of immoral activities. They are running away from their guilt feelings and ‘inner voice’ and hence indulge in such empty talks.

    But just consider: when someone slaps you, reactions happen in body and neurons fire to give feeling of pain. But ‘who’ feels the pain? And when you are praised, agains neurons fire in a different manner and you feel happy. But again, ‘who’ felt happy? The very fact that something is felt implies someone is feeling. Obviously an electron, proton or neutron or a hydrogen atom or a water molecule or whatever cannot be ‘I’ that feels. This ‘I’ that feels and decides is the soul within our body – our true self. And since it is not a physical entity, it cannot be affected by physical things like fire, water etc. Thus it is indestructible. After all destruction means breakdown of various components. So how can something which has no further components be broken down. Also a gross thing cannot break a subtler thing like a sword cannot break an atom. Thus soul is indestructible as explained in almost all scriptures.

    Further ask these childish ‘chemical intellectuals’ that if its all chemical reactions, then why they have a problem when we refute them? After even that is chemical reaction and so are they! Why they love, why they feel offended, why they take education and why they have urge to propagate their knowledge and counter ‘superstitions’? Also, why don’t they oppose laws against crime? Because if its all chemical reactions, why to punish a chemical reaction? Do you punish acid when someone throws that on someone’s face to damage it? Also if they are chemical reactions, why to take them seriously? All they speak or write or argue may just be a stupid random chemical reaction creating disturbance, like two acids mixing in chemical lab!

    In summary, if its chemical reaction or non-eternal entity, the whole concept of law, order, love, emotions, education, character, crime, punishment, rewards, sports, entertainment, compassion etc become useless. Whole life becomes meaningless. So this theory is only for meaningless people with meaningless intellect who would not mind even being killed because even their life is meaningless and murder is also a chemical reaction!

    Let us keep such meaningless arguments aside, and explore further the logical truth of we being ‘soul’ that is unborn and undying.

  131. why? says:

    [email protected],

    You as a believer of Arya Samaj philosophy, do NOT consider Bhagawad Gita as an authorized scripture. So why quote it? The same Gita talks about Tamas (evil) souls destined for eternal hell and good souls destined for eternal happiness. Check 16th chapter. There is no point arguing among ourselves.

  132. why? says:

    !++Steve,

    “What the hell do you mean by soul? Show this *soul* to me.”

    Just as any matter is known by its properties, so is the soul. If you ask me what is an electron, you know its existence ONLY by the effects it shows. Electrons cannot be viewed.

    Similarly, souls existence can be known only through the effects it shows, namely consciousness. Please go back to the argument I gave for existence of souls.

    “No why don’t you me show this immaterial soul that exists independently of the physical brain and body? You can’t do it because it doesn’t exist. Soul or the conscious mind (if that is what you mean by *soul*) can’t exist independently of these things otherwise it couldn’t be aware of them or be effected by them.”

    Just because one cannot show electron’s existence, does it mean electron does NOT exist. How did scientists come to conclusion that electron exists? Only through a phenomenon that cannot be explained by known existing particles. So is this case.

    Again go back to the argument and answer me which known intrinsic property of known matter gives rise to rise of awareness? There exists none. Therefore the need to postulate the existence of souls, just like electrons.

    “That’s how science works a hypothesis has to be falsifiable since belief in past lives is not falsifiable it is not scientific or rational. For example according to you the fact that nobody on planet earth has ever remembered any past life does not “disprove the possibility” that everybody have in fact had past lives. That is why this belief is utter nonsense.”

    We are NOT conducting Scientific research here. When we do together such a research, you let me know.

    “If you want to claim that Fritz daughter was getting punished for sins in a past life then you have to provide evidence otherwise you and your God are evil. …..your “good god” does.”

    Does not disprove existence of past deeds.

    “It does contradict it, since in reality you suffer/enjoy not just as a result of your “past lives” but of other people’s as well.”

    It still does NOT contradict as you history of deeds is connected to others as well.

    “The important point is you are unconscious and you are unconscious because something caused the body and brain to become unconscious (such as anaesthetic for example)……No it is not their since you are unconscious. Unconscious means you have no awareness, it is not a state of consciousness altered or otherwise.”

    No it is there, otherwise neither a person who is asleep not the comatose patient will show any reaction to sounds.

    “When they are definitely unconscious such as when as when their brain dies and no possibility that consciousness is there or that it will ever return. “Consciousness never ceases in reality.” Consciousness ceases to exist when the conditions that consciousness depends on are removed, consciousness is no more permanent than the Waves in the ocean.”

    When the brain dies, the soul loses its way to communicate to us. This situation does NOT disprove anything. If by chance a robot fails to function because of hardware damage, do you conclude that software is faulty. Your argument is similarly foolish.

    “What do you mean by intrinsic properties of matter?”

    Please go and learn basic science then. If you do NOT know what is intrinsic property of matter, then you are wasting my time until now.

    “No everything has a cause therefore they definitely do have a beginning.”

    But just now you claimed that sequence of causes themselves have no beginning. So according to you, something other than the “All”, which is the sequence of causes (which is a subset of the “all”) is without beginning. So if sequence of causes, which are phenomenon happening inside the “all”, can be without beginning, then so can the constituents of the “all”. So soul is without beginning.

    “Finite conditioned phenomenon – by its very nature – must have cause and must have a beginning. Believing that ANY finite conditioned phenomenon does not have a beginning is insane.”

    So then there must exist a FIRST CAUSE, before which there is no other cause. You claimed sequence of causes have no beginning. Which is it. First decide and then argue with me.

    “No you are wasting my time coming out with bullshit statements like “you can’t disprove the possibility” and “you can’t disprove soul (even though you don’t even define what the “soul” is.)”

    You are again wasting my time with empty assertions. Soul is defined above, just like you define an electron, through its properties.

    You can disprove the possibilities by finding inconsistency in the possibilities.

    “If in fact the Christian God existed and he is perfect then Jesus dying on a cross is morally justified.”

    How? You are flipping now, when initially you agreed with my arguments. Why? You even quoted Hitchens to show why Jeebus’ case of dying is NOT morally acceptable and consistent with existence of a perfect God. Now you have flipped just for argument’s sake.

    You are a dishonest hypocrite then. Are all atheists so dishonest like you Steve?

    “Just like if past life sins exist Joseph Fritz raping and impregnating his own daughter would be morally justified.”

    Now, how would raping be justified just because of daughter’s past bad deeds? Fritz action is still considered bad, while daughter may have been a similar rapist is past lives. The best way to learn a lesson is to be the victim’s shoes. Fritz actions are as per evil souls’ actions. No innocent souls are put in harms way.

    “But since both reincarnation and the Christian God are just fantasies in people’s imagination it follows both of these beliefs are insane and immoral.”

    You may call it fantasy or insane. None of these proves anything against the existence of past lives.

    “It does 1)Your God is perfect which presumably means he is a morally perfect being also. 2) A morally perfect being would have a moral duty to provide human beings with evidence that every last bit of suffering an individual endures is the result of sins committed in a past life, and that the punishment (amount of suffering) fits the crime. 3)Their is no at evidence at all for any past life. 4)Therefore this God doesn’t exist.”

    There is NO need for God to provide any evidence about spiritual truths. Evidence comes only when proper effort is put by the souls towards that goal. Will you reward a person without hard work? Knowledge of spiritual realm is the highest reward. It is given only to souls that deserve it in terms of their intrinsic nature and history of deeds up until that point of time. Other good souls have to wait for the time, while the mixed get mixed knowledge and evil souls do NOT get it. Their end is suffering only. A just and perfect God gives results to souls as per their intrinsic nature and intrinsic qualification only.

    “Because nature is infinite (since it is not bounded by anything). For something to have a beginning it needs something else to bring it into existence but in the case of the all their is nothing else.”

    You are merely asserting without evidence that nature is infinite. I asked you how can nature consisting of FINITE THINGS ONLY be infinite? It is NOT possible and you are making illogical claims here.

    “No because all existent things have a particular nature and form/boundaries while the all does not (because their is nothing to contrast it with nor anything for it to be bounded by).”

    Now you have agreed that “all existent things have a particular nature and form/boundaries”. If all existent things in nature have boundaries, then how can nature itself have no boundaries.

    Let me give an example…If I have a set of apples and oranges which are finite and bounded in form, how can the set itself be infinite? Only if you have infinite apples and oranges with finite bounded forms.

    Similarly, nature can be unbounded here only if there are infinite number of bounded finite things within the Universe. So some “thing” within the Universe must be infinite or there must be infinite finite things to make Universe infinite. Thus there is nothing wrong in saying Souls are infinite in number and without beginning, although souls are bounded finite objects of Universal set.

    “It doesn’t mean anything to say existence (which is what I mean by nature) does not exist. Their is nothing outside of existence (by definition) therefore they can never have been this time before existence existed.”

    Which means the contents of existence in one form or other are also without beginning. Existence is defined by its contents and existence is NOT something independent of its contents. If existence is without beginning, then so are its contents.

    “The all = the totality of all things. A particular thing = Something that is bounded and finite and therefore is not the all but a part of the all, and all parts of the all have a cause for the obvious reason that they are a finite conditioned phenomenon.”

    Illogical assertion again……First things and phenomenon are entirely different from each other. A phenomenon is an event, while a thing is a substance. A phenomenon like a thing is also bounded and finite.

    Now the all includes every phenomena occurring in the all. A cause is definitely a phenomenon. Hence, the cause must be finite and bounded as every phenomenon is finite and bounded as per your argument. So every cause as a phenomenon also has a beginning. If this is the case, then it leads to infinite sequence of causes. If sequence of causes can be infinite, then the sequence of “things” that result from infinite sequence of causes are also infinite. Since there are infinite sequence of things within Universe, this means things that exist within the Universe in one form or the other are also without beginning.

    Hence there is nothing wrong in assuming souls are also without beginning.

    “No it is not the obvious conclusion their is nothing which can cause the all since their exists nothing “else” which could possibly cause it. Therefore it is logically impossible that the all can have a cause, since that cause would automatically be a part of the all (by definition).”

    What makes you think that a cause has to be outside of a thing? A radioactive substance decays by itself because of instability of the radioactive substance itself. There is NOT necessarily a cause outside of it, as it is the instability which is the cause of radioactive decay.

    Similarly, the all by itself is unstable all the time and which is why its constituents are continuously changing and every instant of time. Which means the properties of “all” are continuously changing and therefore the “all” always has a beginning at every instant.

    “Because if it was separate from the physical it would necessarily be isolated from it and would to unable to interact with the physical.”

    What do you mean “separate” from the physical world. The soul exists within the bodies and interact with the body. All I said is that the soul is immutable and beginning-less. What we experience as seeing, hearing etc. is the intrinsic property of the soul arising as knowledge of external world. It is a knowledge base of all things.

    “Rip out a mans brain, burn it and then send it in a rocket to the sun then it will be completely dead. If anaesthetic didn’t work then people would be conscious through the whole operation and would be able to feel pain on the operating table and they would have memories of this.”

    Body is a tool for soul. My argument is what intrinsic property leads to consciousness still stands.

    “What does that even mean? The fact you are reading these words using your physical eyeballs is proof that consciousness does not exist independent of the body and its proof you have no idea what you are talking about.”

    Yo are making an assertion without answering my question. A robot can also sense or read letters, but it is nOT aware of anything. Awareness is a quality of soul. What intrinsic property of matter leads to awareness? You cannot identify such a property. This proves existence of souls.

    “Yes in other words corpses – dead people – are not conscious.”

    A body is never conscious, it is the soul that is conscious.

    “More nonsense, in reality consciousness cannot function without memory. Thinking can’t happen without memory.”

    Bullshit. It can happen. If that is true, then amnesia patients cannot have any consciousness. They are self-aware of their existence, however they do NOT remember their social identity. Even animals are self-aware of their existence. That is why they feed themselves and try to extend their lives in danger.

    “By soul I mean conscious mind or the “I” which I assume is what you mean when you speak of souls. , “Soul or mind is a conditioned phenomenon (exactly the same as everything else in the universe) and therefore is no more indestructible, unchanging and fundamental unit of existence than a brick is.”

    Assertions…..What intrinsic property of matter leads to cconsciousness? If you cannot answer this question, then all you are doing is making mere assertions.

    “Not in there current form they are not, when you burn firewood it becomes ash, these are different things with different identities, the firewood has been annihilated.”

    Still, the fundamental units of matter exist there.

    “That’s because when scientists speak of “universe” they mean the observable universe (the time-space bubble in which we live) they do not mean the all or the multiverse.”

    There is NO evidence for multiverse…It is a hypothesis…..What scientific evidence you have and still believe in multiverse without sufficient evidence, yet you reject souls when there is sufficient reasons for existence of souls…

    What intrinsic property of matter leads to consciousness or self-awareness? There is not one known single property of matter in existence that is known to lead to consciousness. Hence it is logical to conclude existence of souls with such properties.

    “No since if I Iost all my memories or enough that my personality/identity no longer existed “I” would cease to exist. This new personality wouldn’t have any relationship to “me” what so ever and would be a completely new personality.” “If I lost all my memories I wouldn’t remember my name, the people in my life, my birth certificate or anything. My very identity would be gone in other words “I” would cease to exist.”

    New personality does NOT change anything about your identity by the body. An amnesiac does NOT lose his legal identity, just because he lost his memory or an amnesiac does NOT lose his body because of loss of memory. In a similar way the soul remains the same, whether it loses its memory or not.

    “No since it can’t both be “Mary” and “Steve” since these are different people with different minds.”

    But the soul remains the same. So your identity as that particular soul who was May and now Steve still exists. None of your arguments prove anything against existence of souls.

  133. Truth Seeker says:

    1. Actions create Sanskaars (tendencies or habits) and Sanskaars determine Limits of potential of soul. The catch is that the moment you conduct an action, it creates a Sanskaar. Sanskaar implies that the probability of you conducting the same action in similar situation increases.

    Thus, if you do wrong acts – like cheating, hating etc – the probability of you doing the same again and again increases. This reduces the limits of your potentials and hence you have reduced knowledge resulting in reduced bliss. Thus you get a step away from Mukti.

    But when you do good acts – like compassion, analyzing and accepting only truth, high character etc – the probability of you doing more of such good acts also increases. This leads to greater potential of seeking knowledge and hence bliss. Thus you get a step closer to Mukti.

    2. Now EACH AND EVERY ACTION (including thoughts and feelings) count in this process. Also remember that even if you do something even once, its probability of happening again and making you dumber or intelligent increases.

    3. A typical soul keeps oscillating between good and bad deeds every moment, going few steps back and few steps forth like a drunkard, resulting in the delay in Mukti.

    4. But a yogi uses his will-power to refuse to conduct bad actions and proactively conducts noble actions. This gradually weakens the Sanskaars of old bad actions and replaces them with good Sanskaars. Gradually the seeds of all bad sanskaars are destroyed by a yogi. This results in a situation that bad actions are not repeated under any circumstance by the yogi. He thus has burnt the seeds of bad Sanskaars (dagdhbeej) or has got free of the trap of bad Sanskaars forcing bad actions. He moves straight towards Mukti like an armyman without stepping back.

    He surrenders completely to Ishwar’s will and achieves ultimate bliss of Ishwar.

    This process of destruction of seeds of sanskaars demands constant practice with full enthusiasm, confidence and faith on Ishwar for a period of time.

    THE ONLY CONTROLLING BUTTON WE HAVE IN THIS PROCESS IS OUR WILL-POWER.

    Majority of people ignore to use this WILL-POWER in right direction and hence basically act as puppets responding to strings of situations. They thus themselves stifle their progress. Yogis act in opposite manner.

    That is why Geeta says that what is day for the world is night for Yogi and vice verse.

    The more powerfully you use your WILL-POWER, faster you reach Mukti.

  134. why? says:

    !+!+Truthseeker,

    “In Yog Darshan language it is (Vikalp Varti ) when we say soul’s consciousness (Aatam ki Chetanta) because soul is nothing more than conscious.”

    It is said to be Atma ki chetana, soul’s consciousness. Consciousness is a property of Soul then, NOT that consciousness is soul.

    All Jiva or souls have Gyana (knowledge), iccha (desire or wish) and Kriya (activities) as their properties. Else how does a mere consciousness itself engage in activities even with a body. All souls have senses and organs made of spiritual elements which are indestructible, except by God. Just like matter is classified as satva (good), rajas (mixed) and Tamas (evil), so is the spiritual make up of souls also classified similarly, although souls are beyond matter.

  135. Steve says:

    +Why
    “May be that is because you do not have the ability to falsify. It can be falsified if you can prove logically that there is no necessity for soul to exist, buy simply proving brain is enough for consciousness to exist or showing/replicating the phenomenon that creates consciousness with only matter.” What the hell do you mean by soul? Show this *soul* to me. “buy simply proving brain is enough for consciousness to exist or showing/replicating the phenomenon that creates consciousness with only matter.” No why don’t you me show this immaterial soul that exists independently of the physical brain and body? You can’t do it because it doesn’t exist. Soul or the conscious mind (if that is what you mean by *soul*) can’t exist independently of these things otherwise it couldn’t be aware of them or be effected by them.

    ” My agenda here is only to show possibilities and NOT prove something. Why would such an agenda be nonsense?” That’s how science works a hypothesis has to be falsifiable since belief in past lives is not falsifiable it is not scientific or rational. For example according to you the fact that nobody on planet earth has ever remembered any past life does not “disprove the possibility” that everybody have in fact had past lives. That is why this belief is utter nonsense.

    “It is still an useless example and does NOT disprove past lives for souls. All you are doing here is asserting something without any valid argument for non-existence of past lives. If you prove that past lives or souls cannot exist, then you can conclude that Fritz is the only option left. Otherwise other possibilities also exist.” If you want to claim that Fritz daughter was getting punished for sins in a past life then you have to provide evidence otherwise you and your God are evil. Let’s say I accuse you of being a pedophile, following your reasoning I don’t have to provide any evidence to support my claim since lack of evidence doesn’t “disprove the possibility”. I can then whip up a mob based on my blind belief you are a pedophile and since according to you just claiming something to be true or “possible true” is good enough and you don’t to have evidence for your claim. Then it will be just, of me and my mob of brainless thugs to brake into your home drag you out, tie you to a pole and then strip you naked cut off your genitals and finally cover your body in petrol and burn you alive. This behaviour would be insane and evil, but yet this is what you believe your “good god” does.

    “It does NOT contradict at all. My statement was clear. Souls suffer/enjoy according to their intrinsic nature and history of deeds uptill this point of time.” It does contradict it, since in reality you suffer/enjoy not just as a result of your “past lives” but of other people’s as well.

    “Stupid argument. When you are unconscious, does your body lose potential for consciousness. NO…” The important point is you are unconscious and you are unconscious because something caused the body and brain to become unconscious (such as anaesthetic for example).

    ” So consciousness is there, just NOT the normal state of consciousness, it is altered state of consciousness.” No it is not their since you are unconscious. Unconscious means you have no awareness, it is not a state of consciousness altered or otherwise.

    “This shows that consciousness exists even when people are allegedly unconscious.” When they are definitely unconscious such as when as when their brain dies and no possibility that consciousness is there or that it will ever return. “Consciousness never ceases in reality.” Consciousness ceases to exist when the conditions that consciousness depends on are removed, consciousness is no more permanent than the Waves in the ocean.

    “If consciousness does NOT arise independently, then what intrinsic properties of matter lead to consciousness?” What do you mean by intrinsic properties of matter?

    “So are causes finite conditioned phenomenon, yet they exist without any beginning for you.” No everything has a cause therefore they definitely do have a beginning.

    ” If causes which are finite conditioned phenomenon can exist without beginning, so can souls also.” Finite conditioned phenomenon – by its very nature – must have cause and must have a beginning. Believing that ANY finite conditioned phenomenon does not have a beginning is insane.

    “You are wasting my time Steve.” No you are wasting my time coming out with bullshit statements like “you can’t disprove the possibility” and “you can’t disprove soul (even though you don’t even define what the “soul” is.)
    “The case of jeebus is different. I have already shown with logical/moral reasons that the claim “jeebus died for sins of mankind” cannot stand logically/morally with a belief in a perfect God and so cannot be true.” If in fact the Christian God existed and he is perfect then Jesus dying on a cross is morally justified. Just like if past life sins exist Joseph Fritz raping and impregnating his own daughter would be morally justified. But since both reincarnation and the Christian God are just fantasies in people’s imagination it follows both of these beliefs are insane and immoral.
    “The case for souls past deeds does NOT have any logical/moral arguments against it. You aare incapable of understanding simple logic and are wasting my time here.” It does 1)Your God is perfect which presumably means he is a morally perfect being also. 2) A morally perfect being would have a moral duty to provide human beings with evidence that every last bit of suffering an individual endures is the result of sins committed in a past life, and that the punishment (amount of suffering) fits the crime. 3)Their is no at evidence at all for any past life. 4)Therefore this God doesn’t exist.

    “How can nature which consists of “things that are finite” somehow be beginning-less?” Because nature is infinite (since it is not bounded by anything). For something to have a beginning it needs something else to bring it into existence but in the case of the all their is nothing else.
    ” If nature is beginningless, then its contents are definitely beginning-less in some form. ” No because all existent things have a particular nature and form/boundaries while the all does not (because their is nothing to contrast it with nor anything for it to be bounded by).

    “If all of its contents are NOT beginning-less, then at one time nature also does not exist as it is completely void of existence, if its contents are void of existence.” It doesn’t mean anything to say existence (which is what I mean by nature) does not exist. Their is nothing outside of existence (by definition) therefore they can never have been this time before existence existed.

    “What obvious reasons? There are NO such “obvious reasons”. ” The all = the totality of all things. A particular thing = Something that is bounded and finite and therefore is not the all but a part of the all, and all parts of the all have a cause for the obvious reason that they are a finite conditioned phenomenon.

    “If every part of all is caused, then the obvious conclusion is the all is also caused.” No it is not the obvious conclusion their is nothing which can cause the all since their exists nothing “else” which could possibly cause it. Therefore it is logically impossible that the all can have a cause, since that cause would automatically be a part of the all (by definition).
    “Why is that so? It is the soul that still sees the world and cognizes the world. Soul also has all the senses.” Because if it was separate from the physical it would necessarily be isolated from it and would to unable to interact with the physical.

    “NOT necessarily true. Even coma patients still hear. I have provided the link above. So consciousness still survives in some form. It is NOT completely dead. If it was completely dead and can be proven as such, then we can say that soul does NOT exist as consciousness can be turned on and off in a digital manner.” Rip out a mans brain, burn it and then send it in a rocket to the sun then it will be completely dead. If anaesthetic didn’t work then people would be conscious through the whole operation and would be able to feel pain on the operating table and they would have memories of this.

    “Consciousness belongs to the soul, not the body. ” What does that even mean? The fact you are reading these words using your physical eyeballs is proof that consciousness does not exist independent of the body and its proof you have no idea what you are talking about.

    “A corpse is called lifeless because there is no soul in it.” Yes in other words corpses – dead people – are not conscious.

    “Memory in living beings is a function of consciousness and therefore is in the souls.” More nonsense, in reality consciousness cannot function without memory. Thinking can’t happen without memory.

    “I thought you did NOT believe in existence of souls” By soul I mean conscious mind or the “I” which I assume is what you mean when you speak of souls. , “That which is indestructible and unchangeable is a fundamental unit of existence.” Soul or mind is a conditioned phenomenon (exactly the same as everything else in the universe) and therefore is no more indestructible, unchanging and fundamental unit of existence than a brick is.

    “The contents or things may be continuously changing its forms, however, they are still beginning-less in one form or the other. If the contents in one form other are beginning-less, then so can the soul be.” Not in there current form they are not, when you burn firewood it becomes ash, these are different things with different identities, the firewood has been annihilated.

    “Third, scientifically Universe is considered finite and NOT infinite.” That’s because when scientists speak of “universe” they mean the observable universe (the time-space bubble in which we live) they do not mean the all or the multiverse.

    “It does NOT matter. Just because you lose memory of yourself, does your identity from state like driver’s license etc. become non-existent? Still you are identified as this person. In a similar fashion, so does your soul have an identity regardless of your memory.” No since if I Iost all my memories or enough that my personality/identity no longer existed “I” would cease to exist. This new personality wouldn’t have any relationship to “me” what so ever and would be a completely new personality.

    “This is all mere world play. You are still identified with your birth certificate.” If I lost all my memories I wouldn’t remember my name, the people in my life, my birth certificate or anything. My very identity would be gone in other words “I” would cease to exist.

    “You might have lost your personality as a child.” That personality has definitely been lost since nothing of that new born baby exists now. “However, you are still identified by your birth place and childhood name.” If you have an identical twin brother or a doppelganger they wouldn’t be “you” even though they look the same as you and other people who saw them would think it was you. That’s because Personality depends on memory. “In a similar fasion, your identity is the particular soul whic ooccupied a body as Mary and now as Steve.” No since it can’t both be “Mary” and “Steve” since these are different people with different minds.

  136. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina

    Do you have any NDE video in which experiencer had no Idea of Jesus before NDE. But after NDE he suddenly knew about Jesus. In my family 8 members out of 10 have no Idea of Jesus. If you talk before them about Jesus they will say who was he? You have to make them understand in short Jesus was a Saint like Guru Nanak Dev and Kabirdas in India, There are Billions of people in country like India & China who do not know about Jesus remotely. Jesus is not universal entity while God is universal entity. Jesus can not be God or messenger of God.

    Please put some light on this with impartiality.

  137. Truth Seeker says:

    @Why?

    My last comment directed to you.

  138. Truth Seeker says:

    You said some souls are evil intrinsically. That is why all souls are not equal. I like to ask on this:-

    What do you mean by “evil intrinsic nature” Is it temporary or eternal? Intrinsic natures are different from (Sanskars Sanskrit Word) which are acquired by soul and change time to time? Hindu believe all souls are equal. Equal in sense they are only conscious. In other words they are nothing more than conscious. Consciousness is the form of soul not property. Other all good or bad intrinsic nature acquired by soul when it come in bondage with Parkariti (matter).

    In Yog Darshan language it is (Vikalp Varti ) when we say soul’s consciousness (Aatam ki Chetanta) because soul is nothing more than conscious.

    Vikalp Varti – Fancy is (a notion) founded on a knowledge conveyed by words, but of which there is no object (Corresponding reality)

  139. why? says:

    +!+Madfijian,

    Even your link “asimiqbal” is an islamic link. Do you need any more evidence? It is typical of islamic/christian missionaries to attack brAhmins and vilify them before attacking Hinduism. The typical fashion they do this is claim the the now scientifically debunked Aryan Invasion Theory. Now, even the anti-Hindu western indological departments have debunked this stupid theory and adopted peaceful Aryan migration theory. It is only one more step to debunk migration theory as well. There are papers based on genetics which clearly show autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system.

    http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html

    Original Article

    Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 54, 47–55; doi:10.1038/jhg.2008.2; published online 9 January 2009

    The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system

    Christian missionaries claimed at first that some “imaginary invading Aryan white race” implemented caste system as a racist system in order to denigrate Hinduism with lies. However, later evidences disproved this as a lie and now they shifted to peaceful migration of whites. Now, genetics is proving that there is no such migration as well and all brAhmins are of indigenous origin only.

    Your book is based on outdated false claims made by typical Islamic/christian missionaries.

  140. why? says:

    Madfijian,

    Any book which compares Mooslime women and Hindu women and claims mooslime women are free is essentially an Islamic propaganda material. The book, allegedly written by some chatterjee, is in reality writing of a stupid mooslime idiot under a Hindu name. I was aware of this silly idiotic book long back. If you are impressed by this book, it shows your low intellectual capacity.

    Which idiot (except the islamic one) would compare muslim women and Hindu women and claim that muslim women have more freedom?

  141. why? says:

    +!+!Steve,

    “That’s because claims of past lives can’t be falsified.”

    May be that is because you do not have the ability to falsify. It can be falsified if you can prove logically that there is no necessity for soul to exist, buy simply proving brain is enough for consciousness to exist or showing/replicating the phenomenon that creates consciousness with only matter.

    “How can one prove the absence of past lives? ”

    By simply proving no souls exist or no soul is needed for consciousness.

    “Another nonsense statement, when a scientist sets up to test a hypothesis his tests ……..”

    We are NOT conducting scientific experiment here and only arguing with each other. My agenda here is only to show possibilities and NOT prove something. Why would such an agenda be nonsense?

    “It proves based on the evidence we can say someone like Fritz is evil and is not a loving father…..”

    It is still an useless example and does NOT disprove past lives for souls. All you are doing here is asserting something without any valid argument for non-existence of past lives. If you prove that past lives or souls cannot exist, then you can conclude that Fritz is the only option left. Otherwise other possibilities also exist.

    “So you can suffer or be happy as a result of other people’s actions yes? This contradicts past life belief that all suffering/happiness is the result of the persons own life/past lives. ….”

    It does NOT contradict at all. My statement was clear. Souls suffer/enjoy according to their intrinsic nature and history of deeds uptill this point of time.

    “When your body is unconscious your “soul” doesn’t exist.”

    Stupid argument. When you are unconscious, does your body lose potential for consciousness. NO…..Even when asleep, when one plays loud music you awake. So consciousness is there, just NOT the normal state of consciousness, it is altered state of consciousness.

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/can-coma-patients-hear-you-families-should-tell-stories-loved-ones-coma-319148

    Even coma patients hear when in coma. This shows that consciousness exists even when people are allegedly unconscious. Consciousness never ceases in reality. Soul exists exhibiting different states of consciousness.

    “it doesn’t arise independently.”

    If consciousness does NOT arise independently, then what intrinsic properties of matter lead to consciousness?

    “No souls are finite conditioned phenomenon as I said before believing souls are beginning-less is no different to believing the Ganges river is beginning-less. The all is not a conditioned finite phenomenon that is why it doesn’t – and cannot – have a beginning.”

    So are causes finite conditioned phenomenon, yet they exist without any beginning for you. You disproved you won claims here. If causes which are finite conditioned phenomenon can exist without beginning, so can souls also.

    “Again this is meaningless it’s no different to a Christian saying “The question is whether there is a possibility that Jesus Christ rose from the dead so that humanity could be saved and have eternal life, and if it is possible then it explains the existence of evil consistent with a belief in a perfect God and so can exist’ it’s just a completely worthless nonsensical statement..”

    You are wasting my time Steve.

    The case of jeebus is different. I have already shown with logical/moral reasons that the claim “jeebus died for sins of mankind” cannot stand logically/morally with a belief in a perfect God and so cannot be true.

    The case for souls past deeds does NOT have any logical/moral arguments against it. You aare incapable of understanding simple logic and are wasting my time here.

    “No because nature is not a “thing” it is the totality of all things, it has no boundary and is infinite (since their is nothing “else” apart from nature) while “souls” are a finite, bounded conditioned phenomenon which means they have a beginning and end – exactly the same as everything else in nature.”

    How can nature which consists of “things that are finite” somehow be beginning-less? If nature is beginningless, then its contents are definitely beginning-less in some form. If all of its contents are NOT beginning-less, then at one time nature also does not exist as it is completely void of existence, if its contents are void of existence.

    “The only “thing” which doesn’t have a cause is the all. All other things which are part of the all must have a cause for obvious reasons.”

    What obvious reasons? There are NO such “obvious reasons”. You are merely making empty assertions. If the all is without cause, then so are its contents. If every part of all is caused, then the obvious conclusion is the all is also caused.

    “The consciousness does not exist independently of the body/physical world, since if it did it could never be aware aware of the physical world. ”

    Why is that so? It is the soul that still sees the world and cognizes the world. Soul also has all the senses.

    “Also we know things like drugs and brain damage can effect the consciousness and a blow to the head or anaesthetic can turn consciousness off. Literally at any time the physical world can bring the existence of your mind to an end.”

    NOT necessarily true. Even coma patients still hear. I have provided the link above. So consciousness still survives in some form. It is NOT completely dead. If it was completely dead and can be proven as such, then we can say that soul does NOT exist as consciousness can be turned on and off in a digital manner.

    “The consciousness that can think, has a sense of self/personality (through memory) and is able to reason. The fly cannot do that therefore you can’t put human consciousness into a fly or be “reborn” as a fly.”

    Consciousness belongs to the soul, not the body. My argument still stands. What known intrinsic property of matter is responsible for consciousness? There is NOT a single recognized property as such. Hence, known matter cannot cause consciousness.

    “So can souls occupy a dead lifeless corpse then? No then can’t because a dead lifeless corpse is not able to have consciousness.”

    A corpse is called lifeless because there is no soul in it.

    “Just like past lives.”

    You have not given any reasons..empty assertions again.

    “Memory is also dependent on structures in the physical brain so when the brain dies so does the self and does not go flying round the place and being reborn as flies and rats and other nonsense , and our self constantly changes with every new experience and that changing also is dependent on the brain and body.”

    Memory of living beings is NOT mere hardware phenomenon of 0s and 1s. Memory in living beings is a function of consciousness and therefore is in the souls.

    “Souls are not fundamental, the only thing which is fundamental is the all. Souls are no more fundamental than sand.”

    I thought you did NOT believe in existence of souls, yet assert that they are NOT fundamental units. That which is indestructible and unchangeable is a fundamental unit of existence.

    “See my statements above about the all when I Clearly explain it is the only “thing” which can be without cause all other things obviously need a cause.”

    Again…your stupid argument was already exposed. If the “all” consisting of “every” “thing” in the “all”, is somehow without beginning, then so are its contents without beginning. The contents or things may be continuously changing its forms, however, they are still beginning-less in one form or the other. If the contents in one form other are beginning-less, then so can the soul be.

    Second, there is NO rule that contents of the “all”, although finite, need not be beginning-less. This is your assertion that it should have a beginning.

    Third, scientifically Universe is considered finite and NOT infinite.

    “Memory is essential for my identity/personality if a person loses their memories and forgets who they are (or were) then we say they have lost their mind – and for good reason.”

    It does NOT matter. Just because you lose memory of yourself, does your identity from state like driver’s license etc. become non-existent? Still you are identified as this person. In a similar fashion, so does your soul have an identity regardless of your memory.

    “No I as I exist now did not exist as that child nothing or virtually nothing is left of that baby, we are only able to have a sense of self through memory – no memory means no self. In fact you can say ever movement their is a new “you” – although the “you” that exists right now is very closely related to the “you” that existed 5 minutes ago (and this relationship is only possible because of memory).”

    This is all mere world play. You are still identified with your birth certificate.

    “It’s not irrelevant since “Mary’s” whole personality/identity has been lost it means she cant be reborn as “Steve” if her very identity is not going to survive the process of rebirth.”

    You might have lost your personality as a child. However, you are still identified by your birth place and childhood name. In a similar fasion, your identity is the particular soul whic ooccupied a body as Mary and now as Steve.

  142. madfijian says:

    Why! as expected. Anyone questioning your warped one sided view on the superiority of your beliefs is an idiot according to you. The book was not written by Muslims and it is a breakdown of what Hinduism truly is which is a oppressive social structure designed by the Brahman class to subjugate and enslave its subjects. For those who are interested here is the link
    https://asimiqbal2nd.files.wordpress.com/2009/…/o-you-hindu-awake.pd
    you can also find the file here: https://archive.org/…/OhHinduAwake/OhYouHinduAwa…Internet Archive.

  143. why? says:

    +!Madfijian,

    The book is a third grade idiotic one written by some islamic groups. Every idiotic claim in that book can be refuted. It compares Muslim women and Hindu women and claims mooslime women have more rights. This is enough to see the bias. If you want to conclude based on an idiot’s work go ahead.

  144. why? says:

    [email protected],

    “All human allowed to exercise their free will. If God interferes then there is no free will. God does not interfere. Our actions Good or Bad (Karmas) decide our next life. I think Geeta also say this “You have all right to do your Karma but result in the hands of God.””

    There is no free-will independent of the intrinsic nature of soul. What you call as free-will is ONLY self-same nature of soul. Karma is in accordance to self-same intrinsic nature of soul. So free-will argument like christians do is nonsense..Every soul acts according to its intrinsic nature.

    “Many girls are gang raped brutally. …… ”

    You are wrong. No two souls are same. There is hierarchy and classification of souls. This is there in Upanishads. A rapist acts as per his soul’s nature and gets a body according to his soul’s nature and deeds.

  145. Ron says:

    Hi Madfijian,

    Can you please send the link for this book ” OH YOU HINDU AWAKE by Dr. Chatterjee.? I could not find it in Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

  146. whoever says:

    As a malaysian, malay muslim, I have to admit that Islam is a false religion that based muhammad’s greed and hunger for power, sex n wealth. After studying hadith n quran over n over again, I am convinced to leave this psychotic religion made by muhammad for his own benefits.

    I left Islam because it makes no senses, disallows critical thinking n reasoning n most of all degrading women by telling them “u hv the equal rights”.

    I have a list of reasons, the reasons that those who read quran n hadith page to page completely agree.

    Too many lies and contradictions. Yes, quran proves these.

  147. Steve says:

    +Phoenix
    “Interesting clips. Both doctors are psychos by their own admission yet they seem to have found a way to restrict their condition by faking empathy. Makes one wonder, what else are they faking? The data perhaps? Just a thought. Nonetheless, the points I find contentious is:” Dr James Fallon claims to have the genetic and neurological correlates of psychopathy, he also says he has been assessed by Robert Hares psychopathy checklist and scored 20 out of a possible 40 (you need 30 to be diagnosed as a psychopath) the average score for normal people is between 4-6 so he has strong psychopathic traits way above the norm but still not enough to be considered a fully fledged psychopath. Park Dietz as far as I am aware is not a psychopath or a partial psychopath nor does he have an other personality disorder or mental illness.

    “Makes one wonder, what else are they faking? The data perhaps?” If they present evidence that’s all that matters, Sam vaknin is also a psychopath (a diagnosed fully fledged one and not just psychopathic traits) and narcissist yet he is the leading expert on NPD and before him barely anything was written about narcissism and his information comes from examples from his own life as well as from contact with thousands of other narcissists and victims of narcissists. The fact he has both of these disorders does not invalidate his data, likewise the fact fallon has psychopathic traits does not invalidate the data he presents.

    a) “Some people with damaged brain are psychos, therefore all psychos have damaged brains.” “Which is essentially the argument you’re making. It fails logically as being invalid and it also falls prey to the all the hazards of inductive reasoning.” It’s confirmed by the MRI scans on these peoples brain.
    “b) Psychopathic behavior can be found in people with non-damaged brains too, unless a study showing all people exhibiting psychothic behavior is brain damaged. Highly unlikely.” The scans allow you to predict the personality traits not their behaviour. People with neuro typical brains can also engage in antisocial and abnormal behaviour for example if they have been drinking heavily or have been on drugs or something like that. I also do not agree with this statement that abnormal behaviour is found in people with neuro typical brains, if the behaviour is abnormal then the brain will be abnormal. We simply can’t measure all the brain activity to allow us to for example to see how taking drugs affected a persons brain which resulted in abnormal behaviour.
    c) Consistent with Materialism is the understanding that beliefs are acausal and a mere epiphenomenon. “Thus regardless of your religious convictions, you will exhibit psychopathy if you are brain damaged and will exhibit empathetic behavior if your brain is healthy. Therefore the war on Islamic terror is misplaced and should be focused on treating religious extremists with physical therapy and drugs.” Yes psychopaths cannot have empathy however their behaviour can be changed very difficult but not impossible, indeed this is what the justice system now tries to do in many countries it tries to change behaviour and not the core traits of psychopaths and inmates with other personality disorders. As far as Islamic terrorists are concerned we have no choice but to either lock them up, kill them, or drug them up etc. if in the future we invent a wonder drug that could install empathy in them then it would make sense to give it to them.
    “d) Lastly and very important, does lack of empathy/ psychopathy imply an anti-scientific conviction?” Why would it imply that? In any case all that matters is the evidence not the source, if a psychopath says 1+1=2 or the earth revolves around the sun then they are also correct saying “but your a psychopath” is not an argument in fact it’s a logical fallacy. “Or is it possible to be scientifically minded and psychotic simultaneously?” I think you meant to say psychopathic from what I Understand of this condition psychopaths need stimulation to function and narcissists need attention (narcissistic supply). Sam Vaknin for instance gets attention for telling the world about narcissism and is regarded as a leading expert on it, in his case he doesn’t need to lie to have his need for attention and adulation met in fact this would be harmful to him if he was caught lying and making up data about narcissism.

  148. madfijian says:

    Why and Truth seeker you both are Hindu. I am just wondering have either of you read this booklet “OH YOU HINDU AWAKE” written by Dr. Chatterjee. I have just finished reading it. Men you have one screwed up faith.

  149. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    Interesting clips. Both doctors are psychos by their own admission yet they seem to have found a way to restrict their condition by faking empathy. Makes one wonder, what else are they faking? The data perhaps? Just a thought. Nonetheless, the points I find contentious is:
    a) “Some people with damaged brain are psychos, therefore all psychos have damaged brains.” Which is essentially the argument you’re making. It fails logically as being invalid and it also falls prey to the all the hazards of inductive reasoning.

    b) Psychopathic behavior can be found in people with non-damaged brains too, unless a study showing all people exhibiting psychothic behavior is brain damaged. Highly unlikely.

    c) Consistent with Materialism is the understanding that beliefs are acausal and a mere epiphenomenon. Thus regardless of your religious convictions, you will exhibit psychopathy if you are brain damaged and will exhibit empathetic behavior if your brain is healthy. Therefore the war on Islamic terror is misplaced and should be focused on treating religious extremists with physical therapy and drugs.

    d) Lastly and very important, does lack of empathy/ psychopathy imply an anti-scientific conviction? Or is it possible to be scientifically minded and psychotic simultaneously?

  150. Steve says:

    +PhoenixCould you at least share the study (peer reviewed of course) which you drew your data from?” See these 2 videos if your interested in this subject the first is one of park Dietz (a forensic psychiatrist who has given evidence at the trials of Serial killers and other violent criminals) having an interview with a psychopathic contract killer, Dietz explains to him the cause of his psychopathic/antisocial personality and behaviour and the contributions from both nature (genetics) and nurture (parents and environment) that resulted in his antisocial personality. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S-4nzmdYQTA The second video is of neuro scientist Dr James Fallon who explains the brains of serial killers and the how their brains got that why and compares different types of killers (impulsive killers vs killers who plan for example) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mzUsaXfSQDY

    +Madfijian “Phew this is really getting Godly hot. Why vs Steve that is. Steve you sound very much like an Atheist although i do not recall reading your declaration as such and most of your views on organized religion i share.” Yes I am an atheist.

  151. Steve says:

    +Why
    “None of these causes disprove past life….You may disbelieve in something, but that is NOT enough evidence for disproving existence of past life.” That’s because claims of past lives can’t be falsified.

    “It can become falsifiable if one proves non-exisence of souls or absence of past lives etc. There must be sufficient evidence for your claims. I have made it clear, my intention is NOT to prove something, but to prove the possibility of existence of something.” How can one prove the absence of past lives? This claim is nonsense it’s like a Christian asking for science to disprove God.

    ‘my intention is NOT to prove something, but to prove the possibility of existence of something.” Another nonsense statement, when a scientist sets up to test a hypothesis his tests must produce a clear result – one way or the other. Imagine a scientific study that wanted to “prove the possibility” that some new therapy can rapidly slow down the ageing process. Nobody wants to here such nonsense, what the scientists are interested in is if this therapy works or not, their research must produce a clear result. This is why belief in past lives and other unfalsifiable things is nonsense.

    …Examples prove nothing….” It proves based on the evidence we can say someone like Fritz is evil and is not a loving father. Likewise your God is either evil or doesn’t exist – since for example he doesn’t give any evidence that innocent people are in fact very evil people who are getting punished for committing evil crimes in a past life. This means he is either evil or he doesn’t exist.

    “one word strawman…….karma is NOT independent….a father’s good/bad deeds are shared by children and wife as they eat on his earnings…this is why there are laws not to eat with some people…you will share the fruits of their bad deeds…similarly, when you work for somebody and he/she pays you, you are connected by karma to his karma as you eat on your boss’ good merits…This is why there are restrictions for Hindus on whom to work….Every act you do is intertwined with people you interact….There is a reason for a woman/man to become wife/husband of some person (temp or perm in life), because there is some karma to be paid back…it goes both ways….with children etc….even with people we do business, work for and imagine every sort of interaction..” So you can suffer or be happy as a result of other people’s actions yes? This contradicts past life belief that all suffering/happiness is the result of the persons own life/past lives. If I kill your child you suffer not as a result of your own “past lives” but as a result of my “past lives”. This is also a purely logical reason why reincarnation as believed by Hindus and Buddhist cannot happen, in reality you cannot constrain cause and effect it happens all the time you can never stop it, its not the case people have only have 1 cause “past life” and 1 effect “future life”, because things have countless causes and countless effects not just 1 and this is happening all the time.

    “the body is unconscious and the soul is trapped there, just like we are asleep…nothing missed….” When your body is unconscious your “soul” doesn’t exist.

    “You are making empty assertions….show me an extrinsic property (leaving consciousness) that arises independent of intrinsic properties of interacting individual constituents…” it doesn’t arise independently.

    “If causes can go to infinite past, so can souls exist without beginning.” No souls are finite conditioned phenomenon as I said before believing souls are beginning-less is no different to believing the Ganges river is beginning-less. The all is not a conditioned finite phenomenon that is why it doesn’t – and cannot – have a beginning.

    “Whether you believe or not is irrelevant to me….The question is whether this is a possibility and if it is possible then it explains the existence of evil consistent with a belief in a perfect God and so can exist.” Again this is meaningless it’s no different to a Christian saying “The question is whether there is a possibility that Jesus Christ rose from the dead so that humanity could be saved and have eternal life, and if it is possible then it explains the existence of evil consistent with a belief in a perfect God and so can exist’ it’s just a completely worthless nonsensical statement..

    “Now you have come to the point. In fact, nature is also beginning-less in my belief. So you do agree that a thing can be beginning-less, then so can the souls.” No because nature is not a “thing” it is the totality of all things, it has no boundary and is infinite (since their is nothing “else” apart from nature) while “souls” are a finite, bounded conditioned phenomenon which means they have a beginning and end – exactly the same as everything else in nature.

    “This mean what exists within nature can also exist without cause, a nature consists of things it is made of. Souls, matter etc. are all the things nature is made of. You just proved my case.” The only “thing” which doesn’t have a cause is the all. All other things which are part of the all must have a cause for obvious reasons.

    “I said souls…..human beings are the body you refer to…souls are other than the body…another strawman” The consciousness does not exist independently of the body/physical world, since if it did it could never be aware aware of the physical world. Also we know things like drugs and brain damage can effect the consciousness and a blow to the head or anaesthetic can turn consciousness off. Literally at any time the physical world can bring the existence of your mind to an end.

    “What is human consciousness?” The consciousness that can think, has a sense of self/personality (through memory) and is able to reason. The fly cannot do that therefore you can’t put human consciousness into a fly or be “reborn” as a fly.

    “belongs to the souls, not the body and so the soul can occupy any body.” So can souls occupy a dead lifeless corpse then? No then can’t because a dead lifeless corpse is not able to have consciousness.

    “resurrection is a nonsense concept for many reasons.” Just like past lives.
    “The body we use constantly changes and cells die and are recreated constantly until we die. So coming back to the same body is nonsense claim.” Memory is also dependent on structures in the physical brain so when the brain dies so does the self and does not go flying round the place and being reborn as flies and rats and other nonsense , and our self constantly changes with every new experience and that changing also is dependent on the brain and body.
    “Souls are fundamental units of Universe are neither created nor destroyed.” Souls are not fundamental, the only thing which is fundamental is the all. Souls are no more fundamental than sand.
    “So why can’t soul exist as well? You have no logical argument at all.” See my statements above about the all when I Clearly explain it is the only “thing” which can be without cause all other things obviously need a cause.

    “It is NOT memory only that constitutes your identity.” Memory is essential for my identity/personality if a person loses their memories and forgets who they are (or were) then we say they have lost their mind – and for good reason.

    ” Just because you did not remember coming out of your mother, does it mean you did NOT exist as a child?” No I as I exist now did not exist as that child nothing or virtually nothing is left of that baby, we are only able to have a sense of self through memory – no memory means no self. In fact you can say ever movement their is a new “you” – although the “you” that exists right now is very closely related to the “you” that existed 5 minutes ago (and this relationship is only possible because of memory).

    “In a similar way, your lack of memory as “Mary” is irrelevant to the question if you existed as “Mary”” It’s not irrelevant since “Mary’s” whole personality/identity has been lost it means she cant be reborn as “Steve” if her very identity is not going to survive the process of rebirth.

  152. Truth Seeker says:

    @Why?

    All human allowed to exercise their free will. If God interferes then there is no free will. God does not interfere. Our actions Good or Bad (Karmas) decide our next life. I think Geeta also say this “You have all right to do your Karma but result in the hands of God.”

    Many girls are gang raped brutally. It was not Godly act by rapist. God was nowhere involved in this act. But rapist misused their free will provided by God to them. This odious act will lead the rapist to hell. Intrinsically all souls are divine and same. But it is ignorance which leads them to bondage of birth & death. The soul who have recognized its true nature its difference from Parkarti gets liberation. It is happen in higher state of Meditation (Samadhi Avastha). I advise you to read Yog Darshan.

    There explained every Sutra of Yog Dashan with Mahirsihi Vyas commentary on this in very detail word by word with examples.

    https://archive.org/details/Patanjali_YogaSutra

  153. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina

    You said
    “____________Christianity is a religion and all religion are man made________”

    What do you understand by religion? When it came in existence. What are characteristics of a religion. Do not you think maker of this vast universe must have issued manual for his subjects. Please explain.

  154. why? says:

    !- Truthseeker,

    Either God is in complete control and Karma exists in reality or Karma does NOT exist. Karma works because of God, either as a law of existence with no loopholes or as God’s direct involvement. Karma is NOT like human law with loop holes in it. Nothing happens by chance. Everything that happens to souls happen according to intrinsic property of soul and their history of deeds. There is no compensation involved anywhere. No innocent souls are ever punished and put in a disadvantageous position at any time. Evil souls deserve what they get and if good souls happen to suffer, it is because of past deeds. Good souls (whose nature is that of happiness and giving happiness to others) get purified due to suffering, while bad souls (whose nature is that of sorrow and giving sorrow to others) attain their self-same nature which is that of suffering and sorrow. Every soul since beginning-less time are clothed with impure bodies (there are 25 bodies or coverings which souls are clothed with just as rice grains come with husks). The cycle of birth and death, suffering and enjoyment makes souls to lose their bodies gradually and attain self-same nature according to types of souls (some souls intrinsically are pure good, some are intrinsically good and evil mixed, some are intrinsically purely evil). Good souls attain eternal happiness, mixed souls attain eternally attain both sorrow and happiness together, while pure evil souls attain eternal sorrow in hell. Evil souls hurt each other and others as it is their self-same nature.

  155. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix

    You are trying to be expert of Hinduism that is why I had asked to you some questions but you skipped them if you are really interested to discuss Hinduism here please let me know otherwise stop this hypocrisy.

    DO you have any Idea of Sanskrit language. Do you know what are Veda? Who was Manu? Difference in Shruti & Smariti? What Manu said if there comes any contradiction in Shruti & Smriti? Which is acceptable and Why?

  156. Truth Seeker says:

    @Why?

    Claiming in every mishappening result of previous life bad deeds is not worth. One may be victim of cruelty, injustice and ignorance of others. There is provision of compensation also believed by Hindus. If one innocent becomes victim of injustice God compensate him. God is (Nyanakari) provides justice to all souls according to their deeds. God of Hindu not partial unlike God of Christians and Muslims who unjustly make people rich & poor, sane & insane, physically challenged and healthy since birth.

  157. why? says:

    +!+ Madfijian,

    Yes, I am a Hindu. I have made this explicit many times.

    Do we have a soul beyond this body? Yes, I believe so…..My argument is simple? If you claim that consciousness or awareness is a result of brain activity, then you are claiming consciousness is an extrinsic property. If this is so, what exact sequence of events, phenomenon and interaction of matter leads to this consciousness? Specifically, what interaction of intrinsic properties of matter leads to this phenomenon of consciousness? If you claim that consciousness takes place independent of intrinsic properties of interacting matter, then you are claiming magical phenomenon. If you claim it is because of interaction of intrinsic properties of interacting matter, then give in detail how these intrinsic properties translate to consciousness? Again, consciousness is self-awareness or awareness of existence of one’s own self. If you cannot even find the basic connection here to known intrinsic properties of matter, then it is logical to postulate existence of intrinsic property as consciousness and attribute it to existing matter or some unknown substance. We can call this substance “soul”.

    Knowing what happens when we die or if God really exists etc. can be known ONLY through direct perception. The only thing we can do through internet is know if a particular proposition or particular belief is logical in the least. Rest of the evidences, one must take effort in knowing by oneself through self-effort. There is no law that evidences present itself to you automatically or need to neatly fit into scientific paradigm.

  158. madfijian says:

    Phew this is really getting Godly hot. Why vs Steve that is. Steve you sound very much like an Atheist although i do not recall reading your declaration as such and most of your views on organized religion i share.
    “Why” it is obvious that you a a Hindu however it is unclear what you you really believe happens to us after death.You disagree with everyone. Please enlighten us what do you really believe. In your enlightened opinion do we have a soul, do we go to hell and heaven, is their a God.These are questions that have puzzled mankind since the dawn of time and it appears that you may have found the answer. Please do tell.

    My position is simple. I do not really know. I have seen and read too many strange things not to believe that their is something beyond our reality but until i kick the bucket i simply do not know if the big men in the sky looks like an elephant a monkey or has blue eyes and long flowing hair. I simply do not know and i am humble enough to say so.

    I would really like to hear what why’s position is.

  159. Phoenix says:

    Steve says: “Yes their are causes of murder – normal everyday causes – not “past life” fantasy nonsense. For example the science has found some murderers to have a brain tumour in the frontal lobe. …….These – ordinary causes – are the causes of murder not past life fantasy nonsense that you believe in.”

    Could you at least share the study (peer reviewed of course) which you drew your data from?

  160. Phoenix says:

    I’ll hold off for now and watch Steve and Why take each other on.

  161. why? says:

    !+!Steve Says:
    “Yes their are causes of murder – normal everyday causes – not “past life” fantasy nonsense. For example the science has found some murderers to have a brain tumour in the frontal lobe. …….These – ordinary causes – are the causes of murder not past life fantasy nonsense that you believe in.”

    None of these causes disprove past life….You may disbelieve in something, but that is NOT enough evidence for disproving existence of past life.

    Steve says: “No according to your belief the likes of ISIS are the ones who carry out the sentence ordered by God. They are the executioners they are just carrying out the sentence, in other words your “good god” is the judge.” Steve says: “No this comes directly from your bullshit *logic* if you can claim God has “sufficient reasons” then if a pedophile rapes your prepubescent daughter he can claim he was sent from God as punishment for sins she committed in a “past life”. And you won’t have a leg to stand on given your belief on this. Of course in reality the pedophile would be locked up away from kids (if you could restrain yourself from killing him with your bare hands).” ” Yes and given this stupid belief it follows if a pedophilia rapes your prepubescent daughter it means he was sent from God to punish her for sins in a past life. So in in your scheme 1)Daughter who was raped = Evil person who was punished for past life sins. 2) Pedophile who raped her = executioner who carried out Gods sentence on your daughter 3) God = The judge who sentenced that your daughter would be raped as a baby by a pedophile as a result of sins committed in a “past life”. Fortunately though since their is no evidence for any God or any past life or past life “sins” it means that this system is insane.

    May be yes, while isis and such may be an instrument he uses. There is no rule that the instrument is “innocent”. God may use evil souls to exact punishment while evil souls act as per their intrinsic nature regardless of the circumstances. Here God allows to that extent evil as certain souls deserve.

    Steve says: “You are making the claim you have to prove it. ………….”

    It can become falsifiable if one proves non-exisence of souls or absence of past lives etc. There must be sufficient evidence for your claims. I have made it clear, my intention is NOT to prove something, but to prove the possibility of existence of something.

    Steve says: “What about Joseph Fritz the Austrian …………”

    Irrelevant to the subject…You gave analogy of ISIS, I gave analogy of a sane parent….not insane murderous rapist father which you gave…Examples prove nothing….

    Steve Says: ”According to your view of karma, everybody has their own karma completely separate from everybody else’s and this karma is passed from one life to the next. Since in reality our karma is not separate from other people’s it follows that our past history is in fact not separate from other people’s past history. This is very much like a web with all peoples karma connected while in your view our karma is like a train track which is a straight progression from 1 life to the next, with our tracks being completely separate to everybody else’s tracks.”

    one word strawman…….karma is NOT independent….a father’s good/bad deeds are shared by children and wife as they eat on his earnings…this is why there are laws not to eat with some people…you will share the fruits of their bad deeds…similarly, when you work for somebody and he/she pays you, you are connected by karma to his karma as you eat on your boss’ good merits…This is why there are restrictions for Hindus on whom to work….Every act you do is intertwined with people you interact….There is a reason for a woman/man to become wife/husband of some person (temp or perm in life), because there is some karma to be paid back…it goes both ways….with children etc….even with people we do business, work for and imagine every sort of interaction..

    Steve says: “Except the FACT that if someone gets their head smashed in they are going to be knocked out which means unconscious. Yes you must have missed that fact.”

    the body is unconscious and the soul is trapped there, just like we are asleep…nothing missed….

    Steve says: “Consciousness is a product of brain function very music like how a piece of music is a result of a sequence or pattern of keys been pressed on a piano for example.”

    You are making empty assertions….show me an extrinsic property (leaving consciousness) that arises independent of intrinsic properties of interacting individual constituents…

    “No the causes don’t have to stop their is no reason why they can’t go back into an infinite past. In fact since nothing can happen without a cause it follows that they must go back into an infinite past.”

    If causes can go to infinite past, so can souls exist without beginning.

    Steve says: “Since this just a belief it is worthless it’s no different to a Muslim saying “Their is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”. So pull the other one.”

    Whether you believe or not is irrelevant to me….The question is whether this is a possibility and if it is possible then it explains the existence of evil consistent with a belief in a perfect God and so can exist.

    ” No because nature is the “thing” that creates and destroys all things but nature her self is not created and so can never be destroyed. Funny that you believe human souls can be without birth and death but yet you seem to struggle to believe that this could be true of existence itself.”

    Now you have come to the point. In fact, nature is also beginning-less in my belief. So you do agree that a thing can be beginning-less, then so can the souls.

    Steve says: “Yes since I define universe to mean all that’s exists it means logically it cannot possible be caused (since their is literally nothing “else” which could possibly cause it)”

    This mean what exists within nature can also exist without cause, a nature consists of things it is made of. Souls, matter etc. are all the things nature is made of. You just proved my case.

    Steve says: “No because humans are finite beings who are caused, while the universe (for the reason I Explained above) cannot have a cause, believing humans are without beginning or end is no different to believing the Ganges river (or any other finite conditioned phenomenon) is without beginning or end – which is simply madness.”

    I said souls…..human beings are the body you refer to…souls are other than the body…another strawman

    Steve says: “Yes given what we know it is impossible for a human consciousness to be reborn in a fly for example this is impossible. Unless you have evidence we can insert human consciousness into a fly and no I don’t suppose it is possible.”

    What is human consciousness? consciousness belongs to the souls, not the body and so the soul can occupy any body.

    Steve says: “Nonsense resurrection of the dead is *possible* but since no one has given any evidence to support that claim or any explanation of how it could happen it means it’s a fantasy likewise for past lives.”

    resurrection is a nonsense concept for many reasons. The body we use constantly changes and cells die and are recreated constantly until we die. So coming back to the same body is nonsense claim.

    Souls are different than the body and are neither created nor destroyed. Most fundamental units of Universe are neither created nor destroyed. They exist in one form or the other. They exist for eternity, as nature or existence itself is eternal according to you. So why can’t soul exist as well? You have no logical argument at all.

    Steve says: “Without memory we wouldn’t be able to think or have a sense of self. Since I don’t have any memories of any past life of say being “Mary” this means nothing of that personality survives in me which means their is no such thing as “past life”.”

    It is NOT memory only that constitutes your identity. Your identity in the framework is the “soul or conscious unit” that exists. I gave an example of your birth as a child. Just because you did not remember coming out of your mother, does it mean you did NOT exist as a child? In a similar way, your lack of memory as “Mary” is irrelevant to the question if you existed as “Mary”.

  162. Steve says:

    +Why
    “Again, if such an incident were to happen in reality, there is a train of causes behind this.” Yes their are causes of murder – normal everyday causes – not “past life” fantasy nonsense. For example the science has found some murderers to have a brain tumour in the frontal lobe. Others have extremely abusive – violent – childhoods, this combined with very early brain damage and genetic predisposition results in killers. Others still have psychotic mental illnesses like schizophrenia which again has a strong genetic component and the schizophrenic has malfunctions in the brain. These – ordinary causes – are the causes of murder not past life fantasy nonsense that you believe in.

    “….A judge punishes criminals as per the deeds they have done. When the executioner punishes murderers, we do NOT claim he is a butcher and murderer, although the judge/executioner does the same act of killing just as a murderer does. So your analogy is wrong here. God is like a judge.” No according to your belief the likes of ISIS are the ones who carry out the sentence ordered by God. They are the executioners they are just carrying out the sentence, in other words your “good god” is the judge.

    “Sorry Stevo…you are making bullshit analogy here…this is your bullshit, not mine” No this comes directly from your bullshit *logic* if you can claim God has “sufficient reasons” then if a pedophile rapes your prepubescent daughter he can claim he was sent from God as punishment for sins she committed in a “past life”. And you won’t have a leg to stand on given your belief on this. Of course in reality the pedophile would be locked up away from kids (if you could restrain yourself from killing him with your bare hands).

    “Again, take the example of judge and executioner. If the executioner acts as per the law, he is NOT punished even for killing murderers by legal punishment. Similarly, if the moral law of God is surpassed, then God punishes as the executioner. Suffering for souls come as the result of their wrong doings. If they did NOT do any bad deeds, then suffering cannot come to them.” Yes and given this stupid belief it follows if a pedophilia rapes your prepubescent daughter it means he was sent from God to punish her for sins in a past life. So in in your scheme 1)Daughter who was raped = Evil person who was punished for past life sins. 2) Pedophile who raped her = executioner who carried out Gods sentence on your daughter 3) God = The judge who sentenced that your daughter would be raped as a baby by a pedophile as a result of sins committed in a “past life”. Fortunately though since their is no evidence for any God or any past life or past life “sins” it means that this system is insane.

    “Now, it can become falsifiable, if you have a logical argument or a scenario that makes the claim of past deeds of souls logically impossible. If you cannot find such an argument, then it stands unfalsified.” You are making the claim you have to prove it. Furthermore belief in past life deeds and other nonsense is itself unfalsifiable so you are asking ridiculous things, it’s like a Christian saying “I will give up Christianity if science proves God doesn’t exist” knowing full well that the existence of their God cannot be falsified and scientifically tested.

    “A loving father will punish his son/daughter through confinement in the house or other modes to make him a better person if he does not perform well in school. What if the child is doing capital crimes? Then what does a moral ethical father do as a duty? he will punish the child. This is similar situation.” What about Joseph Fritz the Austrian who kept his daughter locked for up for 24 years and regularly raped her which also resulted in children. According to your fucked up belief she and the children got just deserts for past life sins while fritz was just a loving father disciplining his children. Any father who claimed he was loving, while also raping, beating and torturing his children would be declared insane and locked up, if your God exists the same should happen to him.

    “Useless assertion with no argument here..needs nothing to answer here…. ” According to your view of karma, everybody has their own karma completely separate from everybody else’s and this karma is passed from one life to the next. Since in reality our karma is not separate from other people’s it follows that our past history is in fact not separate from other people’s past history. This is very much like a web with all peoples karma connected while in your view our karma is like a train track which is a straight progression from 1 life to the next, with our tracks being completely separate to everybody else’s tracks.

    “same nonsense assertion as above with no real argument….” Except the FACT that if someone gets their head smashed in they are going to be knocked out which means unconscious. Yes you must have missed that fact.

    “Show me one property (leaving consciousness out) which comes into existence independent of the intrinsic properties of constituents making the whole…..If individual elements making the whole cannot bring properties which the individual constituents do NOT have, then consciousness also cannot come into existence from particles of matter which do NOT possess consciousness as its property. Hence there is a necessity for postulating existence of different entity or substance for consciousness.” Consciousness is a product of brain function very music like how a piece of music is a result of a sequence or pattern of keys been pressed on a piano for example.

    ” If every effect has a cause, then that cause must also have another cause….which leads to argument-ad-infinitum….It has to stop with something. If it is intrinsic to something, there the buck stops. ” No the causes don’t have to stop their is no reason why they can’t go back into an infinite past. In fact since nothing can happen without a cause it follows that they must go back into an infinite past.

    “Simple…He gives results according to souls’ deeds…One who gives results as per intrinsic qualities and deeds is just, not evil…” Since this just a belief it is worthless it’s no different to a Muslim saying “Their is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”. So pull the other one.

    “If everything has birth and death, then birth and death itself also has birth and death. Believing birth and death has no beginning or end is no different than believing Ganges river has no beginning or will have no end. It’s a fantasy no different to the Christian God.” No because nature is the “thing” that creates and destroys all things but nature her self is not created and so can never be destroyed. Funny that you believe human souls can be without birth and death but yet you seem to struggle to believe that this could be true of existence itself.

    “Now tell me, whether existence of Universe itself is independent of causality.” Yes since I define universe to mean all that’s exists it means logically it cannot possible be caused (since their is literally nothing “else” which could possibly cause it)

    “.If causality itself can be beginningless, then so can souls be beginning-less.” No because humans are finite beings who are caused, while the universe (for the reason I Explained above) cannot have a cause, believing humans are without beginning or end is no different to believing the Ganges river (or any other finite conditioned phenomenon) is without beginning or end – which is simply madness.

    i”Now, do you have any logical argument against the claim.” Yes given what we know it is impossible for a human consciousness to be reborn in a fly for example this is impossible. Unless you have evidence we can insert human consciousness into a fly and no I don’t suppose it is possible.

    “However, still the karma of history of souls is possible which is enough to explain the existence of evil. Thus you have no point at all here. I do NOT intend to prove karma, only intention is to prove it is a possible scenario.” Nonsense resurrection of the dead is *possible* but since no one has given any evidence to support that claim or any explanation of how it could happen it means it’s a fantasy likewise for past lives.

    “Do you remember the day you were born? Do you remember every day you have lived until this day? Does your lack of memory of certain events prove they did NOT happen, like your birth? Your definition of self is limited. Self-awareness is awareness of existence of oneself at a time.” Without memory we wouldn’t be able to think or have a sense of self. Since I don’t have any memories of any past life of say being “Mary” this means nothing of that personality survives in me which means their is no such thing as “past life”.

  163. why? says:

    !+!+Steve says:
    !+!+=———————————————————
    Okay then I will rape your wife torture her and then chop her up and send you the pieces. No doubt you will make the assumption your wife is “innocent” and didn’t deserve to have her life end abruptly and in such a horrific fashion. Or will you say “However, it is possible that my wife’s soul had a history of evil deeds and hence she deserved to die and to die in these horrific circumstances”. No I don’t think you would say that, so don’t come don’t out with such nonsense.
    +!+=———————————————————

    Again, if such an incident were to happen in reality, there is a train of causes behind this. Unless there is such a train of deeds, it cannot happen, even if you wish it.

    +!+Steve says:
    +!+=———————————————————
    How do you know this gods not evil for one thing? Also won’t don’t we apply this logic to the likes of ISIS following your reasoning maybe it’s actually possible they are good and just by letting them kill and butcher people and blow people up its better than destroying them because they are a gang of sadistic psychopaths brainwashed by a death cult. Hell maybe the People should elect them as their leaders and fly the flag of Allah? Now I think by this example you can see how your “logic” here is nonsense but when it’s comes to God and past lives you suddenly become a radical skeptic “well maybe it’s possible the evil and suffering is good”.
    +!+=———————————————————

    Let me give you another example, other than ISIS which has an analogy here….A judge punishes criminals as per the deeds they have done. When the executioner punishes murderers, we do NOT claim he is a butcher and murderer, although the judge/executioner does the same act of killing just as a murderer does. So your analogy is wrong here. God is like a judge.

    +!+Steve says:
    +!+=———————————————————
    Maybe Bin laden had good reasons for bombing twin towers? Maybe Ted bundy had morally sufficient reasons to kill and rape over 30 young college girls? Maybe the 12 year girl he raped and mutilated was a serial killer in a past life! The Islamic prophet Muhammad was innocent and again had sufficient reason for having sex with a prepubescent 9 year old girl? Well maybe, who knows these things may have brought out a greater good perhaps? Gods mysterious ways right? His perfect foreknowledge? You are speaking bullshit again.
    +!+=———————————————————

    Sorry Stevo…you are making bullshit analogy here…this is your bullshit, not mine 🙂

    +!+Steve says:
    +!+=———————————————————
    What that has got to do with anything? Let’s see my argument 1)If a human commits a sick act like raping and killing a child the society locks him away to protect themselves and condemns him, no disagreement from you their. But yet if God lets a hitler loose on humanity it’s all for a “greater good” and explained by his omniscients? While this “sufficient reasons” card also nicely makes this God unfalsifiable.
    +!+=———————————————————

    I never claimed greater good here. It is punishment for the wicked souls. That is all. Nowhere I claimed Hitler is good. This is your presumptions. His deeds are bad.

    Again, take the example of judge and executioner. If the executioner acts as per the law, he is NOT punished even for killing murderers by legal punishment. Similarly, if the moral law of God is surpassed, then God punishes as the executioner. Suffering for souls come as the result of their wrong doings. If they did NOT do any bad deeds, then suffering cannot come to them.

    Now, it can become falsifiable, if you have a logical argument or a scenario that makes the claim of past deeds of souls logically impossible. If you cannot find such an argument, then it stands unfalsified.

    +!+Steve says:
    +!+=———————————————————
    My argument is simple imagine a father who loves his wife and children and who also is very wealthy and powerful now imagine his wife and children are suffering terrible, yet he chooses to do nothing to help them. While *logically possible* it is highly improbable that a loving father who has the power to help his family would choose to do nothing. I think this argument is quite reasonable don’t you? Where is the “emotional appeal”?
    +!+=———————————————————

    Imagine a teacher, who punishes a student for teaching him moral lessons and advantages of working hard to learn certain courses. If the student is NOT punished (may be giving fail grade for not performing well or other modes of punishment), then he will NOT have the motivation to perform well. A loving father will punish his son/daughter through confinement in the house or other modes to make him a better person if he does not perform well in school. What if the child is doing capital crimes? Then what does a moral ethical father do as a duty? he will punish the child. This is similar situation.

  164. why? says:

    !+!+Steve,
    +!+!————————————————————
    That is a another reason why this *theory* is nonsense all so called souls interact with other souls and everybody’s karma affects each other. It’s not the case that people and their actions are isolated from other people and all other things in the universe.
    +!+!—————————————————–=======

    Useless assertion with no argument here..needs nothing to answer here….

    !+!————————————————————
    Same nonsense as in other beliefs then such as Buddhists and new agers who believe mind is independent of the physical world, let someone smash a baseball bat into your skull and see how *independent* your mind is of the brain and the physical world.
    !+!————————————————————

    same nonsense assertion as above with no real argument….

    Show me one property (leaving consciousness out) which comes into existence independent of the intrinsic properties of constituents making the whole…..If individual elements making the whole cannot bring properties which the individual constituents do NOT have, then consciousness also cannot come into existence from particles of matter which do NOT possess consciousness as its property. Hence there is a necessity for postulating existence of different entity or substance for consciousness.

    !+!————————————————————
    In other words you are indeed saying soul is uncaused “One which is intrinsic (that which is independent of external factors)”.
    !+!————————————————————

    What logical argument you have that makes it illogical? If every effect has a cause, then that cause must also have another cause….which leads to argument-ad-infinitum….It has to stop with something. If it is intrinsic to something, there the buck stops. There is no logical argument you have here…..Intrinsic properties do NOT make a thing independent of the law of causality…You are making vague stupid statements.

    !+!————————————————————
    So God causes the natural disasters and all suffering then? How then is he not evil? No doubt he doing it as punishment right? Pull the other one mate.
    !+!————————————————————

    Simple…He gives results according to souls’ deeds…One who gives results as per intrinsic qualities and deeds is just, not evil…You do not call a judge evil for punishing criminals. This is what it is. Pull this one mate 🙂

    !+!————————————————————
    Everything has birth and death, all animals, trees, rocks rivers and all other observed phenomena. Believing consciousness has no beginning or end is no different to believing the Ganges river has no beginning and will have no end. It’s a fantasy no different to the Christian God.
    !+!————————————————————

    If everything has birth and death, then birth and death itself also has birth and death. Believing birth and death has no beginning or end is no different than believing Ganges river has no beginning or will have no end. It’s a fantasy no different to the Christian God. 🙂

    !+!————————————————————
    Your belief that “souls are NOT created and are beginning-less” is the EXACT same belief as the Christians belief in the will that operates independently of causality.
    !+!————————————————————

    Now tell me, whether existence of Universe itself is independent of causality. If existence of Universe is caused by something, then what caused this something? What caused this cause? Your argument leads to argument-ad-infinitum. So you have a beginningless chain of causes….If causality itself can be beginningless, then so can souls be beginning-less.

    Existence of intrinsic properties of matter does NOT lead to anything operate independent of causality. Just because one propose intrinsic property of electrons (charge of an electron is independent of external factors), does it mean it is independent of causality. Karma assumes no independence of souls despite souls possessing intrinsic properties, just as electrons do NOT become independent of law of causality just because it has intrinsic properties..

    +!————————————————————
    Where is the evidence? It’s also *possible* that Jesus came back from the dead and went for a walk around Jerusalem, but since their is no evidence for that it means it’s a fantasy. Likewise their is no evidence of any *past lives* which means it’s nothing but a fantasy in people’s imagination.
    +!————————————————————

    Let it be possible. I never went against trivial claims as it has no bearing on my arguments against christianity. Now, do you have any logical argument against the claim. If you all the point you have is lack of evidence in scientific sense, then so be it. However, still the karma of history of souls is possible which is enough to explain the existence of evil. Thus you have no point at all here. I do NOT intend to prove karma, only intention is to prove it is a possible scenario.

    +!————————————————————
    It’s you that’s needs to provide evidence for this soul and past lives – otherwise you are talking bullshit. In addition how can a person have a past life if they have no memories of it? The self depends on memory, no memory no self. So how can “Steve” be reborn as “Mary” if nothing whatsoever is left of me by the time I am reborn as Mary?
    +!————————————————————

    I do NOT intend to prove existence of something here. What I intend to prove is the possibility of existence of something. It is irrelevant to me if you see as bull shit with no logical argument.

    Do you remember the day you were born? Do you remember every day you have lived until this day? Does your lack of memory of certain events prove they did NOT happen, like your birth? Your definition of self is limited. Self-awareness is awareness of existence of oneself at a time.

  165. Steve says:

    +Why
    “Now, here I am NOT calling Hitler as good at all. There is a complex relationship of history of deeds of souls with the history of souls they interact. They are twisted together.” That is a another reason why this *theory* is nonsense all so called souls interact with other souls and everybody’s karma affects each other. It’s not the case that people and their actions are isolated from other people and all other things in the universe.

    “. In Vedic belief matter does NOT lead to consciousness or self-awareness. It is merely a tool or instrument in which a soul is entrapped. Brain is a control system for the body and does NOT give rise to consciousness or self-awareness.” Same nonsense as in other beliefs then such as Buddhists and new agers who believe mind is independent of the physical world, let someone smash a baseball bat into your skull and see how *independent* your mind is of the brain and the physical world.

    “No, I meant some souls are intrinsically evil. Any substance or entity can have two categories of properties. One which is intrinsic (that which is independent of external factors) and one that is extrinsic (one which depends on external environment.). A soul is NOT the physical body.” In other words you are indeed saying soul is uncaused “One which is intrinsic (that which is independent of external factors)”.

    “natural disasters and every event is under the control of God.” So God causes the natural disasters and all suffering then? How then is he not evil? No doubt he doing it as punishment right? Pull the other one mate.

    “Why? simply asserting it as bullhit does NOT make it so…Free-will argument does NOT work because it does nOT explain the existence of evil nor does it remove God from responsibility of creating ex-nihilo man with free-will.” Everything has birth and death, all animals, trees, rocks rivers and all other observed phenomena. Believing consciousness has no beginning or end is no different to believing the Ganges river has no beginning and will have no end. It’s a fantasy no different to the Christian God.

    “This argument will NOT work in this framework, where souls are NOT created and are beginning-less.” Your belief that “souls are NOT created and are beginning-less” is the EXACT same belief as the Christians belief in the will that operates independently of causality.

    “It is possible that these souls did some great evil in past as evidenced in the old testament records, which talk about complete annihilation of towns, rapes etc.” Where is the evidence? It’s also *possible* that Jesus came back from the dead and went for a walk around Jerusalem, but since their is no evidence for that it means it’s a fantasy. Likewise their is no evidence of any *past lives* which means it’s nothing but a fantasy in people’s imagination.

    “Unless you logically prove that soul’s past deeds are logically impossible, you have no argument. All you have is mere emotional appeal.” It’s you that’s needs to provide evidence for this soul and past lives – otherwise you are talking bullshit. In addition how can a person have a past life if they have no memories of it? The self depends on memory, no memory no self. So how can “Steve” be reborn as “Mary” if nothing whatsoever is left of me by the time I am reborn as Mary?
    “Again, you make an assumption that some souls are “innocent” just because you cannot see any fault. However, it is possible that souls have a history of evil deeds and hence are punished one time or another.” Okay then I will rape your wife torture her and then chop her up and send you the pieces. No doubt you will make the assumption your wife is “innocent” and didn’t deserve to have her life end abruptly and in such a horrific fashion. Or will you say “However, it is possible that my wife’s soul had a history of evil deeds and hence she deserved to die and to die in these horrific circumstances”. No I don’t think you would say that, so don’t come don’t out with such nonsense.
    “Now, it is true that good human beings try to intervene to stop evil. However, again God may know the history of bad deeds of souls better than any human being and thus allows evil proportional to such an extent that souls deserve and then inspires human beings to act against it or in some extraordinary cases He Himself intervenes.” How do you know this gods not evil for one thing? Also won’t don’t we apply this logic to the likes of ISIS following your reasoning maybe it’s actually possible they are good and just by letting them kill and butcher people and blow people up its better than destroying them because they are a gang of sadistic psychopaths brainwashed by a death cult. Hell maybe the People should elect them as their leaders and fly the flag of Allah? Now I think by this example you can see how your “logic” here is nonsense but when it’s comes to God and past lives you suddenly become a radical skeptic “well maybe it’s possible the evil and suffering is good”.
    “Again, just because you feel somebody is innocent, it does NOT make innocent.” Maybe Bin laden had good reasons for bombing twin towers? Maybe Ted bundy had morally sufficient reasons to kill and rape over 30 young college girls? Maybe the 12 year girl he raped and mutilated was a serial killer in a past life! The Islamic prophet Muhammad was innocent and again had sufficient reason for having sex with a prepubescent 9 year old girl? Well maybe, who knows these things may have brought out a greater good perhaps? Gods mysterious ways right? His perfect foreknowledge? You are speaking bullshit again.
    “You may believe a rapist and serial murderer is innocent. But it happens that many neighbors later discover that a certain neighbor is a serial killer.” What that has got to do with anything? Let’s see my argument 1)If a human commits a sick act like raping and killing a child the society locks him away to protect themselves and condemns him, no disagreement from you their. But yet if God lets a hitler loose on humanity it’s all for a “greater good” and explained by his omniscients? While this “sufficient reasons” card also nicely makes this God unfalsifiable.
    “You have NOT shown any real argument here with evidence, except for your emotional appeal.” My argument is simple imagine a father who loves his wife and children and who also is very wealthy and powerful now imagine his wife and children are suffering terrible, yet he chooses to do nothing to help them. While *logically possible* it is highly improbable that a loving father who has the power to help his family would choose to do nothing. I think this argument is quite reasonable don’t you? Where is the “emotional appeal”?

  166. why? says:

    RON,

    you did not address my point…Patels are business community and are never recruited as priests…
    No matter hoa many times you quote lies, it is still lies…

  167. Ron says:

    You do not have to FEAR the truth.
    The TRUTH will set you free.

    Never STOP anyone from searching for the TRUTH. They have a right to explore, accept or deny and that is free will.
    This is the amazon link of his book

    https://www.amazon.ca/Found-Love-Priest-Encounters-Christ/dp/190972842X

    If you want a long video, I can post it but for the sake of brevity here is a smaller one.
    If you want the longer one let me know.

  168. why? says:

    !+!Ron Says:
    +!+———————————————–
    This guy is very well known in UK even as a Hindu Priest, successful author, comes on TV and used to speak and officiate a lot of religious and corporate events
    +!+———————————————–

    THIS IS THE MOST CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT CHRISTIANS MAKE UP PURE LIES AND THROUGH FRAUDULENT MEANS TRY TO CONVERT OTHER.

    Now Ron, show me one vide where this guy acted as a priest in at the least one relligious event or corporate religious event? You cannot..

    why? because Patels are a business community and are NEVER RECRUITED AS PRIESTS, which is an occupation of brAhmins.

    RON, THANK YOU FOR EXPOSING YOURSEVES AND CHRISTIANS AS VILE LIARS TO SPREAD THEIR FALSEHOOD.

  169. why? says:

    +!+Steve Says:
    +!+————————————————-
    This means that the people we usually think of as being the innocent victim is in fact an evil person getting their just deserts and the evil people such as hitler are in fact good who are just giving the real evil people what their deserve.
    +!+————————————————-

    History of deeds of souls may NOT be simplistic linear model as you seem to imagine. It may have twists and turns that are more complicated than a most complicated model describing properties of matter.

    Now, here I am NOT calling Hitler as good at all. There is a complex relationship of history of deeds of souls with the history of souls they interact. They are twisted together.

  170. why? says:

    !+Steve Says:
    +!————————–
    Can you tell me what you mean by soul? If by that you mean the self or ego then no it has a beginning – just like all things has a beginning.
    !+—————————

    Soul is a conscious entity, or that which possesses consciousness as an intrinsic quality. In Vedic belief matter does NOT lead to consciousness or self-awareness. It is merely a tool or instrument in which a soul is entrapped. Brain is a control system for the body and does NOT give rise to consciousness or self-awareness.

    Steve Says:
    ————————–
    Are you saying you believe natural disasters are in response to bad behaviour of humans? The universe doesn’t revolve around humans, it will wipe us out whether it wants to its only by luck that we didn’t become extinct like the other 99.9 percent of species who existed on this planet who now are extinct.

    (And somehow souls through their actions are also able to cause the natural world to kill them and inflict huge amounts of suffering on them.)
    —————————————-

    No..NOT at all….I am saying that placement of any living entity in a certain place at a certain time in a certain environment, involves their merits/demerits of their deeds.

    Steve Says:
    ————————–
    You mean people are evil without a cause? This is the complete opposite of my thinking, nothing arises without cause. For example the cause of evil people can be explained by bad genes,bad environments, bad parents, bad ideas and bad lives (or some combination of these things). Ordinary cause and effect is sufficient to explain the differences between people.
    ———————————

    No, I meant some souls are intrinsically evil. Any substance or entity can have two categories of properties. One which is intrinsic (that which is independent of external factors) and one that is extrinsic (one which depends on external environment.). A soul is NOT the physical body.

    An electron has charge and mass as intrinsic property (does NOT depend on any external factor), while position, velocity etc. are with reference to some point of reference and hence extrinsic property.

    Steve Says:
    ————————–
    Not if that persons environment determines that they will die before the age of 5 he can’t. Or if their environment, family and culture determines they will become Osama bin laden.
    ————————–

    Nothing is accidental in this framework. If souls are eternal, then there is NOT just one birth for souls. It is a beginning-less cycle as well.

    The key points are intrinsic nature of souls involved and history of deeds of souls.

    Steve Says:
    ————————–
    1)God exists but somehow didn’t create evil people and natural disasters. 2)Souls exist and are uncaused, so it follows everything they do and everything that happens to them they deserve it and it is of their own making.
    —————————

    He didn’t create evil souls…this is right….natural disasters and every event is under the control of God.

    Since souls are uncreated, and their punishment/rewards are as per their deeds and intrinsic nature.

    Steve Says:
    ————————–
    These are several massive problems 1) Their is no evidence for any God or souls.
    ——————————-

    This is NOT a problem at all. Lak of evidence is NOT evidence for absence. Besides in this framework, ignorance or lack of your knowledge of God and souls are NOT a problem.

    Steve Says:
    ————————–
    2) Concept of souls without cause and without beginning is simple bullshit and your response is no different to the “free will” response given by Christians.
    —————————

    Why? simply asserting it as bullhit does NOT make it so…Free-will argument does NOT work because it does nOT explain the existence of evil nor does it remove God from responsibility of creating ex-nihilo man with free-will.

    This argument will NOT work in this framework, where souls are NOT created and are beginning-less.

    Your completing bullshitting here without any argument.

    Steve Says:
    ————————–
    3) It follows the Jews for instance deserved to be slaughtered and Thrown in gas chambers because of some evil they must have done or their ancestors or their past lives or whatever. This means that the people we usually think of as being the innocent victim is in fact an evil person getting their just deserts and the evil people such as hitler are in fact good who are just giving the real evil people what their deserve.
    —————————

    Your lack of knowledge of reasons and assumptions are NOT good enough a reason for brushing aside a valid argument. It is possible that these souls did some great evil in past as evidenced in the old testament records, which talk about complete annihilation of towns, rapes etc.

    Unless you logically prove that soul’s past deeds are logically impossible, you have no argument. All you have is mere emotional appeal.

    Steve Says:
    ————————–
    4)These a problem though their no evidence that innocent people deserve their suffering (that’s why we call them innocent), and that’s why we call people who inflict suffering on others for no reason or for their own pleasure *evil*. In addition we don’t know what “gods judgement” (so to speak) will be, so we can intervene to help other conscious beings and lessen or prevent their suffering, so could God yet he chooses not to. So I am afraid your framework does nothing to solve these problems.
    —————————-

    Again, you make an assumption that some souls are “innocent” just because you cannot see any fault. However, it is possible that souls have a history of evil deeds and hence are punished one time or another.

    Now, it is true that good human beings try to intervene to stop evil. However, again God may know the history of bad deeds of souls better than any human being and thus allows evil proportional to such an extent that souls deserve and then inspires human beings to act against it or in some extraordinary cases He Himself intervenes.

    Again, just because you feel somebody is innocent, it does NOT make innocent. You may believe a rapist and serial murderer is innocent. But it happens that many neighbors later discover that a certain neighbor is a serial killer.

    You have NOT shown any real argument here with evidence, except for your emotional appeal.

  171. Ron says:

    @madfijian, truthseeker and others who want to seek the truth.

    When you say the prayer below which is clearly addressed to the God who created you so this God (Creator and not any false god or devil) will answer you and also with confirmations through unexpected sources repeatedly.
    So you can rule out the hate-rhetoric or anti-Christian rhetoric posted out by some to dissuade you from even TRYING to reach out to the true God

    In addition to the several of my posts below, I would suggest you to try out Jesus in the following prayer.

    “Oh God , If you have created me and this universe and if you exists as Jesus which I doubt since I have no evidence come and show evidence in dreams and vision and through your Word in the next seven days and also such that my estranged brother who has hurt me will come to reconcile with me of his own accord and free will and other confirmations then will I accept you as my God and If I do not get evidence then I will continue on my path of current belief or no belief.”

    God does answer prayers when you search sincerely. check these out.

    This guy is very well known in UK even as a Hindu Priest, successful author, comes on TV and used to speak and officiate a lot of religious and corporate events

    I doubted my Hindu faith and found Jesus // Rahil Patel // The Profile

  172. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix

    ______-I do not trust Agniveer one bit_______

    You decided it randomly or did some cross verification? Please explain me which are the facts given wrong there so that I could too expose them.

    _________-Hussain has bounty on his head for drawing hindu god_____

    100 Crores Hindu live in India. Some may be impatient too early. No one is perfect in this world.

    MF Hussain made nude painting of a Hindu Goddess (They believe in her as mother) which made some Hindu angry and they feel insulted and they reacted badly on this.

    Can you say confidently no Christian would react on me violently if I start abuse Jesus say him rapist, looter, hypocrite, suicide.

  173. why? says:

    Phoenix,

    One can quote what Hindus do without end. But none of them prove that this is a Hindu law. The verse you quoted from Bhagavatam is a well known to be a hyperbole.

    Many Hindus do things which are against scriptures. They do NOT become sanctioned. Similarly here, Hindu groups behave in different ways. Now, if you want to prove that blasphemy is punishable legally, you have to show it from scriptures that blasphemy is punishable by law and through a King.

    Unless you do that, it is all hot gas.

    ————————
    The guy is clearly a sophist. After all, Hindus are permitted to lie in order to further their agenda.

    ……….These five kinds of falsehood in speech, it has been said, are not sinful.
    —————————–

    Which of the five cases matches with agenda like that of Islam? Agniveer follows Arya Samaj. It appears he is lying, but that depends on the interpretation of Vedic scriptures as per different schools of thought.

  174. Phoenix says:

    @Truthseeker

    Please spend some time here too
    http://agniveer.com/series/universal-religion-for-all/

    I do not trust Agniveer one bit. The guy is clearly a sophist. After all, Hindus are permitted to lie in order to further their agenda.

    Mahabharata 12:CLXV (p.358)…
    -A falsehood spoken in jest is not sinful;
    -nor one that is spoken to a woman.
    -O king, nor one that is spoken on an occasion of marriage;
    -nor one spoken for benefiting one’s preceptor;
    -nor one spoken for saving one’s own life. These five kinds of falsehood in speech, it has been said, are not sinful.

  175. Phoenix says:

    Hindu extremist says will cut off tongue of those who insult Hindu gods (hmmm….I think I read this somewhere)

    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/will-cut-off-tongues-of-writers-for-insulting-hindu-gods-sri-rama-sene/1/479760.html
    ======

    Dalit writer assaulted for writing atrocities against Dalits by upper caste tolerant people,

    http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/dalit-writer-karnataka-allegedly-assaulted-writing-about-caste-atrocities-35357

    ===
    Hindu mob threaten to skin Australian for goddess tattoo

    http://time.com/4079320/bangalore-australian-goddess-tattoo-hindu-mob/

    ===
    Kalburgi who wrote against Idol worship was shot dead.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/Malleshappa-M-Kalburgi-controversial-writer-and-scholar-shot-dead/articleshow/48729860.cms
    ===

    Prof. D.N. Jha received death threat for writing that cow slaughter is permissible in Hinduism on the basis of Hindu texts.

    http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm

  176. Phoenix says:

    and yet Hindus do NOT engage in murder or suicide when they hear blasphemy. There is NOT one instance in Hindu history that such a thing happened or have been implemented legally. Why? Because this is NOT taken literally and it is a hyperbole just like the command to cut the part that offends or sins//

    Let’s see if it’s true that hindus do not engage in murder when they perceive blasphemy:

    -Hussain has bounty on his head for drawing hindu god

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-101-cr-bounty-on-Husains-head/articleshow/1424968.cms
    =======
    -Another arganization also offers similar bounty for same offense.Hindu Law Board offers Rs 51 cr for killing M F Hussain
    http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/23mf.htm
    ===
    Hindu terrorist hurl bomb at Tv station for airing a debate about ‘Thaali’ (Mangalsutra)

    http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-tamil-tv-channel-attack-hindu-ilaignar-sena-claim-responsibility-2068116

    Whether these attackers killed themselves afterward is another issue, however these attacks and others prove these verses on blasphemy are meant to be interpreted literally.

  177. Steve says:

    +Why
    “I said God created no souls ex-nihilo, that means all souls exist without any beginning, just like God.” Can you tell me what you mean by soul? If by that you mean the self or ego then no it has a beginning – just like all things has a beginning. The only “thing” which doesn’t have a beginning is the existence itself and the laws that govern it. All conditioned finite phenomenon has a beginning and end, their is no reason to think human beings and their minds are any different to everything else in the universe.

    “God gives results as per souls’ essential nature and merits/demerits of history of deeds done by souls up till that point.” Are you saying you believe natural disasters are in response to bad behaviour of humans? The universe doesn’t revolve around humans, it will wipe us out whether it wants to its only by luck that we didn’t become extinct like the other 99.9 percent of species who existed on this planet who now are extinct.

    “When there are intrinsically evil souls, such religions are allowed to come up.” You mean people are evil without a cause? This is the complete opposite of my thinking, nothing arises without cause. For example the cause of evil people can be explained by bad genes,bad environments, bad parents, bad ideas and bad lives (or some combination of these things). Ordinary cause and effect is sufficient to explain the differences between people.

    “A perfect God can do this, regardless of the environment a good soul is born in” Not if that persons environment determines that they will die before the age of 5 he can’t. Or if their environment, family and culture determines they will become Osama bin laden.

    “However, it is possible in reality to have existence of perfect God in a completely different consistent framework.” Your framework is 1)God exists but somehow didn’t create evil people and natural disasters. 2)Souls exist and are uncaused, so it follows everything they do and everything that happens to them they deserve it and it is of their own making. (And somehow souls through their actions are also able to cause the natural world to kill them and inflict huge amounts of suffering on them.) These are several massive problems 1) Their is no evidence for any God or souls. 2) Concept of souls without cause and without beginning is simple bullshit and your response is no different to the “free will” response given by Christians. 3) It follows the Jews for instance deserved to be slaughtered and Thrown in gas chambers because of some evil they must have done or their ancestors or their past lives or whatever. This means that the people we usually think of as being the innocent victim is in fact an evil person getting their just deserts and the evil people such as hitler are in fact good who are just giving the real evil people what their deserve. 4)These a problem though their no evidence that innocent people deserve their suffering (that’s why we call them innocent), and that’s why we call people who inflict suffering on others for no reason or for their own pleasure *evil*. In addition we don’t know what “gods judgement” (so to speak) will be, so we can intervene to help other conscious beings and lessen or prevent their suffering, so could God yet he chooses not to. So I am afraid your framework does nothing to solve these problems.

  178. why? says:

    +!Steve Says:
    +!+————————————————-
    Here he clearly says Lazurus is *asleep*, if he believed in disembodied souls going straight to God he would say that.
    +!+————————————————-

    Hmmm…there seems to be clearly self-contradicting statements made by jeebus in gospels. Luke says some other Lazarus talked to Abraham (although a parable).

    I also said that Jeebus may have believed that souls go to some limbo (not heaven), where the dead ancestors live until judgment day. But this is besides the point. Please quote the exact verses.

  179. why? says:

    !+!Steve,

    Forget about the christian conception of God and think outside this box.

    +!———————————————————
    It does still stand 1)Where is this evil and evil people coming coming from if God is *all good* and humans are created in his image and share his *all good* nature?
    +!——————————————————–

    I said God created no souls ex-nihilo, that means all souls exist without any beginning, just like God.

    There is also no sharing in His essential qualities between Him and the souls, especially evil qualities. In this case, the locus of evil is limited to only the souls and therefore God is NOT responsible for creating evil here as He did NOT create any.

    +!———————————————————
    2)Where does natural evil or suffering come from?
    +!———————————————————

    God gives results as per souls’ essential nature and merits/demerits of history of deeds done by souls up till that point.

    +!———————————————————
    3) Why did this God allow the rise of false religions like Islam for example?
    +!———————————————————

    When there are intrinsically evil souls, such religions are allowed to come up. The good souls can be properly directed by God through proper exposure to right knowledge. A perfect God can do this, regardless of the environment a good soul is born in. A perfect God can always guide souls through correct knowledge.

    +!———————————————————
    4)Only if someone believes in Gods existence and then “freely chooses” to reject him would they be *evil* (according to Christian doctrine). People who are not aware of the existence of the Christian God are not in the position to reject or accept his *offer* of a relationship and eternal life.
    +!———————————————————

    Your point is correct with respect to Christian belief.

    However, it is possible in reality to have existence of perfect God in a completely different consistent framework.

  180. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix

    You are trying to be expert of Hinduism that is why I have asked to you some questions but you skipped them if you are really interested to discuss Hinduism here please let me know otherwise stop this hypocrisy.

    DO you have any Idea of Sanskrit language. Do you know what are Veda? Who was Manu? Difference in Shruti & Smariti? What Manu said if there comes any contradiction in Shruti & Smriti? Which is acceptable and Why?

    Please spend some time here too
    http://agniveer.com/series/universal-religion-for-all/

  181. Steve says:

    +Why

    “Does Jeebs say explicitly somewhere that dead are not conscious in anyway untill judgment day?” Yes “11 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” Here he clearly says Lazurus is *asleep*, if he believed in disembodied souls going straight to God he would say that. More “14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead” Can’t get clearer than that.

    23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

    24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

    “This shows that Martha expected their to be a future resurrection of Lazarus – she did not believe that his immortal soul was in heaven at that moment in time. In fact, wouldn’t it be cruel of Jesus to raise people from the dead if their souls had already gone to heaven 4 days previously? The Bible then is clear – a future resurrection is coming.”

    Further more in addition to this evidence from the bible, what would be the point of Jesus’s sacrifice and resurrection (and the physical resurrection of the dead on judgement day or whatever it’s called) if humans already have an immortal soul that goes straight to “the father” immediately after they physically die, in a spiritual realm? This idea contradicts the central theme or doctrine of Christianity.

    “Regarding my point, I said a monotheistic deity who controls everything, but DID NOT CREATE EX-NIHILO any soul….This deity may not wish to have relationship to make Himself known to every soul and that evil may be intrinsic to some or all uncreated souls. In this case the argument from evil or argument from unbelief does NOT stand. This is my argument.” It does still stand 1)Where is this evil and evil people coming coming from if God is *all good* and humans are created in his image and share his *all good* nature? 2)Where does natural evil or suffering come from? 3) Why did this God allow the rise of false religions like Islam for example? 4)Only if someone believes in Gods existence and then “freely chooses” to reject him would they be *evil* (according to Christian doctrine). People who are not aware of the existence of the Christian God are not in the position to reject or accept his *offer* of a relationship and eternal life. So God would have a duty or need to make his existence known to humanity so they then can decide if they to want to know him and go to heaven or reject him and go to hell.

  182. why? says:

    Steve,

    It is clear there is a contradiction in Jeeb’s statements itself perhaps or may be not.

    Does Jeebs say explicitly somewhere that dead are not conscious in anyway untill judgment day?

    None of your quotes prove that.

    Jeebs may believe that disembodied souls do go to limbo as well as bodily resurrection of dead during judgment day.

    Regarding my point, I said a monotheistic deity who controls everything, but DID NOT CREATE EX-NIHILO any soul….This deity may not wish to have relationship to make Himself known to every soul and that evil may be intrinsic to some or all uncreated souls. In this case the argument from evil or argument from unbelief does NOT stand. This is my argument.

  183. Steve says:

    +Why
    “What do you think about this story? Jeebs thinks disembodied souls do go out somewhere” Well it contradicts other places in which the bible makes it clear the dead are not conscious and won’t be conscious again until they are physically resurrected. Here are some of the verses supporting that view. “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. Ecclesiastes 9:5-6”

    “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2”

    “Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him (Jesus), I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day”. John 11:24

    “For the Lord (Jesus Christ) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:” 1 Thess 4:16

    “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Psalm 146:3-4”

    So it seems the Christians have 2 choices 1)Admit the bible contradicts itself 2) Admit that the bible does not teach the idea of a disembodied soul and so stop using NDE accounts in support of their faith.

    “However, a perfect God who has power and control over all things, but did NOT create ex-nihilo anything can have sufficient reasons to maintain ignorance for some temporarily and for some permanently and maintain suffering, as long as all the evil (in all its forms) are intrinsic to things He did NOT create.” No that’s bullshit, let’s suppose someone believes that humans was created/designed by a species of loving aliens who want to have a relationship with humans. Now when someone points out the obvious that nobody has ever had any contact from any loving creator aliens where it’s specified that the aliens 1)Are aware of human beings 2)Want human beings to be aware of their existence 3) Want a relationship with the humans and 4) They have the power to contact humans and make their existence known. Given all these things and given no loving alien creators have ever contacted us it means these aliens don’t exist. Someone coming along saying these aliens have “sufficient reasons” for not contacting us is talking bullshit.

  184. why? says:

    !+!Steve,
    !+————————————————–
    according to Christianity he did create everything ex-nihilio and has power and control over all things, and **he wants to have a relationship with human beings** but since the majority of humans are not even aware of the existence of such a being, it follows he doesn’t exist. So this argument certainly applies to such a God.
    +!—————————————————–

    This is an excellent point, especially **he wants to have a relationship with human beings**. So a God creating ex-nihilo and who wants to have a relationship are good points.

    However, a perfect God who has power and control over all things, but did NOT create ex-nihilo anything can have sufficient reasons to maintain ignorance for some temporarily and for some permanently and maintain suffering, as long as all the evil (in all its forms) are intrinsic to things He did NOT create.

    +!—————————————————–
    Obviously this argument does not apply to “Gods” who are unaware or indifferent to human beings (i.e pantheistic and deistic concepts).
    +!—————————————————–

    No…this holds good even for monotheistic concept, where God can be in full control.

  185. why? says:

    !+!+Ron Says:
    +!+————————————————–
    God does answer prayers when you search sincerely. check these
    +!+————————————————-

    Even the devil answers prayers as per you christians….Now the real question is how do you know that this jeebs is NOT the devil and is really God.

    God will most definitely NOT reveal Himself with illogical absurd claims.

    The story of jeebs is cheap, illogical and absurd. So Jeebs is definitey no God. He is the devil (**morning star**) as per your bible itself who claimed equality with God.

    Revelation 22:16

    `**I, Jesus did send my messenger to testify** to you these things concerning the assemblies; I am the root and the offspring of David, the **bright and morning star**!

    http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945#showrashi=true

    Isaiah 14:12-15

    12. How have you fallen from heaven, the **morning star**? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.

    13 And you said to yourself, ‘To the heavens will I ascend, above God’s stars will I raise my throne, and I will sit on the mount of the assembly, in the farthest end of the north.

    14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will liken myself to the Most High.’

    15 **But into the nether world shall you be brought down, to the bottom of the pit.**

  186. why? says:

    Steve,

    Luke 16:19-31

    The Rich Man and Lazarus

    19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side.[a] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

    What do you think about this story? Jeebs thinks disembodied souls do go out somewhere…

    At the same time, John says

    John 3:13

    No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

    Genesis 15:15

    15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.

    It seems that the dead ancestors are there in limbo as per bible…

  187. Ron says:

    @madfijian and others who want to seek the truth.

    In addition to the several of my posts below, I would suggest you to try out Jesus in the following prayer.

    “Oh God , If you have created me and this universe and if you exists as Jesus which I doubt since I have no evidence come and show evidence in dreams and vision and through your Word in the next seven days and also such that my estranged brother who has hurt me will come to reconcile with me of his own accord and free will then will I accept you as my God and If I do not get evidence then I will continue on my path of current belief or no belief.”

    God does answer prayers when you search sincerely. check these
    Two awe-inspiring testimonies from India!

  188. Steve says:

    +A.H.
    Alianism shares this orthodox view of Jesus, whereas the Dalai Lama does not.” Ali Sina for example and in fact many if not most other Christians (particularly Catholics) believe the soul will become disembodied and floats off to “heaven” and whatever in a “spiritual realm”. Neither Jesus or the Old Testament teaches this doctrine so these Christians are calling Jesus and the bible liars and contradicting what they teach on that issue.

    +Why
    “Now if he had said that there exists an inconsistency about existence of a perfect God who created everything ex-nihilo and existence of non-belief, it is a different argument altogether.” I thought that’s what he implied by this his argument, so I pointed out this is in fact a very strong argument used in philosophy against theistic (intervening) gods.

    “Now if there exists a perfect God who did NOT create anything ex-nihilo, then this argument does/need NOT hold, just like existence of evil does/need not hold.” according to Christianity he did create everything ex-nihilio and has power and control over all things, and he wants to have a relationship with human beings but since the majority of humans are not even aware of the existence of such a being, it follows he doesn’t exist. So this argument certainly applies to such a God. Obviously this argument does not apply to “Gods” who are unaware or indifferent to human beings (i.e pantheistic and deistic concepts).

  189. why? says:

    Ron,

    Even if the entire world were to accept muhammad as profiteer of “god”, it would NOT make the claim true. Similarly, even if every Hindu or non-christian were to accept christianity and jeebus and witness for the same, it will NOT make the illogical absurd claims of jeebus true. Falsehood never becomes truth.

  190. Ron says:

    Watch this short video to see why and how this Doctor accepted Christ

  191. why? says:

    +!+Phoenix Says:
    +!+————————————————————————–
    *The following verse commands murder and suicide.

    Srimad Bhagavatam sb4:4:17 Sati continued: If one hears an irresponsible person blaspheme the master and controller of religion, one should block his ears and go away if unable to punish him. But if one is able to kill, then one should by force cut out the blasphemer’s tongue and kill the offender, and after that one should give up his own life.
    +!+——————————————————————

    and yet Hindus do NOT engage in murder or suicide when they hear blasphemy. There is NOT one instance in Hindu history that such a thing happened or have been implemented legally. Why? Because this is NOT taken literally and it is a hyperbole just like the command to cut the part that offends or sins…

  192. Phoenix says:

    Blasphemy in Hinduism
    —————————–
    *The following verse commands murder and suicide.

    Srimad Bhagavatam sb4:4:17 Sati continued: If one hears an irresponsible person blaspheme the master and controller of religion, one should block his ears and go away if unable to punish him. But if one is able to kill, then one should by force cut out the blasphemer’s tongue and kill the offender, and after that one should give up his own life.

    Rg Veda 6:LXXII:1. GREAT is this might of yours, Indra and Soma: the first high exploits were your own achievements.Ye found the Sun ye found the light of heaven: ye killed all darkness and the Gods’ blasphemers.

    Ath.Veda 12:5:60 O Cow, break thou the head of him who wrongs the Brāhmans,criminal, niggard, blasphemer of the Gods.
    61.Let Agni burn the spiteful wretch when crushed to death and slain by thee.
    Ath. Veda 5:18:8 His voice an arrow’s neck, his tongue a bowstring, his windpipes fire-enveloped heads of arrows,With these the Brāhman pierces through blasphemers, with God-sped bows that quell the hearts within them.
    Atharva Veda 11:2:21 Covet not thou our kine or men, covet not thou our goats or sheep.Elsewhither,strong One! turn thine aim: destroy the mockers’ family.

    Brahmavaivarta Purana4:1:61″The pious credits earned in a hundred births are at once destroyed for they who blaspheme Lord Krsna or His saintly devotee.
    62 They are cooked in the terrible hell called Kumbhipaka. They are eaten by worms for as long as the sun and moon exist.
    63 Simply by seeing such a blasphemer all one’s piety is destroyed. If he sees him, a wise man bathes in the Ganga or glances at the sun, and in that way becomes purified.

  193. Truth Seeker says:

    @Phoenix

    Please stop your copy paste stuff if you have no Idea of Sanskrit language. Do you know what are Veda? Who was Manu? Difference in Shruti & Smariti? Do you have any idea of Sanskrit language? What Manu said if there comes contradiction in Shruti & Smriti? Which is acceptable and Why?

    Please spend some time here too
    http://agniveer.com/series/universal-religion-for-all/

  194. A.H. says:

    “Of course people believe in different versions of Jesus. Such as the Dalai Lama who believes Jesus may of being a Buddha for example.”

    In Mat 16 Jesus asks his disciples “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They gave various answers. Finally Peter says “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”. This confession is the foundation of the Church that Jesus established.

    Alianism shares this orthodox view of Jesus, whereas the Dalai Lama does not.

  195. Phoenix says:

    Blasphemy in Hinduism
    —————————–
    *The following verse commands murder and suicide.

    Bhagavata Purana SB:4:4:17 Sati continued: If one hears an irresponsible person blaspheme the master and controller of religion, one should block his ears and go away if unable to punish him.>>>But if one is able to kill, then one should by force cut out the blasphemer’s tongue and kill the offender, and after that one should give up his own life<<>>ye killed all darkness and the Gods’ blasphemers<<>>break thou the head of him<<>>blasphemer of the Gods<<>>heads of arrows,With these the Brāhman pierces through blasphemers<<>> destroy the mockers’ family.<<<

    Brahmavaivarta Purana 4.1.61. The pious credits earned in a hundred births are at once destroyed for they who blaspheme Lord Krsna or His saintly devotee.
    62 They are cooked in the terrible hell called Kumbhipaka. They are eaten by worms for as long as the sun and moon exist.
    63 Simply by seeing such a blasphemer all one’s piety is destroyed. If he sees him, a wise man bathes in the Ganga or glances at the sun, and in that way becomes purified.

  196. why? says:

    +!+!Steve,
    +!+!——————————–
    If Jesus is God why no Indian could know this fact?
    +!+!——————————————

    Truthseeker’s quote is given above and is NOT enough to make an argument at all. Lack of knowledge of somebody whether it is spiritual or material is NO argument at all.

    Now if he had said that there exists an inconsistency about existence of a perfect God who created everything ex-nihilo and existence of non-belief, it is a different argument altogether.

    Now if there exists a perfect God who did NOT create anything ex-nihilo, then this argument does/need NOT hold, just like existence of evil does/need not hold.

  197. Phoenix says:

    @Kanchan
    Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family that deifies the one truth, … Hence, Hinduism is devoid of the concepts of apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy.//

    First, any ideology which claims to accept all ideologies under a single umbrella is necessary false and evil because it willingly accepts and accomodates counter-principles.

    Secondly…well…see below:

    Heresy/Apostasy in Hinduism
    ————————————
    Ath Veda 4:30:5 I bend the bow for Rudra that his arrow may >>>strike and slay the hater of devotion<<>>slaying non-sacrificing God-despisers!<<>>being led astray from the path of the Vedas, they may be put to death; for all gods, demons, or others, who shall be opposed to the authority of the Veda<<<,shall perish by my might, whilst exercised for the preservation of the world.

    Manu 4:30. Let him not honour, even by a greeting, heretics, men who follow forbidden occupations, men who live like cats, rogues, logicians, (arguing against the Veda,) and those who live like herons.

    *Questioning Vedas leads to atheism*
    Laws of Manu 2:10. But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.
    11. Every twice-born man, who, relying on the Institutes of dialectics, treats with contempt those two sources (of the law), must be cast out by the virtuous, as an atheist and a scorner of the Veda.

    * Clearly the concept of heresy is well established in Hinduism

  198. Truth Seeker says:

    @Why?

    ….”Your argument on lack of knowledge of something is NOT a good argument at all. There are many who did NOT discover quantum mechanics”…..

    Please explain me spiritual developments / discoveries we did through quantum mechanics which were lacked earlier.

  199. Steve says:

    Why you said
    “Your argument on lack of knowledge of something is NOT a good argument at all. There are many who did NOT discover quantum mechanics. Does it mean that quantum mechanics as a scientific field is wrong?” I don’t think you understand the argument.,1) the Christian God loves humans wants to be known by humans humans wants a relationship with humans and so on.
    2) yet their are billions of people who either have never of this idea at all, or those who are simply unconvinced by it, because their is no evidence for any God and no God ever interacts with humans. For example we would expect the Christian God to send Jesus so all the humanity would know about him and their would be no doubt about who he was, and not send him to a tiny corner of the Middle East and have only 12 disciples. This is called in philosophy the argument from non-belief https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief “An argument from nonbelief is a philosophical argument that asserts an inconsistency between the existence of God and a world in which people fail to recognize him. It is similar to the classic argument from evil in affirming an inconsistency between the world that exists and the world that would exist if God had certain desires combined with the power to see them through.”

    +A.H
    “Yeah, you don`t have to give op Jesus when you become an ALIAN.” You do, at least the Jesus of New Testament. Of course people believe in different versions of Jesus. Such as the Dalai Lama who believes Jesus may of being a Buddha for example.

  200. Steve says:

    Why you said
    “Your argument on lack of knowledge of something is NOT a good argument at all. There are many who did NOT discover quantum mechanics. Does it mean that quantum mechanics as a scientific field is wrong?” I don’t you understand, the Christian God loves wants to be known wants by humans wants a relationship with humans and so on, yet their billions of people who either have never of this idea at all, or those who are simply unconvinced by it, because their is no evidence for any God and no God ever interacts with humans. For example why didn’t the Christian God send Jesus so all the humanity would know about him and their would be no doubt about who he was? This is called in philosophy the argument from non-belief https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief “An argument from nonbelief is a philosophical argument that asserts an inconsistency between the existence of God and a world in which people fail to recognize him. It is similar to the classic argument from evil in affirming an inconsistency between the world that exists and the world that would exist if God had certain desires combined with the power to see them through.”

    +A.H
    “Yeah, you don`t have to give op Jesus when you become an ALIAN.” You do, at least the Jesus of New Testament. Of course people believe in different versions of Jesus. Such as the Dalai Lama who believes he may of being a Buddha for example.

  201. A.H. says:

    “Give up bible and become a preacher for Ali Sina type beliefs. (Which is a mix of Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, new age, and paranormal/occult philosophies – which mostly contradict each other and which is why most of what he says is incoherent and contradictory.”

    Yeah, you don`t have to give op Jesus when you become an ALIAN.

  202. why? says:

    !+!Trutthseeker,

    Your argument on lack of knowledge of something is NOT a good argument at all. There are many who did NOT discover quantum mechanics. Does it mean that quantum mechanics as a scientific field is wrong?

    The simplest logic to show jeebs is no god is to simply find one logical error in the claims this man has made. The most ridiculous claim of this man is that he is a suicidal sacrificial goat to satisfy/convince his blood thirsty father to forgive his own creation. This is the most absurd of all religious beliefs one could have.

  203. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina

    Why people borne as Muslim (Borne to parents follower of Muhammad) and in gulf lands where much chances of their developing in themselves demonic personality. Did they wish this?

  204. Truth Seeker says:

    @Ali Sina

    If Jesus is God why no Indian could know this fact? No, Indian legendary Mahirishi Manu, Krishna, Rama, Patanjali, Budhha, Guru Nanak Dev, Kabirdas never said remotely “Jesus is God.”

  205. why? says:

    +!+Ron Says:
    +!+—————————————————
    You will find Jesus if you sincerely search for God. There will be many who will distract you and keep you from searching the truth but as the Gospels says you will find the truth and the truth will set you free just as this lady found it in this video attached here.
    +!+—————————————————

    Clearly, the only cynics here are yourself and like of you (Ali Sina etc.). Despite proving to the contrary that your jeebus himself is the original anti-semite who was the first reason for 2000 years of Jewish persecution, you people follow this devil jeebus despite contrary evidence.

    Why do you believe that your jeebus is God? Is it just because of so called NDE experiences ONLY? In that case why don’t you believe Muslim NDEs or Jewish NDEs where there is no jeebus. There is ONE muslim NDE where a woman dreams of jeebus directing her to follow Islam. Why don’t you believe it?

    The truth is there is NO evidence whatsoever, that this jeebus of yours is God even in NDEs. Just like you pick and choose bible verses, you cherry pick and believe only those NDEs that are conveniently conforming to your prejudiced beliefs. So tell me who is the cynic here?

    There is enough evidence in the bible itself that jeebus is himself a demonic entity misleading/deceiving souls and leading them to hell, besides the illogical and immoral teachings this adultery born mamzer jeebus propagated. We have seen how the devil jeebus followed OT to the last leaf and prayed to the same demonic god that Moses worshiped. We have seen that all of Moses plagues were nothing short of black magic rituals and its effects where no real creator of Universe will indulge in those petty games with creation. Here there is explicit evidence from NT and OT that jeebus is devil himself. If anything NDEs prove that jeebus is deceiving souls.

    Jeebus is satan as per OT:

    Revelation 22:16

    `**I, Jesus did send my messenger to testify** to you these things concerning the assemblies; I am the root and the offspring of David, the **bright and morning star**!

    http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945#showrashi=true

    Isaiah 14:12-15

    12. How have you fallen from heaven, the **morning star**? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.

    13 And you said to yourself, ‘To the heavens will I ascend, above God’s stars will I raise my throne, and I will sit on the mount of the assembly, in the farthest end of the north.

    14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will liken myself to the Most High.’

    15 **But into the nether world shall you be brought down, to the bottom of the pit.**

    EVEN YOUR BIBLE AGREES THAT JEEBUS IS THE DEVIL. IF ANYTHING, NDES PROVE THAT JEEBUS IS DECEIVING SOULS AND LEADING THEM TO HELL.

  206. Steve says:

    +Ron
    “The Bible has not mentioned NDE’s but has recorded many miracles of people being brought back to life through Jesus and his apostles and also through prophets like Elijah, Elisha, Peter etc. ” That’s because the concept of afterlife as presented by NDE believers is completely different to what the bible says. According to the bible the dead are not conscious and humans will be PHYSICALLY resurrected it does not say anything about a disembodied soul going of to others realms. You have 2 options 1)Give up posting NDE accounts when trying to promote Christianity as they CONTRADICT the bible version of afterlife. Or 2)Give up bible and become a preacher for Ali Sina type beliefs. (Which is a mix of Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, new age, and paranormal/occult philosophies – which mostly contradict each other and which is why most of what he says is incoherent and contradictory.

  207. Kanchan says:

    Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family that deifies the one truth, … Hence, Hinduism is devoid of the concepts of apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy.

  208. Ron says:

    Madfijian
    You seem to be a sceptic and not a cynic as some others in the forum. There is always hope to be saved for both cynics as well as sceptics but it is always easier for a sceptic because he/she is sceptical because of lack of evidence. The cynic is sceptical in spite of the evidence. If you seek the truth then you will find it and the truth will set you free.
    The Bible does say about afterlife. If you read 1 Samuel 28: 7-24 you will find an incident where Saul talks to a medium. This is considered a grave sin because you may be communicating with a familial spirit (evil) and not the spirit of someone you know. The Bible does not say whether that Spirit was truly of Samuel or not. If you see some of the magicians in Ali Sina’s videos (black magic) are doing surprising feats which go against the laws of science and nature. ( E.g. face changing masks, balls of fire moving, objects and live animals/birds appearing out of nowhere)
    If you go to Paris go to the Moulin Rouge show and can be any other such events where they will do some magic tricks (like face changing) just two feet away from you.
    Remember that you can get hypnotised and made to believe in seeing something which may really not be happening (hypnotic illusions) but your video camera or cell phone is a device and cannot get hypnotised. It will record the event as it sees.
    Ali Sina’s explanation that it is due to demonic spirits is the only viable explanation. (of course there are many magic tricks which can be explained as mentioned in some sites but not all of them)
    I would suggest that you give 7 days of prayer and just pray “ Lord Jesus, I don’t believe in you because you have not given me enough evidence. If you are real then reveal yourself to me and give me confirmation through your Word. If I don’t get evidence then I will keep following my way of Atheism /Hinduism/Islam/Buddhism/Paganism /Sikhism/Shintoism /Animist etc.
    The Bible has not mentioned NDE’s but has recorded many miracles of people being brought back to life through Jesus and his apostles and also through prophets like Elijah, Elisha, Peter etc. The lady in the video in the before post has 70 NDE videos all having encountered Jesus.
    You will find Jesus if you sincerely search for God. There will be many who will distract you and keep you from searching the truth but as the Gospels says you will find the truth and the truth will set you free just as this lady found it in this video attached here.
    True Muslims persecuted others and killed for Mohamed but the first followers of Christ were martyred and endured terrible persecution which no sane person will do for a lie.

  209. madfijian says:

    Ron i got another logic based question for you. In most modern investigations of NDE’S,death bed visions,apparition sightings etc etc it is alleged that the soul leaves the body and joins loved ones in some other dimension or meets up with the “source”. As Steve has aptly highlighted the very notion or idea of an NDE is not Christian as the Bible and the Quran (copied from the bible again) both clearly say that when one passes away they rest in their grave until an Arch Angel blows the horn on the day of Judgment and then we return to our physical bodies to be judged by God. How do you as a Christian reconcile with the fact that one does not wait for the day of judgement and the soul is apparently freed straight away to wonder about on this realm as a ghost or join others apparently in another realm.

    Suddenly i see Christians holding onto NDE’S as validation when it is clearly contrary to their teachings.

    Can you explain please.

  210. Steve says:

    +Ron
    Where did Jesus teach the belief in a afterlife for the soul (which is what these NDE accounts claim)? He did not teach this doctrine so even according to your belief you shouldn’t be posting these accounts which contradicts what Jesus says on the issue of afterlife. This article (written by a Christian) says the teaching of an “immortal soul” actually comes from the Catholic Church who got the idea form the Greek -pagan – philosopher Plato. http://www.the-gospel-truth.info/bible-teachings/death-what-is-it/

  211. Ron says:

    Watch this video it will answer your questions and know how she found Jesus after trying every other religions.

    Also what she found common in all NDEs

  212. Atheist says:

    Mr.Sina when did you became the advocate for dissecting /argument the prophecies of Moses (Testaments).Earlier you supposed to have been (you garnered lots of admirer as an atheist in that period) engaged in dissecting Mohammed and his cult Islam.Surprisingly in due course of time you became theist and ardent follower of Jesus the savior .Your transformation to theism is because some people’s experience about seeing Jesus in their NDE experience .But some monks see Buddha in hell and Jesus in Heaven as per the video’s loaded by some evangelist to degrade Buddha,however your site immediately deleted the same to escape from embarrassment .My question is what Buddha did wrong so that the(so called )heavenly father put him in hell and what were the good deeds which put Jesus in the heavenly abode..What is your expert opinion on this?,i knew you will not answer my queries .

  213. Steve says:

    Madfijian you asked
    “i am just wondering what spin will the religious nuts of this world put on that. Food for thought.”

    Christian apologist William Lane Craig says
    “The Scriptures are given to human beings as God’s revelation to people on this planet. Therefore, there is no reason to think that there could not be persons that God has created in some unknown galaxy that we have no idea about, and he has provided a revelation of himself to them as well. I think it would be presumptuous to say that we know that he hasn’t done that.”

    “That is right. That seems to me to be correct. I am puzzled by folks who seem to think that if intelligent life were discovered somewhere else or that if it were to come here that somehow this would be a disproof of Christianity. That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. It doesn’t follow because Christianity simply doesn’t speak to the question of whether or not God has created life elsewhere in the universe.”

    “Perhaps the more interesting question is: suppose they have fallen into sin and God loves them? Then God would also provide some sort of redeemer for them as well. Now, would that mean that Christ then also became incarnate in those worlds? Could there be multiple incarnations of the second person of the Trinity, on this planet as a human being and on another planet as a Klingon or whatever they are?”

    “Right, he would still be the same person but he would have multiple bodies.”
    Source http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ufos

    So it seems that got that one covered, if their are aliens created by the Christian God in his image, they may not have “sinned” and therefore don’t need a saviour and if they had sinned then the Christian God would have sent Jesus to them as well to “save” them. Don’t know how Jesus can be incarnated into other alien bodies through when he is supposed to live in the sky with his father in his human body that was nailed to a cross. On the question of aliens creating us the Christians would undoubtedly say “well those aliens need a creator and that creator is God”. Remember they set their religions up so that the claims cannot be disproven and is inherently unfalsifiable. A few of the most common examples of the replies Christians give q)look at all the suffering in nature. A)No problem God has his reasons and who are you to question God it’s all part of the plan Q)Look at all the extinct species and all the lifeless planets and dead stars and all the galaxy’s being torn apart by the expansion of the universe. A) Well the fact humans exist proves how special a creation we actually are, it actually shows how clever and a magnificent creator/designer God is. Q) The models of cosmology suggest either the universe had a absolute beginning or is part of an eternal multiverse, so how can God be creator? A) Well universe can’t have absolute beginning but God can because he is you know God, and as for eternal multiverse well where did that multiverse come from? Everything needs a cause and an actual infinity is not possible (except for my God) therefore the multiverse would still need a cause and that cause has to be God. As you can see they have an “answer” to everything, and anyway their God is so powerful and mysterious no evidence or argument could possible disprove him. He is very much like a chameleon who fits in any environment likewise the Christian God can be made to fit any environment.

  214. madfijian says:

    i was watching the History program Ancient Aliens the other day. With all the apparent evidence that the theorist seem to have including the junk DNA that humans posses it would be interesting if one days a giant spaceship landed on earth and people who looked like us walked off it and told us that they manufactured the human species in a lab. i am just wondering what spin will the religious nuts of this world put on that. Food for thought.

  215. why? says:

    Ron,

    Still means nothing to me or people who know christianity is garbage as per logic.

  216. Ron says:

    Svetlana the daughter of Stalin (atheist who killed 30-40 million of his own people) became Christian

    William J. Murray III who is the son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair the foremost atheist in US and the founder of several atheist organizations grew up atheist and left and became a Pastor (He said only learnt hate and never knew love till he became Christian)

    Also watch this
    Big Time Drug Dealer Comes Out of Drug Dealing Instantly After Supernatural Encounter With Jesus

  217. why? says:

    So Ron you are out of making any logical argument (not that you made any before) and are now back to posting useless paid videos to shovel your christian garbage.

  218. Ron says:

    Watch this video

  219. why? says:

    !+!Ron Says:
    !+!—————————————————–
    You can have genuine compassion only when you have Christ in you. Otherwise you will be goody but not good. You will lace your language with profanity and slangs and never feel anything wrong with it and fully justify it also.
    !+!——————————————————

    Your “christ” himself was frothing in his mouth with anger against Jews and was the worst anti-semitic person in history. His antisemitism has lead to holocaust of Jews several times over last 2000 years of history.

    Do you call this compassion of “christ”? We do NOT need such “compassion” in us by having the devil called “christ” within us. No wonder there is a 2000 year old hatred and anti-semitism of christians stemming from the “devil” you christians worship.

    Matthew 23

    31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

    33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

    34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,

    35 so that upon you **may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.**

    **37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!**

    READ THE VERSE 36, 37, WHERE MR. JC HIMSELF CALLS ENTIRE CITY JERUSALEM FILLED WITH JEWS RESPONSIBLE FOR **CENTURIES AS KILLERS OF PROPHETS**. EVEN THE **BLOOD OF ABEL IS UPON THE JEWS AS PER MR. JC**.

    CLEARLY HERE YOUR ANTI-SEMITIC HATRED FILLED “CHRIST” IS THE ORIGINAL ANTI-SEMITE HERE. NO WONDER THE FIRST CHRISTIANS FROM PAUL ETC. ALSO MADE ANTO-SEMITIC STATEMENTS AND CONTINUED WITH CHURCH FOUNDERS.

    Then answered all the people (Jews) and said, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25)

    One of the first christian Paul says “The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (l Thessalonians 2.14-16)

    Famous church fathers:

    St. Augustine: “Judaism is a corruption. Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people. Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal. They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ.”

    St. Thomas Aquinas: “It would be licit to hold Jews, because of the crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.”

    IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT WORSHIPING THE “DEVIL CHRIST” LEADS TO ANTI-SEMITIC HATRED. DO YOU NEED MORE EVIDENCE THAT MR. JC IS A DEVIL.

  220. madfijian says:

    Ron are you implying that because i do not believe in Christ i am somehow a bad and immoral person. Really Ron!!!
    I live in Fiji in a small town called Nadi. I challenge you to get of the plane in Fiji and ask anyone in this town who i am and what is my character like ( i will give you my real name of course) and i can almost guarantee you that people will tell you that yes his Godless but they will also tell you that i am probably one of the most just and fair person they know. I am not banging my own drums here but trying to make a point. My daughter was raised free of religion from birth and she has one of the most wonderful caring personalities you would want in a young adult. Morality is a product of the environment and upbringing. Science has also proven that the sense of right or wrong is with us from birth. Which side becomes the overriding factor in ones life is than dependent on the environment you are brought up in.
    A lot of experiments have been done on this and in a previous post i posted the links to the study which was done in the UK.
    If you are a week poorly raised individual who needs the “men in the sky” to go straight than that is a flaw in your character most of us however don’t need to have some dude get whipped and nailed to a cross to have our moral bearings corrected. Our bearings and morals are fine without the blood letting..

  221. Steve says:

    +Ron
    ” does not diminish your bigotry or anti-Semitism.” What bigotry and anti-semitism? If you can’t show any bigotry then it means you yourself are the bigot.

    “You can have genuine compassion only when you have Christ in you.” Saying only Christians are good and all non-Christians are evil ,is not a bigoted statement Ron?

    “Our morals come from a moral giver (higher authority I,e, God) without whom we might as well live upto the maxim of naturalists I,e. Survival of the fittest with end justifying the means.” You mean the God of the bible who ordered entire tribes to be massacred? Who says polytheists and atheists should be stoned to death? You mean the God who permits slavery? The morality where a virgin girl has to marry her rapist and the only punishment is the father has to be paid 50 silver coins? Is Jesus Christ being a scapegoat for the sins of humanity moral? Is this the morality you are talking about? The famous atheist Christopher Hitchens had a challenged to religious people on this 1)Name one moral or ethical action or behaviour committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been committed or carried out by an atheist? And 2) Name one immoral or unethical action or behaviour that has been committed or carried out in the name of God.

    “I will post you the transforming story of a guy who was on the FBI’s most wanted list for many years and had a rapsheet of offences including murder, bombings, robbery and who escaped from prisons, was shot with about twenty some bullets by police and the special forces but still survived and then found Christ in prison and now is freely preaching Christ.” What is that supposed to prove? Even people who converted to Islam claim they were transformed (like many of the jihadists who decide to kill and die for their Allah) So what? Personal experience is not an argument the Christian apologist William lane Craig even admits it’s not an argument. For example let’s imagine 4 people. Person 1 (imagine him as a Jew) says he saw an elephant. Person 2 (imagine him as a Christian) says he saw a monkey. Person 3 (imagine him as a Muslim) says he saw a tiger, while person 4 (imagine him as a atheist) says I didn’t see anything. So how can we make any conclusion from that, 3 different religions saying all different things, the probability is they are all wrong, just like the probability those 3 people saying they saw different things means they are probably all wrong.

  222. Ron says:

    I chose to follow Christ after seeing the genuine changes in people who followed Christ (not those with Christian names).

    I considered people who followed religion as stupid and brainless and those who followed Christ as additionally naïve.

    Little did I know that following Christ would make me a better person and I would stop using profanity, helping with compassion for the needy. If you see my various posts across the web, I do not use profanity towards even bigotists and Christ haters many of whom are there on this forum.

    Using a rhetoric of giving examples of other people who have given or allegedly given anti-Semitic statements or who are rabidly anti-Semitic does not diminish your bigotry or anti-Semitism.

    Also, if you have Christ in you then you will be able to forgive your brother or for that matter anyone.

    You can have genuine compassion only when you have Christ in you. Otherwise you will be goody but not good. You will lace your language with profanity and slangs and never feel anything wrong with it and fully justify it also.

    Our morals come from a moral giver (higher authority I,e, God) without whom we might as well live upto the maxim of naturalists I,e. Survival of the fittest with end justifying the means.

    It is what you do good when no one sees (God always sees but atheists/agnostics do not believe in God) in spite of all temptations and that happens only when you have Christ in you.

    I will post you the transforming story of a guy who was on the FBI’s most wanted list for many years and had a rapsheet of offences including murder, bombings, robbery and who escaped from prisons, was shot with about twenty some bullets by police and the special forces but still survived and then found Christ in prison and now is freely preaching Christ.

    If you genuinely search for God you will end up knowing Christ personally.

  223. madfijian says:

    Again Ron you argue with emotions you use the same old cliche of antisemitism and how we unbelievers are somehow hateful and anti Christian blah blah blah. I cant speak for Steve and Why but i can certainly say that i hate no race or religion nor any person well accept my brother but that’s another story . I wish you and all those brainwashed minions of this world all the best. We are just trying to show you logic and reason. If i walked up to you and said Ron a snake just talked to me you would ask me if i had taken my “pills that morning”. Point is you will never believe me because it is simply illogical. Than why believe a book that is full of myths,murder,hate and that reads more like a “game of thrones script than the word of God” which was also written at a time when people believed anything. Why do you not hold your Bible to the same scrutiny as you would hold anything else particularly when it has been clearly proven wrong in so many areas. Just a starter is the fact that the earth is not 6000 odd years old but billions of years old. If you are the God of the Bible would you at least know when you created the universe.
    Incidentally Hitler’s hate for Jews had very little to do with the Devil. He read the now proven fake book called the Protocol which alleged a plot by the Jews to take control of the world. What some of us are trying to do is simply show you and the other Christian apologists the fallacy of your belief which you cant seem to see despite reading the Bible. In my case i am simply saying that Islam and Christianity share the same DNA and criticizing Islam as most Christians do without looking at their own beliefs is simply being hypocritical.

  224. why? says:

    !+Ron,

    +! Where exactly is the anti-semitism here? I did NOT find any such thing here. Criticizing bible or jeebus is not anti-semtism. bible is NOT a race. Jews are NOT the subject of discussion here.

    So please stop all this strawman allegations and deal with bible being an evil book mostly (may be some good here and there). By the way, Hitler (regardless of his personal belief), was able to perpetrate the anti-semitism in predominantly a christian country. Why?

    Anti-semitism is part of the evil new testament. Atheists, “pagans” etc. attach no significance (jewophilia) or hatred (anti-semitism) o Jews. They are normal human beings as any other community.

    Then answered all the people (Jews) and said, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25)

    “The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (l Thessalonians 2.14-16)

    “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan …” (Revelation 2.9,10)

    “Behold I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews and are not but do lie; behold I will make them to come and worship before thy feet…” (Revelation 3.9)

    “Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers” (Acts 7.51-53)

    We will now examine the words of some Christian “saints” and leaders and notice how their anti-Jewish expressions are based on New Testament verses listed earlier in this article.

    Origen: “Their rejection of Jesus has resulted in their present calamity and exile. We say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they have committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the saviour.”

    St. Gregory: “ Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.”

    St. Jerome: “….serpents, haters of all men, their image is Judas … their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys..”

    St. John Chrysostom: “I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time… This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots … A place where a whore stands on display is a whorehouse. What is more, the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theater; it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals … not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal … When animals are unfit for work, they are marked for slaughter, and this is the very thing which the Jews have experienced. By making themselves unfit for work, they have become ready for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “ask for my enemies, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them and slay them before me’ (Luke 19.27).”

    St. Augustine: “Judaism is a corruption. Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people. Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal. They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ.”

    St. Thomas Aquinas: “It would be licit to hold Jews, because of the crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.”

    The teachings of Martin Luther:

    “Know, 0 adored Christ, and make no mistake, that aside from the Devil, you have no enemy more venomous, more desperate, more bitter, than a true Jew who truly seeks to be a Jew… a Jew, a Jewish heart, are hard as wood, as stone, as iron, as the Devil himself. In short, they are children of the Devil, condemned to the flames of hell.”

    DO YOU NEED ANY MORE EXAMPLE OF ANTI-SEMITISM FROM CHRISTIANITY?

  225. Steve says:

    @Ron

    “There seems to be a lot of hate, bigotry and anti-Semitism in this forum” Where? It seems you are just pulling the hate card out again.

    “They are not savages” I was talking about the ancient Israelites as described in the Old Testament and their customs. I am not talking about modern day Jews or the state of Israel, idiot. For example do you think this is a good teaching or is it a teaching of a primitive and savage people? “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Do you think this law is savage? The women is not seen as a human being but a property of her father (who has to be compensated by the rapist) and her being raped is offence against him not her. In addition she then has to marry the rapist and can never divorce. Do you think this law is savage?

    “Hitler made a pact with the devil that he would give him power if he could give him the Jews.” How do you know the Jews didn’t make a pact with the devil so they will win the six day war then? (I not saying this this as antisemitic statement, I am asking this since you believe that their victory cannot be explained by normal means)?

    “Hitler did get power ultimately lost because God hears the cries of his chosen people and also of other people who reach out to him” It would of helped if God heard that cry before hitler massacred six million Jews wouldn’t it? Jehovah must of overslept or something.

    “The world war ended and within 3 years a nation of Israel was reborn for the Jews” The idea of Jews having their own state was around for many years before world war 2, how come God didn’t provide them with a state before hitler came to power eh? Why he allowed the satan – through hitler- to kill millions of his chosen people? Why he didn’t just provide them safe passage out of that country or why he didn’t just give hitler a heart attack or something?

  226. Ron says:

    There seems to be a lot of hate, bigotry and anti-Semitism in this forum. It is natural that the those against Jesus and Christians (pagans, atheists and agnostics and non-Christians) would team up in an unholy alliance.

    Israelis (Jews) have the highest percentage of Nobel Prize winners per capita of their ethnicity. Lots of inventions and scientific discoveries and because of them. They are not savages. In terms of IQ they are more smarter than many in the forum. God has certainly blessed them.

    Israel was reborn as a nation as a prophecy and return of the Jews to the Holy Land is again a prophecy. In 1967 Israel defeated 6 nations in SIX days and captured territory from all its neighbours inspite of being heavily outnumbered in terms of men in arms, ammunition, air force and navy. This was the greatest victory in recent times. There was no help from the super power USA but from the Supreme Power (God Almighty).

    The lessons of this victory are being taught in all Defense colleges in the whole world. There is nothing comparable to this in modern times. This is the fastest victory against many opponents.
    Of course the fastest victory against a single opponent would be the British who defeated Zanzibar in 1896 who surrendered in 38 minutes.

    Hitler made a pact with the devil that he would give him power if he could give him the Jews. Hitler did get power ultimately lost because God hears the cries of his chosen people and also of other people who reach out to him. The world war ended and within 3 years a nation of Israel was reborn for the Jews.

    God bless the Jews.

  227. madfijian says:

    Steve! could not agree with you more.

  228. Steve says:

    @Why and Passive observer
    “Why would this “god” of yours create and get murdered suckling infants and children (1 Samuel 15:3), even if he can resurrect them? Why does your “god” give unnecessary pain to these infants?” It’s funny that their “good god” can intervene in human affairs to help (or punish depending on his mood) the Israelites, a Bronze Age tribe of savages from a tiny corner of the Middle East. Yet when his beloved “chosen people” are shovelled in gas chambers in the modern era no one hears a thing from this being who was always intervening in the ancient Middle East, is the Lord camera shy or something passive observer? Yes I know his “mysterious ways” and all that.

    “I was referring the destruction of Sodom where God acted alone” Funny your God can do that yet he can’t destroy ISIS and he allowed a false God Allah to be worshipped by billions of people, funny that no intervention happened from this jealous omnipotent God of yours. Yes I know it’s all of part of his plan and in the end of days he is going to intervene again and finally defeat satan even though he could just do that at any time or indeed any time in the last few thousand years which according to bible God is how long humanity has been around.

    “The worst thing a person can do, which is to mock and dishonor and refuse to love the person that we owe absolutely everything to, which is our creator God himself” I don’t believe your God exists, but I have a question though what if the God of ISIS is real, would you honour this creator , since according to you we would owe absolutely everything to our creator?

  229. why? says:

    +!Since Ali SIna posted something about black magic and magic shows, I will bring the greatest black magic show that Moses put on with his “spirit” which he worshiped as “god”. If Moses really did all the things the bible http://forum.spellforce.com/showthread.php?t=12098claims he did, then it is nothing short of a diabolical dark black magic show he has put up and created a religion based on black magic. So lets analyze some of the events and find if there is any similarity to magic show using black magic or black magic ritual practiced elsewhere.

    The entire story of Moses may after all be a retelling of collection of ancient black magic stories that sorcerers used to do in ancient religions.

    1. Story about staff turning into a snake:

    C’mon, the creator of Universe in order to prove to the King of Egypt, the best he can do is turn a staff into a snake. This is cheapest magic trick.

    As expected, the Pharaoh called his sorcerers or magicians and they did the same thing. Then Moses’ staff swallowed the other snakes.

    Honestly, do you expect this cheap trick from the creator of the Universe?

    2. Turning water into blood: The Egyptian sorcerers also did the same. Another cheap black magic trick

    3. Raining frogs, lice, flies, locusts, disease and death of animals: Typical black magic story where a person curses using his powers to destroy enemies’ properties. It is beneath creator of the Universe to indulge in this nonsense.

    4. Boils on Egyptian citizens and animals.: Again, a story of cheap black magic curse to cause disease on enemies.

    5. Thunderstorm of hail and fire: ANother cheap black magic belief….

    http://forum.spellforce.com/showthread.php?t=12098

    Elemental Magic
    Fire:
    Rain of Fire – Rains fire down over a large area. Any units struck by a bolt of fire take damage equivalent to a fireburst of the same level and may be set on fire.

    People believe that black magic can cause rain of fire.

    6. Darkness for three days: There are witch stories where darkness rules as long as witches rule.

    7. Death of firstborn: This is the most revealing story, that this Moses’ story is nothing short of cheap black magic.

    Here, “God” allegedly reveals to Moses that he should ask his followers to sacrifice a lamb and put the blood on the doors of the houses. Then “God” will allegedly passover their houses without harming them.

    Really!!! Why would an all-knowing “God” need the sign of blood to know who is an Israelite? Clearly here the lamb is given as a sacrifice to satisfy some cheap spirit in order not to let the spirit kill children.

    I will quote below a black magic method known in India where killing one person per family is achieved this way.

    +!——————————————————–
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AChaos_magic

    There are three types of Black Indian magics

    1.Chethabadhi : It is black magic done to kill single person.He gets ill and become weak day by day and finaly death.

    2.Banamathi: It is black magic done to small village or small town.so that all people in that town or village become sick and become become weak day by day. death will come onces to every home .that means one person dies in each house.

    3 Kashmora : Its is most powerfull black magic. IT is done to whole country.One person die in each house. what moses done to egypt written in bible.
    !+———————————————————–

    8. Moses splitting sea, confusing army of Egypt with pillar of lightning, etc.

    These are typical black magic techniques known in India by various names. Stopping flow of water (making it rigid like solid wall, yet water is in liquid state as such) and other elements is known by different names. Confusing armies with black magic are known by certain technical names. Every incident described in the incident of Moses if true is NOTHING less than collection of black magic rituals and its effects.

    NO REAL ALMIGHTY GOD WILL INDULGE IN SUCH PERVERTED WAYS WITH “CREATION” IN SUCH A CHEAP WAY. THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE SOURCE OF BIBLE IS NO GOD AT ALL. IF THERE IS A SPIRITUAL SOURCE TO THIS BIBLE, THEN FOR SURE IT IS A MERELY LOWER LEVEL ENTITY OR BOTH LOWER LEVEL AND EVIL ENTITY.

  230. @Steve

    I was referring the destruction of Sodom where God acted alone. I do not know whether you have read the whole Bible. God intervenes in the human affairs after the fall of man. He chose the Jewish race and chastising them with the intention of sending His son Jesus. While chastising the Jewish race for 1600 years lot of killings take place. Jews suffered the most for their repeated idolatry practices.

    The worst thing a person can do, which is to mock and dishonor and refuse to love the person that we owe absolutely everything to, which is our Creator, God Himself.

  231. madfijian says:

    While i do not agree with Why! on a number of things including his arguments on Hinduism i totally agree with his analysis of the Bible and the obvious stupidity of it all which Christians cant see. I have been saying it for a long time that Christianity and Islam are very similar and in fact Islam or Mohammad simply copied the Bible and mixed his own agenda and sense of supremacy with the general principals of the OT. Everything from the prohibition on the consumption of pork to stoning adulterers is from the Bible. When you have people like Lizzy who writes on this blog sometimes going on about being thankful because she is Christian thus she has equal rights as a women i wonder what they are reading in the Bible. The 2 Bibles are the most oppressive and barbaric books written in so far as women is concerned. And guess what Jesus actually supported it. He ordered the suppression of the female gender. The point is that Muslims are oppressing their female folks no doubt about that but who is actually following Jesus’s command the Muslims or the Christians. In Levictus 4.1 Yahweh orders Moses to not eat pork yet almost all Christians eat it. Muslims don’t.You cherry pick what you want out of Christianity and that is the problem and if you followed the Bible literally just like Christians did a few hundred years ago and like fundamentalist Muslims have done for ages than their will be no difference between Christians today and the likes of ISIS.
    I have asked all you Christian apologists to counter all the versus that are violent and oppressive in the Bible and so far none have, I challenge you to prove Why and myself wrong and please stop with the emotional tirades use common sense and logic to counter not only our arguments but all the versus that point towards slavery, oppression of women, murder of children, etc etc. For arguments sake how do you justify the fact that 6m Jews that Hitler killed are currently burning in hell as per the Bible as Jews do not follow the Christian Messiah nor believe in him and Hitler if he repented his sins before dying (baptized catholic when young) would be playing Crockett with Jesus simply because he was a Christian and repented before dying. This is a hypothetical question which is based on Christian doctrines.

    I will contend that their may have been a holy men of some sort who’s life may have been used as the basis of the Jesus story. If he was indeed the person described in the NT than i am sorry to tell you that he was not the peaceful all forgiving character most Christians make him out to be. If you than agree that the Bible was written by ordinary men as Ali Sina seems to suggest and hence all the errors,contradictions and the barbarism than what is the basis of your faith as you than have no clue who the real Jesus was as their is not a single credible account of him which details his life and what he taught outside of the NT.

    Peace to you all.

  232. why? says:

    !+!Richard quoted:
    !+————————————————————-
    7 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    !+————————————————————-

    Deuteronomy 6:5

    Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

    Mr. JC conformed to OT and confirmed OT at every instance of his life.

    Even this verse is quoted from OT only…So nowhere Mr. JC sidestepped OT or any law of of OT.

    Matthew 23

    2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

    3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

    Clearly jeebus again approves Mosaic laws…..

    Matthew 15:3

    For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; [a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’

    Jeebus himself admits that God commanded these laws…..when jeebus states “God commanded them”, was he saying this just to satisfy Jews or did he himself believe in them as God commanding these laws? Answer honestly…This same jeebus said not on tittle of law will be left unfulfilled….So it is clear that jeebus believed these are commands of god and are ethical and moral….

    Mark 12:26 `And concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the Book of Moses (at The Bush), how God spake to him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;

    Luke 20:37Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

    37 `And that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the Bush, since he doth call the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;

    6. Here, your lord again EXPLICITLY CLAIMS, THAT HIS FATHER IS THE SAME GOD OF MOSES WHO PROVIDED MANNA (BREAD) FROM HEAVEN. CLEARLY, YOUR LORD’S “god” and MOSES’ “god aka yahway alias jehova” ARE IDENTICAL.

    John 6:32

    Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.

    ===========================================================

    NOTE:

    There is every evidence from gospels that “your lord” literally believed in yahway or jehova of MOSES, ABRAHAM etc. as his “god alias father”.

    Your rejection is based on your imaginary beliefs.
    Further EVIDENCE THAT “your guy” worshiped the same “god aka yahway alias jehovah” of old testament.

    7. “Your lord” made several references to statements made by “god aka yahway alias jehovah” in old testament.

    Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.'” (Matthew 4:7; cf. Luke 4:12)

    Reference found in OT

    “You shall not tempt the LORD your God as you tempted Him in Massah.” (Deuteronomy 6:16)

    “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Away with you, Satan! For it is written, “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'” (Matthew 4:10, cf. Luke 4:8)

    Reference found in OT

    “You shall fear the LORD your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.” (Deuteronomy 6:13)

    And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.'” (Matthew 21:13, cf. Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46)

    Reference found in OT

    Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. (Isaiah 56:7)

    “Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of thieves in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” says the LORD. (Jeremiah 7:11)

    Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?'” (Matthew 21:42, cf. Mark 12:10, 11, Luke 20:17)

    Reference found in OT

    he stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. (Psalm 118:22, 23)

    NOTE:

    THERE IS HELL LOT OF A REFERENCES BY “your lord” TO THE “god aka yahway aka jehovah” of OT. The following link provides it.

    https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/september-2008/05

    THERE ARE TOO MANY EVIDENCES THAT “your lord” worshiped the same “god aka yahway aka jehovah” of OT. If you deny all these evidences blindly, then you are living in an imaginary world of blind belief Ali Sina.

  233. why? says:

    +!Ali Sina Says:
    +———————————————————–
    “The Old Testament has nothing to do with Jesus. He did not denounce the Old Testament because when he came Judaism had become a strong faith. ”
    +————————————————————

    Richard replies:
    +===============================================
    Actually he rather neatly sidestepped the issue thus. (From Matthew 22)

    36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

    37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

    38 This is the first and great commandment.

    39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
    ================================================

    Nowhere Mr. JC here sidestepped OT here. He was merely quoting from OT as he did in every other instance in gospels. Now we will see if this is some great teaching unheard of before Mr. JC plagiarized from OT. JC as usual is peddling only OT teachings at every instance in gospels. PLEASE STOP SPREADING LIES ALI SINA THAT MR. JC HAD DIFFERENT GOD THAN THAT OF OT.

    Leviticus 19:18

    18 “ ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbors as yourself. I am the Lord.

    CLEARLY AS PER THE OT VERSE, A NEIGHBOR IS SOMEONE WHO IS FROM YOUR PEOPLE i.e. BELIEVERS MOSTLY. HERE IT SAYS LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AND DO NOT BEAR GURDGE WITH THEM.

    Jeebus was merely quoting this OT verse when he said

    You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”

    So it is clear that “neighbor” refers to people from same community of believers OR people who live together.

    Even the barbaric old testament says “love your enemies”, ie. feed them etc.

    Mishlei – Proverbs – Chapter 25

    21 If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;

    22 for you will be scooping coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.

    This same verse is quoted by Paul in NT.

    Romans 12:20

    On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

  234. why? says:

    +!Passive observer Says:
    +1!=========================================
    “For me, God can kill people and even children for his purpose, because He has the power to create life and resurrect children next moment into heaven without any judgment; we cannot kill people for we cannot create life”
    !+=========================================

    Why would this “god” of yours create and get murdered suckling infants and children (1 Samuel 15:3), even if he can resurrect them? Why does your “god” give unnecessary pain to these infants?

    What purpose can a perfect God have in creating innocent babies and murder them? Like all other BS in your bible, this is another BS….Numbers 31:17-18 has murder of all male children and sexual slavery of pre-pubescent girls…..There is no purpose….This “god” of OT (which is identical to god of jeebus) is a dark diabolical entity, if it truly exists.

  235. Steve says:

    Passive observer “For me, God can kill people and even children for his purpose, because He has the power to create life and resurrect children next moment into heaven without any judgment; we cannot kill people for we cannot create life” But God didn’t kill them, the Israelites did. Since nobody has ever heard from the Judeo-Christian God, how do you know the Israelites just wanted the land because it was better for growing crops and the like? Don’t ISIS and bin laden claim the same, that their God ordered them to kill and commit terror and that their enemies are extremely evil? How do you know Jehovah is the real God and not Allah?

  236. A.H. says:

    “Javed Ahmad Ghamedi makes up his own version of Islam.”

    Just like Ali Sina makes up his own version of Christianity.

    ” Also for one Ghaedi there are ten others who interpret the Quran they way it was intended.”

    That is correct, (holy) books are multi interpretable, Hinduism, Islam and Protetantism lack a central authority for interpretation of the Holy Writ. .

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-issue-of-authority-in-early-christianity/

  237. @ munmun

    Javed Ahmad Ghamedi makes up his own version of Islam. He thinks all it takes to reform Islam is to hide the truth and misrepresent the facts. Those days that a cleric could tell the masses of Muslims how they should interpret the Quran and hadith are over. Now anyone can read them. Also for one Ghaedi there are ten others who interpret the Quran they way it was intended.

  238. munmun says:

    Mr Sina, People like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi have their own version of Islam according to which – 1 Mohammed got divine orders to destroy certain communities of his time. So “violent verses” are contextual and don’t apply today. 2. Only Mohammed was competent enough to decide on matter of apostasy. So present laws relating to it are unjustified.
    Don’t you respect this version?

  239. I think it is childish to criticize God’s judgments and actions in the Old Testament without knowing the behaviour of the primitive/feudal people, while knowing the atrocities of Jihadists in the 21st century. Today God is using many countries to contain the inhumane activities of ISIS, Bokoharam etc., but 4000 yrs ago, God has to act alone. If God has given people free will than there is no guarantee that everybody is going to co-orperate with Him. I agree with Ron that Caananites were brutal in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Idol worshiping and deviant sexual acts were the norm. Let us take the case of Sodom. All the people of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and demanded the two male visitors for sex.(Genesis 19:4). However before the destruction of Sodom, Abraham argues with God. “Lord would you destroy Sodom if there were 50 righteous people?” Then 45, 40, 30, 20, and finally God said “I will not destroy Sodom for the sake of ten righteous people” (Genesis 18:32). Moreover God says in Ezekiel 33.11 “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” For me, God can kill people and even children for his purpose, because He has the power to create life and resurrect children next moment into heaven without any judgment; we cannot kill people for we cannot create life.

  240. Richard says:

    @Ali Sina

    Glad you liked it – please feel free to use it!

  241. Ron says:

    God is our Creator, loving, forgiving and also a judge.

    For 400 years or even more the people in Canaan (when the Israelites were in bondage/slavery in Egypt) i.e. The Canaanites did horrible and detestable things. 400 years is a long time for them to repent or change their ways but they did not . They did human and child sacrifices, killings, debauchery and atrocities on lot of other detestable things and when their sins had a reached a peak and it was time for them to be judged.

    At the same time the Israelites had suffered bondages and their cries were heard by God so He used the Israelites to judge the Canaanites and had caused the Israelites to free themselves from the Egyptians with His mighty hand aiding Moses and drove the Canaanites out from the promised Land through Joshua.

    All the Canaanites who stayed behind and/or fought were killed even women and children. That was part of the judgement.

    Also you will notice that when Israel sinned and disobeyed God then God used several times pagan nations to conquer Israel and drive them out from the promised Land.

    God has been loving, kind, slow to anger (400 years in the above case) but brings his judgement upon the unrighteous at the right time using his creations whether humans, animals or nature.

  242. Walter Sieruk says:

    There is a chance that it might be of some interest so some people that in the 2002 Study Edition of the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION of the Bible on page 287,just before the book of Joshua starts it has an article with the title that reads “The Conquest and the Ethical Question of War.” It explains about Bible violence. “Many readers of Joshua [and other OT books] are deeply troubled by the role that warfare plays in this account of God’s dealings with his people…” This Bible write up goes on to further explain much ,but not everything. One of the many points it makes is that “God gave His people under Joshua no commission or licence to conquer the world withe sword but a particular ,limited mission.” Moreover, in the New Testament in the light teachings of Jesus, Matthew 5:3-10. , for the “Church Age” such violence by believers of the One True God is a thing of the far past.

  243. Walter Sieruk says:

    The violence found in the Bible ,such as in the book of Joshua, is rather disturbing to read Nevertheless , there is a clear and distinct difference between the violence found in the Bible and the violence in the Koran. In the Bible is limited to a specific time and place and is not ,in any way meant to be applied to modern times. In contrast in violence and killing found in the Koran,as in 4:89.5:33. 9:5,111,123. 47:4. has no limit to a specific place and time. To explain this another way, the violent conquests of Joshua is not to applies to whole world , as Koranic jihad violence does. Neither was the violence found in other books of the Old Testament meant to be done by Christians. For example, the Old Testament law about putting a a person who is a witch to death ,Exodus 22:18 does not apply to now, which is sometimes called “The Church Age” Nevertheless Witchcraft is still, according to the Bible a sin,Galatians 5:21. Yet the death penalty for it is no longer in effect for those who engage in witchcraft. Moreover, the violence of Exodus 22:18 had applies only to ancient Israel because that nation was an imperfect theocracy and engaging in witchcraft was viewed as Treason. Even some modern countries have put people to death for treason. This is some the the differences between the violence found in the Bible and the violence found in the Koran.

  244. @Richard

    Thank you for your great post. With your permission I will use argument and the passages you quoted in my future discussions. That is the gist of Christianity nothing less and nothing more.

  245. Richard says:

    “The Old Testament has nothing to do with Jesus. He did not denounce the Old Testament because when he came Judaism had become a strong faith. ”

    Actually he rather neatly sidestepped the issue thus. (From Matthew 22)

    36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

    37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

    38 This is the first and great commandment.

    39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

    and just in case anyone was tempted to argue that they could love God whilst behaving badly to other people St John added:

    “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”

    For a Christian the Old Testament has to be interpreted in the light of these two Statements.

    This has been recognised from antiquity by saints such as St Isaac of Nineveh:
    ” Isaac claims, one should not interpret literally those Old Testament texts where the terms wrath, anger, hatred and others are used of the Creator. If such anthropomorphic terms occur in Scripture, they are used in a figurative sense, for God never does anything out of wrath, anger or hatred: everything of that sort is far removed from His Nature. We should not read everything literally as it is written, but rather see within the bodily exterior of the Old Testament narratives the hidden providence and eternal knowledge of God.[25] ‘Fear God out of love for Him, and not for the reputation of austerity that has been attributed to Him’”

  246. Dr H RJ says:

    Mayavi u said right,u said truth.Do u realized ADVAITA

  247. Mayavi says:

    You are correct!!!

    I think the truth is in us, we don’t want to go to church or temple to see God. It is wrong to say there’s no God. The truth is that there’s only God. There’s nothing other than God!

    People who go to the other world see their own higher self. When there’s nothing other than God, who sees, who’s seen.

    Mansur says

    ” I saw God with the eyes of my heart.

    I asked him ‘who are you? ‘

    He said ‘you!’

%d bloggers like this: