Is hinduism on the path of extinction - Page 11

Originally posted by: chatbuster

ps. if someone wants to refute/ disagree/ debate, would like to see more than "this is ridiculous" kind of "arguments". a priori, i think one can tell who will find what argument "ludicrous" or "profound", so they are not shedding any additional light imo when they want to refute using those arguments. in fact, by now one could have built a very good model to predict those statements with unfailing accuracy. so much for the entire excercise being about learning 😉 😛 😆

did you read my point that gravity doesnt apply to you if you are atop empire state.. can you prove that?....Arguments in this domain can only be ridiculous which was the analogy I was driving to the points you were making about continuity.....without any connectivity.....😆 😆

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

did you read my point that gravity doesnt apply to you if you are atop empire state.. can you prove that?....Arguments in this domain can only be ridiculous which was the analogy I was driving to the points you were making about continuity.....without any connectivity.....😆 😆

maybe we can have someone help interpret this for me. DB, LH? not trying to be facetious but i sure dont have the foggiest clue what this means.

again, the entire question is not about someone falling to earth (we observe people doing that on a frequent basis, dont we?). but why gravity exists in the first place causing a person to fall. if we cant even understand the difference between these two aspects (gravity exists but why does it exist), maybe i can see why we are having this debate in the first place.😉

Originally posted by: chatbuster

let's take the first two things you have up there as what i am sure will be considered by some to be rebuttals. we'll get to the rest of it too with any patience. A lot more.. u are not seeing it.. connectivity, empirical evidence either direct or indirect..., soul replenishment, body to soul mapping... all this goes towards establishing the absurd...😊

1. "cause is measured in impact of its proximity to effect".

yes, sure. 😛 like the last straw that breaks the camel's straw, no? only straw that counts, no?

wonder what we would also think about that early education which pays off in later years, the childhood values that pays off in times of adversity years down the road. thats because you know the future requirements before hand and you are driven by will.. Nature doesnt do that.. There are plenty of things I can just stop./alter in nature logic never applies to humans.

if you are refuting cause and effect, let me know. if you are just making a gradation difference, fine. that woould still not refute my argument. you would then at best be arguing that it's a minor impact. but impact it is then in any case. you cant be saying now that god had something to do with it all, not everyuthing, yet deny the existence of god. 😆 Did i ever attribure anything to God.. thats not my domain...😊

2. no cause by will. does not refute anything. still leaves the door open for god. and do read later on about an intelligent efficient god who does not need to work all the time. that's the least i would expect a God to be, what say? 😛

God, as is generally perceived is an entity, who is supposed to control you either directly or through its programmed mappings of Karma.. I dont know what your fusion God... does... 😆so before we go ahead... I would like to ask, can you perceive God if you act agnostic about all the scientific information you consciously or unconsiously think you know?😊


btw, this is for all who think this is a great debate, hope you will please get on the other side. 😉

Originally posted by: chatbuster

maybe we can have someone help interpret this for me. DB, LH? not trying to be facetious but i sure dont have the foggiest clue what this means.

again, the entire question is not about someone falling to earth (we observe people doing that on a frequent basis, dont we?). but why gravity exists in the first place causing a person to fall. if we cant even understand the difference between these two aspects (gravity exists but why does it exist), maybe i can see why we are having this debate in the first place.😉

Didnt I just say it doesnt if you try to jump from Empire state bldg... 😆😆

Why it exists is immaterial... because its inconsistent and an inherent attribute of some things in nature.. Just as you and I dont gravitate towards each other, heavenly bodies dont have wings, eyes or ears....I mean thats an attribute of nature.. nothing more....😊.. Just as moon caused tides scientifically, it doesnt cause bulimia in all of us.. we would be dehydrating or getting hydrocephaly during high tides....😆

Science has established a lot of stuff like white drawfs to define life-cycle for stars, doppler shift for an expanding universe...but they havent yet seen anyone barbecuing out there... everything is a observing laws of math laws.. which is why Einstein could hypothesize sitting right there at his desk without wasting time trying to configure using Graham bells invention to reach God for answers...😆.. thats a difference bet' Scientific temper and scientific talk...😉 This reminds me of the ridiculous movie contact... jodie foster meets her dead father and so on on that unknown planet...😆

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Thanks LH... sure dazzle, dabble, whatever you want...😊.

But here I want to apologize to all who have honest faith in God. Its easy to defile something.. but if there isnt enough known its not right to do so...Its literally vandalizing sensitivities.. The thing is there is enough, negativity destruction, devastation, disease, depravity, disparity around driven by human will than overpowered by a positive willing God which coupled with the lack of empirical evidence of any kind is what makes me total agnostic..about everything in and around God and religion...If it comes to admiring something I would admire hindu religion because it creates a nice abstraction and by throwing karma reincarnation and divine retribution in the mix it kind a creates a perfectly closed system which kinda justifies all of the above... and more over it happened in times when einstein and heisenberg, computersetc.. and others weren't influencing..and was a purely thought driven system.

Qwerts I agree with you there.. I was brought upto to believe in God but those "D" words and another point you mentioned about where those additional souls came from as a result of population growth makes me agnostic believer..!!! if there is such a thing.. Even if you we don't believe in Karma theory, we have to in order to live our life that is pure, undestructive ,compassionate and beneficial to us eventualy for the greater good.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Didnt I just say it doesnt if you try to jump from Empire state bldg... 😆😆

Why it exists is immaterial... because its inconsistent and an inherent attribute of some things in nature.. Just as you and I dont gravitate towards each other, heavenly bodies dont have wings, eyes or ears....I mean thats an attribute of nature.. nothing more....😊.. Just as moon caused tides scientifically, it doesnt cause bulimia in all of us.. we would be dehydrating or getting hydrocephaly during high tides....😆

Science has established a lot of stuff like white drawfs to define life-cycle for stars, doppler shift for an expanding universe...but they havent yet seen anyone barbecuing out there... everything is a observing laws of math laws.. which is why Einstein could hypothesize sitting right there at his desk without wasting time trying to configure using Graham bells invention to reach God for answers...😆.. thats a difference bet' Scientific temper and scientific talk...😉 This reminds me of the ridiculous movie contact... jodie foster meets her dead father and so on on that unknown planet...😆

lol. so gravity came about because of nature. and nature? why, that came about because of nature too, no? kyoon yaar, gravity koi sautela hai? usse kyoon bin baap ka aulad bana rahe ho?😆

now let's see. people are generally considered to have some will. but if one can follow where you are leading to, an arbitrary nature with no will would have given rise to people with will? to all the intelligence we see around? all the order we see around is due to the whims of nature, no?😆

actually, makes us wonder about that einstein fella, what say? dont know why but he was spending the latter years of his life trying to weave together some understanding of how it all came about, to explain it all. lots of others who were trying to look beyond the observations and understand the grand will, the great mind. dont know why he should have bothered. if he had half the intelligence he did, he should have known that he could explain everything by invoking qwerty's bin-baap-ka nature theory. no?😛

oh and gravity? dont worry about it. so what if we could not gravitate iss janam mein.😛 i mean i am sure there are others who will. how else do u suppose every hen gets to lay an egg?😉

Originally posted by: chatbuster

maybe we can have someone help interpret this for me. DB, LH? not trying to be facetious but i sure dont have the foggiest clue what this means.

again, the entire question is not about someone falling to earth (we observe people doing that on a frequent basis, dont we?). but why gravity exists in the first place causing a person to fall. if we cant even understand the difference between these two aspects (gravity exists but why does it exist), maybe i can see why we are having this debate in the first place.😉

I will say what I understand reading you both guys debate and can say that we can't keep on asking why something exists because the answer will always lead to another question. Like why earth was chosen to have life and not other planets and so forth. What is so special about earth and not mars because god could have created conditions on mars that is conducive to sustaining life..

Some hindu lectureres or even heard Deepak Chopra say it many times when asked about existence of god - Do we know that air exits but it does, doesn't it.. Such answers don't really prove existence of god and there really isn't any connectivity there with god and air..But most people tend to be satisfied with the answer.😕

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Qwerts I agree with you there.. I was brought upto to believe in God but those "D" words and another point you mentioned about where those additional souls came from as a result of population growth makes me agnostic believer..!!! if there is such a thing.. Even if you we don't believe in Karma theory, we have to in order to live our life that is pure, undestructive ,compassionate and beneficial to us eventualy for the greater good.

population growth and additional souls. lots of plausible explanations. plausible, meaning not proven nor disproven. if you can disprove these, would be happy to hear.

1. can you prove that the number of souls has actually increased? is it not possible that there are other things with soul? ab music mein bhee toh soul hai, kyoon?😛

2. imo, one soul per human body is a least-common-denominator concept, to expain things in simple ways to people with a certain quantum of intelligence. is there any requirement for that one soul per body theory? we find that atoms can be split. why not soul, or whatever that is? if it's some kind of energy, why cant it be diffused into different individuals? in fact it's hard for energy to stay confined in one shape. might even explain why some women can be angels and devils at the same time.😉

3. if i can dare to invoke the big-bang theory without it too being called ludicrous 😛(since it unfortunately only helps explain some things but cant be proven), then we should be able to assume that the entire universe was confined within a singularity. now if you can tell us how many potential souls there were at that point, i think we will be able to establish whether the number of souls has actually increased. 😉arre count kar lenge, aur kya? 😛if it sounds far-fetched to assume that there could be any potential souls, let me know if other aspects of the generally acknowledged big-bang dont also sound far-fetched to you. my point? what sounds far-fetched to you might not indeed be far-fetched. might just be the limitations of our intelligence.😉

as for believing in God, some of us dont know who else to thank but God for a happy life free of major frustrations. lucky us, no? lucky draw of nature, no? cant be good karma you suppose? 😛whatever, i sure can see why someone would give up on God😉

Originally posted by: lighthouse

I will say what I understand reading you both guys debate and can say that we can't keep on asking why something exists because the answer will always lead to another question. Like why earth was chosen to have life and not other planets and so forth. What is so special about earth and not mars because god could have created conditions on mars that is conducive to sustaining life..

Some hindu lectureres or even heard Deepak Chopra say it many times when asked about existence of god - Do we know that air exits but it does, doesn't it.. Such answers don't really prove existence of god and there really isn't any connectivity there with god and air..But most people tend to be satisfied with the answer.😕

am not really trying to prove. even with what we got, i know one can only get so far.😛 but yes, i am just suggesting that there is a preponderance of reasoning and coincidence that lead me to believe in or hypothesize about God's existence. at times, a lot of things in scientific investigation start with hypothesis that sound crazy given what we knew back then. like the sun revolving around the earth.