Is hinduism on the path of extinction - Page 9

Excellent debate there CB and qwerty.

Well, I believe in the theory of reincarnation as it provides me with a motivation to watch my karma so that I don't screw up my next life. Sure, I slip here and there but over all, reincarnation is what explains to me how we are held accountable for our past and current actions.

I stumbled upon a really good article that touches on what both of you are debating here. It makes an interesting read...not as interesting as your posts...still keeps things simple and easy to understand. Hope you guys will like it as much as I liked it 😊


Science of Reincarnation

Both Judeo-Christian religion and Islam clash with science almost to the point of impasse that no further attempts to bring science and religion together seem possible. When deeper probing of religion is done with a desire to explain some phenomena with current science, religion and science diverge in a way that there is no hope of reconciliation. Many scientists find orthodox and stubborn religious beliefs stumbling blocks that hinder scientific progress and thinking.

In the West, generally, anyone who questions the authority of religion is branded as a heretic. Similarly, any theory not substantiated by the traditional scientific methods is not well received. When it comes to the esoteric and mystic phenomena alluded to in the spiritual literature, modern science had its difficulties in accepting them. We find science and religion at odds with each other in the western world. In Hinduism, the authority of Vedas itself can be questioned without being relegated as a lunatic or heretic. The more recent religions like Islam and Christianity do not subscribe to the scientific thinking of matter, energy and genes. A theosophical discussion with a scientific basis is almost pointless and surely an exercise in futility.

What happens to a soul after it leaves the mortal body? A simple explanation would be to say that there is no soul and the body is a mere organism that lives for a prescribed period of time and then perishes. That is the end and there is no more. This view leaves no room for any other speculation and thought process. If one is of this rigid belief, read no further. However, if one agrees with all religions of the world that claim that the soul is eternal and is released from the body after death, then one can examine the different theories proposed by the different religions about the afterlife. The mind has to be receptive to alternative theories if a hypothesis is to be entertained. A closed mind is a dead end street! For a scientist it is not easy to accept something as abstract as afterlife and a soul. It is easy to say that these do not exist and leave it at that.

Western religions propose that the departing soul goes through a trial during Judgment Day. God then decides the fate of the soul depending on the account of sin verses good deeds that the person accumulated during his lifetime. Then the soul is sent either to heaven to enjoy the fruits of a decent life or condemned to eternal hell and damnation forever. Is there any possibility that this theory can be proven in the future? Is there a place called paradise with a lush garden with flowing steams and fruit trees? Is there a dungeon called hell, where torture and mayhem are practiced? Are these places in another dimension in the cosmos, not seen by humans during their lifetimes but a soul can reach? There are no answers to these questions and there cannot be any hope for an answer. One simply accepts it or not. Science has a serious problem with the theory. If God is benevolent why did He create humans with enormous disadvantages right from the time of their births? Why a disabled child? What sin did the child commit? When did the newborn child commit a sin as to be born with disability? Despite the proverb, all men are not created equal, are they? Can anything other than karma explain it?

Perception of science has changed over many centuries. Humans during the medieval times could not have believed in their wildest imaginations that the modern scientific progress would be possible. Electricity, telephones, gasoline driven engines, television and air travel must have seemed like fantasy and fiction, even a century ago. The presence and the function of genes and DNA were not even known until the middle of the 20th century. What appears far-fetched today may be taken for granted and become commonplace years from now.

The mechanism of assimilation of memory in the brain is still not understood by science. Neurotransmission was not a word in the scientific lexicon only a few decades ago. Now we know that all actions and reactions are as a result of a chemical process in the body. We also know that genetic code in the genes are chemical imprints that can be transferred to the next generation through the tiniest of cells in the sperm and ovum. True, the soul is not an organ like the brain or the heart. There is no recognizable cell (not yet, anyway) that makes up the soul. But could the existence of soul as some form of energy with its own chemical codes, be proven some day in the future?

Eastern religions seem to be more attuned to science. The laws of karma and rebirth are easier to accept scientifically, if one has an open mind. If soul is considered as a form of energy, it cannot be destroyed when the body ceases to function. Energy is neither created nor destroyed but only transformed. One form of energy changes to another. Karma helps to imprint a code on the soul, similar to the genetic code on the genes. A good deed can be viewed as a positive charge and a crime or a bad deed as a negative charge. Compassion, love, non-violence, truth, forgiveness are extolled in Bhagavad-Gita as divine characteristics that will accumulate good karma (positive charges). Lust, anger, greed, arrogance, pride and hypocrisy are negative characteristics. With different emotions different areas of the brain are stimulated through chemical reactions. Could this also happen to the soul? Could emotions as a result of good or bad deeds imprint permanent chemical codes on the soul?

When the body dies and the soul (energy) is released, it carries the acquired chemical code with it. As the unseen soul rises upwards, the number of positive or negative charges that are on its map determines its future course. A soul heavy with negative charge (bad karma) drifts down to the earth to be recycled (and reborn). The soul full of positive charge (good karma) ascends into the cosmos to be eternally released. Is this nirvana or moksha?

Hindu sages, at the dawn of civilization, thought of this remarkable possibility of rebirth of the soul and explained it in the Upanishads. A soul (jiva-atman) is a piece of God (parama-atman). Every religion says that God created man in his own image. Soul is immortal and it gathers the consequences of it s actions (karma) and wears it like a shroud around it when released. There is no escaping the effects of karma for the soul. The karma that is accumulated (as an imprint) stays with the soul forever through many cycles of births (recycling of energy).

In Chandogya Upanishad there is a story of a student wanting to understand the origin of life. He asked the sage to help him understand it. The wise sage asked the student to pick a fig from a large tree and open it. He then asked him to break open one of the seeds. When asked what the student saw inside the seed the student answered, "Nothing, sir, it is empty!" Then the sage asked his student the question, "How is that a huge fig tree could have grown from nothing?" The energy that is responsible for procreation is beyond perception, minute and infinitesimal. Just like the emptiness inside the seed, the parama-atman is imperceptible but yet so powerful as to be responsible for the creation of the whole universe.

In Eastern philosophy there is no heaven or hell as envisioned in Christianity or Islam. These are present on earth and a soul depending on its karma from the past (its acquired code) as well as the current life undergoes changes that affect the body that carries it. These very changes can be construed as heaven or hell by the individual body. But the soul always tries to better its chances of improving. The Eastern philosophy believes that all souls are inherently good. There is no day of judgment; there are no trips to heaven or a place called hell. There is no God sitting on his throne like the patriarch dispensing justice and punishment. Every soul is responsible for its own actions and will face the consequences of its actions. Eastern religion and science can proceed side-by-side without dispute or clashing with each other. Even an atheistic religion like Buddhism holds this belief of rebirth because the intervention of God is not necessary for such a progression of the soul after its release.

Is the Eastern religious belief of reincarnation more scientifically feasible? Can the soul carry the 'memory' of its deeds with it when released from the body just like the brain carries the memory of our experiences and learning? These are profound questions but may one day be scientifically proven and accepted. The chances of such proof are more likely with the Hindu theory of rebirth and recycling of energy rather than the Western conjecture of presence of heaven or hell in an unseen world. Which of these two theories is more plausible?

I realize that there are more questions in this article than answers. A scientist has to keep an open mind and accept the possibility of karma and reincarnation that may be proven someday beyond doubt. Then life on earth will appear to be more transitory and spiritual.

Someday it may even be possible for the soul of a skeptical scientist to orbit into the empyrean, carrying his karma with him, looking for a suitable body to be born into!

– Neria Harish Hebbar, MD
May 19, 2002


http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/064.htm

I highlighted the portions that got me thinking and helped me in understanding what Rahul has been trying to say from past three days in his unbeatable, thought provoking yet hard to understand style😉😆

Qwerts, the highlighted portions also provide some insight in to questions you have asked and points on which you are basing your rebuttals. Hopefully, these will help in understanding some of the concepts you both have been discussing all along....including how different religions provide different prescriptions to...whatever it was...that's how it al started😆

Cheers and keep posting guys👍🏼..and don't you both dare get together now to gang up on me😛😆

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

😊😉

there u go again. still dont get what the hoopla is about gravity, do u? 😆yes, gravity is defined as force of attraction, but how do u get to this force? through observation and scientific experiments...is that too diffucult.. yes these dont create gavity but discover it...gravity? 😛 if u are having trouble here, try to investigate following points: what's the theory behind it? and why has it been so important to develop a theory for it if we can get by with your observations?😉...The theory is simple but scientific processes include formalization as a part of it.. to find if there is more to it... we dont stop once the apple hits the head...😆... You need to be clear of what you are trying to say...are you associating gravity with the religious mysticism....?😆

now let's take all the comic stuff.

first, you asked for how religions might differ in their prescritption for how we lead our lives, sort of challenging me to provide you with any example. you got that. gave you not one, but three examples- one from hinduism, one from christinaity, one from the fanatics who were practising their own brand of religion. that ok now?😉....what exactly you saying here...? The scientific points you raised really have no bearing what you want to say except for hte fact that you happen to perceive some connexion bet' them and the religious ideas primitive humans thought of...😆

next, somewhere you moved on to reincarnation. buddy, you started with the premise that it cant be proven, so it is all hallucination. well, the world should really make your head spin then. incidentally, can you prove you are not a hallucination? 😛😆 definitely i can prove my conscious state and predict next few hours of wilfull action....and several other ways I can prove that its not hallucination.. watching lot of sci-fi lately./???😆

and there were other points made. but somehow you didnt see the reasoning and the connection with some established scientific principles. sorry bud, but i aint going to try anymore. hard for me to do what all those teachers havent been able to do all these years. i'd be really hallucinating if i thought i'd succees😉😆...u got that right... u may be hallucinating... for i think you are the only one who is spinning wierd ideas on which you wont bet a single $ of yours....😆

gravity comes because you observe it? good circular reasoning. to be expected from you, given all the other drivel you come up with constantly. might work with certain audiences, not everyone😆...read that again and see what I said before interpreting...😉

also, if it is possible for you, try not to mix things up. focus. 😆you asked for how different religions lead to different prescriptions for how one leads their life. you got it. that answer has to be at least prescriptive/ philosophical, not necessarily scientific.Every religion has one goal to grab the conscience of the followers and make them live with fear of that unknown.. yes it helps is retaining goodness and civil behavior exactly for that reason...

the science came up in other contexts. based on my belief of how reincarnation works. and unlike you, at least i am working on the principle that mass and energy dont vanish into thin air just because we are born and die. that to me is mumbo-jumbo. at least my belief has some grounding in scientific conservation principles. what is yours?So now einstein is being marginalized with these analogies...

by the way, other than throwing "this is weird, that is ridiculous", is it so hard to get anything of substance from you? I gave you so much of substance from medical worldm psychiatry, physics... without defiling their worth and you coolly misunderstood them - ignorance is bliss isnt it? 😆you've not answered how it might very well be possible that all this might have the stamp of a creator I dont believe in miracles nor a power of superior kind.. the natural laws are pretty evident - just visit a lunatic asylum and you will see there is nothing like faith or God....there is just an incessant dynamic of nature in time.. which I wont call God..., not necessarily be accidental. any proof for your animal-in-heat theories? anything to explain the order amidst all the chaos? all coincidence? the nature you talked about an outcome of some accidental burst condom?

now try this again. see if you can follow.😊

we observe that hammer falling on your head making you brain-dead; we conjecture that it happens because of gravitational attraction; we build a grand theory to explain how and why that gravity comes about in the first place; but even someone like einstein is puzzled; cant prove that theory for sure though doubting it might not be very sensible; You conclude that it happened due to the hammer.. the coroner can exactly say what part of the cerebral cortex got the trauma.. to make it brain dead.. So your speculations are based on lack of knowledge..in its entirety.😊.. same holds for people who created the religious abstractions.. .Its amusing to know even educated people are victims of same thought processes...the only difference they have einsteins and heisenbergs to throw in the mix just to ensure they are "state-of-the-art" thought processes...😆

now we observe that some people are born rich/ or poor, with deformities for no seeming fault of theirs; some of us see the inequity in all that; we build a belief system that perhaps it is all karmic; cant prove it or disprove it, cant even begin to test it with the science we know today, but just because we cannot does not make it any less likely or unlikely. similar in some sense to where we are with gravity...man now I see how ridiculous it is... Earlier I thought you were making some forays into sound connexsion.. never mind.. Let me play the bozo's advocate here... Nothing comes from void.. people born poor or rich - u mean when somebody is born is there gold nuggets in their umbilical cord?😆.. Nature has certain fundamental laws... why those laws exist can be purely axiomatic...an inherent trait of nature.. Science tries to find more and more about these things.. where religion plays games with people minds using this unknown....😊.. Children are born with deformities because one of this natural processes got altered on the way.. sure your God can sit enroute and alter it there... but thats where the difference lies... Its like I said religious people close the loop pretty well.. so if I got run over by a car and die God wanted it that way if I dont, God saved me...thats bad rationalization...😊.. Everything has a good reason if you care to find out.. but then you have to traverse a knowledge base from macro to micro.... Alternatively you can sit and attribute this a that "God" of yours...😊

and i simply pose the conservation question additionally- where does all that energy/ mass in us go after death, matter and everything else becomes something else chemically, bones become ash, etc....if body is burnt and the same chemical reactions take place which a chemist can easilly itemize has to be still around somewhere. why cant it not take reshapethats where my connectivity comes into picture.. I dont see that speculation closing on anything derived from a logical view point but just some kinda guesswork? anything you have to prove that it cant? I can hold that matter which was dead and gone and can ensure you its going nowhere for the esoteric group to speculate...it decays and follows the same natural cycle of its own.. again no one conducts this orchestration...buddy, at least i am open to possibilities that science has not found all the answers. your approach seems to be to scoff at thingsI scoff at things which are proposed as hypothesis based on lack of exhaustive information...😊. fine, might make you look smart for your kind of audience. does not do much for me.😉

lol. in case you missed it, i have been carefully calling what i have as hypothesis. as it turns out now, that's no less than what you have. 😆only difference is imo you mock other people's viewpoints with very little to back you up. now before we move on and disect all the rest of what you came up with, do answer some questions:

is it still a hypothesis if you already have what you call "exhaustive information"? just dont be chucking words and ideas around because they sound good. got to make some sense too. i think😛

now, for you the origins and the final destination can be found in nature. at least that's what we are now given to understand if i am reading you correctly. pray, how did nature come about? or did nature somehow evolve out of nothingness? even the big bang theory conjectures that the universe was within a singularity. singularity, but not nothingness. how do u get something like nature from nothingness? or did the singularity itself come out of nothing?😛

for you nature explains it all. for me, it is only a small start. there's so much in nature that is dark, mysterious or unexplanable. moreover, you have not even presented a hypothesis of how we got to that nature in the first place. third, maybe for us, our abstract understanding of god/ religion pertains to how/ what gave rise to it all. call it unified force, unified field, call it supreme, whatever. as long as we dont have answers to things, that's where religion and faith comes in. we see things working. too much for it all to be just a coincidence, though it well might be. meanwhile, is it so ludicrous to bet that the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the existence of that universal supreme force?

anyway, let's settle these issues of hypothesis and origins of the wonderful nature around us before we move on, shall we? need to pin you down before we go sliding on to other things. 😆

Originally posted by: sonp

Guess there are all sorts of yoga teachers so I agree with you. The yoga teachers I know, hold pujas once a year too.
I guess my basic msg was that there is enough curiosity about Hinduism in the West that it will not die.
Agree with you that it should be our responsibility to make sure it does not die.
I personally believe though that religions never die. They have survived so many generations and they will do so for many more.😊😊

got ya sweetie😊

Some of the abstracts of cause and effect theory of Rene Descartes!!

"By 'God', I understand, a substance which is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else (if else there be) that exists. All these attributes are such that, the more carefully I concentrate on them, the less possible it seems that they could have originated from me alone. So, from what has been said it must be concluded that God necessarily exists."

Descartes

Clearly, the proof depends on the fact that Descartes has an idea of God which has so much objective reality that it could not have been made by him. So, we are probably going to need the list of kinds of ideas. So:

Ideas are either innate (inborn or known from one's own nature), adventitious (come from outside me) or made by me. Formal reality is characteristic of things. Some things have more formal reality than others. To exist is to be good. Greater goodness or perfection therefore implies that some things have more existence than others. Substances have a greater amount of formal reality than modes or accidents. Infinite substances have more formal reality than finite substances. Objective reality is the reality characterisic of ideas in virtue of the fact that the idea represents some realtiy. Some ideas have more objective reality than others, depending on the formal reality of the things which they represent. There is at least as much reality in an efficient cause as in its effect. (This is revealed by the natural light.) The ideas in me are like images that may well fall short of the things from which they derive but cannot contain anything greater or more perfect. (This is revealed by the natural light.) If I can be sure that the objective reality of one of my ideas is so great that it isn't in me either formally or eminently and hence that I cannot be the cause of that idea, I can infer that I am not alone in the world--that there exists something else that is the cause of the idea. I have the ideas of myself, of God, of angels, of animals, of physical objects and of other men like me. I could have composed my ideas of animals, other men and angels. (There is a brief argument on behalf of this premise.) I could have composed my ideas of physical objects without these existing. (There is an argument to show that this premise is true.) There is more reality in an infinite than in a finite substance. The more perfect serves as a standard to judge the less perfect. I use God as the standard to judge that I am imperfect. My grasp of the infinite must be prior to my grasp of the finite. The idea of God is completly clear and distinct and contains more objective reality than any other idea. But perhaps I am greater than I have assumed and so could be the cause of the idea of a being with all perfections.
1. The gradual increase in my knowledge shows that I am imperfect. (All of these things are revealed by the light of nature)

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/descarte s-god.html

The following table represents the methodical progress which Descartes makes in the first two Meditations towards finding something which he cannot doubt, and thus knows for certain. The table demonstrates that Descartes is moving from one faculty to another, from the senses through the imagination to reason. Each of these faculties is the source of a whole vast set of propositions which one might claim to know. Each skeptical hypothesis acts like a sieve, some things it will not allow through -- these are the things which can be doubted on that hypothesis, while others it allows to pass -- those things which cannot be doubted on that hypothesis. Thus as each skeptical hypothesis is found to leave something which cannot be doubted, a new and more powerful skeptical hypothesis is deployed to try to bring those things which fomerly could not be doubted into doubt. Since those things which can be doubted are studied by various crafts and sciences, these sciences themselves are called into doubt as Descartes proceeds. Finally Descartes finds a truth, the truth that while he exists he cannot be deceived into thinking that he does not, which cannot be doubted on the most powerful of skeptical hypotheses ever deployed -- the Evil Genius hypothesis.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/method-o f-doubt.html

**********************************************************

I'm reading the book of Rene Descartes "Key Philosophical Writings"! Its really a wonderful book and nice to see this debate here in DM !!!

Sorry for dumping the articles here ! I was so impressed by these that I felt like sharing this with all of you as this is related to this topic of discussion!!

Wishes,

Mythili

Originally posted by: chatbuster

gravity comes because you observe it? good circular reasoning. to be expected from you, given all the other drivel you come up with constantly. might work with certain audiences, not everyone😆...read that again and see what I said before interpreting...😉

also, if it is possible for you, try not to mix things up. focus. 😆you asked for how different religions lead to different prescriptions for how one leads their life. you got it. that answer has to be at least prescriptive/ philosophical, not necessarily scientific.Every religion has one goal to grab the conscience of the followers and make them live with fear of that unknown.. yes it helps is retaining goodness and civil behavior exactly for that reason...

the science came up in other contexts. based on my belief of how reincarnation works. and unlike you, at least i am working on the principle that mass and energy dont vanish into thin air just because we are born and die. that to me is mumbo-jumbo. at least my belief has some grounding in scientific conservation principles. what is yours?So now einstein is being marginalized with these analogies...

by the way, other than throwing "this is weird, that is ridiculous", is it so hard to get anything of substance from you? I gave you so much of substance from medical worldm psychiatry, physics... without defiling their worth and you coolly misunderstood them - ignorance is bliss isnt it? 😆you've not answered how it might very well be possible that all this might have the stamp of a creator I dont believe in miracles nor a power of superior kind.. the natural laws are pretty evident - just visit a lunatic asylum and you will see there is nothing like faith or God....there is just an incessant dynamic of nature in time.. which I wont call God..., not necessarily be accidental. any proof for your animal-in-heat theories? anything to explain the order amidst all the chaos? all coincidence? the nature you talked about an outcome of some accidental burst condom?

now try this again. see if you can follow.😊

we observe that hammer falling on your head making you brain-dead; we conjecture that it happens because of gravitational attraction; we build a grand theory to explain how and why that gravity comes about in the first place; but even someone like einstein is puzzled; cant prove that theory for sure though doubting it might not be very sensible; You conclude that it happened due to the hammer.. the coroner can exactly say what part of the cerebral cortex got the trauma.. to make it brain dead.. So your speculations are based on lack of knowledge..in its entirety.😊.. same holds for people who created the religious abstractions.. .Its amusing to know even educated people are victims of same thought processes...the only difference they have einsteins and heisenbergs to throw in the mix just to ensure they are "state-of-the-art" thought processes...😆

now we observe that some people are born rich/ or poor, with deformities for no seeming fault of theirs; some of us see the inequity in all that; we build a belief system that perhaps it is all karmic; cant prove it or disprove it, cant even begin to test it with the science we know today, but just because we cannot does not make it any less likely or unlikely. similar in some sense to where we are with gravity...man now I see how ridiculous it is... Earlier I thought you were making some forays into sound connexsion.. never mind.. Let me play the bozo's advocate here... Nothing comes from void.. people born poor or rich - u mean when somebody is born is there gold nuggets in their umbilical cord?😆.. Nature has certain fundamental laws... why those laws exist can be purely axiomatic...an inherent trait of nature.. Science tries to find more and more about these things.. where religion plays games with people minds using this unknown....😊.. Children are born with deformities because one of this natural processes got altered on the way.. sure your God can sit enroute and alter it there... but thats where the difference lies... Its like I said religious people close the loop pretty well.. so if I got run over by a car and die God wanted it that way if I dont, God saved me...thats bad rationalization...😊.. Everything has a good reason if you care to find out.. but then you have to traverse a knowledge base from macro to micro.... Alternatively you can sit and attribute this a that "God" of yours...😊

and i simply pose the conservation question additionally- where does all that energy/ mass in us go after death, matter and everything else becomes something else chemically, bones become ash, etc....if body is burnt and the same chemical reactions take place which a chemist can easilly itemize has to be still around somewhere. why cant it not take reshapethats where my connectivity comes into picture.. I dont see that speculation closing on anything derived from a logical view point but just some kinda guesswork? anything you have to prove that it cant? I can hold that matter which was dead and gone and can ensure you its going nowhere for the esoteric group to speculate...it decays and follows the same natural cycle of its own.. again no one conducts this orchestration...buddy, at least i am open to possibilities that science has not found all the answers. your approach seems to be to scoff at thingsI scoff at things which are proposed as hypothesis based on lack of exhaustive information...😊. fine, might make you look smart for your kind of audience. does not do much for me.😉

lol. in case you missed it, i have been carefully calling what i have as hypothesis. as it turns out now, that's no less than what you have not really saying this you are doing the blunder of justifying the existence of airplane by .our puhkpak vimana.. was that an hypothesis or figment of imagination? 😆only difference is imo you mock other people's viewpoints with very little to back you up I dont mock logical replies..but guessing based on unknown is like having a field day..😆. now before we move on and disect all the rest of what you came up with, do answer some questions:

is it still a hypothesis if you already have what you call "exhaustive information"? just dont be chucking words and ideas around because they sound good. got to make some sense too. i think😛..All I am saying whats the basis of the hypothesis.. if it is some scientifically proven theories.. what is the connecting thread?

now, for you the origins and the final destination can be found in nature. at least that's what we are now given to understand if i am reading you correctly. pray, how did nature come aboutIf I dont know does it mean any guesswork is fine...? or did nature somehow evolve out of nothingnessIf there are no answers to some questions doesnt mean every answer is valid...? even the big bang theory conjectures that the universe was within a singularity. singularityExpanding universe was proven by doppler shift so science works its way through but its ongoing.. you can pose a theory something today which can be defied tomorrow.., but not nothingness. again I am not saying I know the answers to these questions but know for sure what cant be the likely ones...😊how do u get something like nature from nothingness? or did the singularity itself come out of nothing?😛.I would go in trance soon will answer you then...where is my LSD...?😆

for you nature explains it all. for me, it is only a small start. there's so much in nature that is darkbased on what... all if say is based on the accepted premise you havnt experienced or deduced...on your own...😊, mysterious or unexplanable. moreover, you have not even presented a hypothesis of how we got to that nature in the first placeIf I havent does it give right to establish a God with a will!!!????. third, maybe for us, our abstract understanding of god/ religion pertains to how/ what gave rise to it all. call it unified force, unified field, call it supreme, whatever. as long as we dont have answers to things, that's where religion and faith comes in right now you know where i differ.... i dont believe that if you dont have any answers you can get away with any answer.... we see things working. too much for it all to be just a coincidence for eg?, though it well might be. meanwhile, is it so ludicrous to bet that the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the existence of that universal supreme force? Supreme force is there but there is no will in that force... we dont have something planning happening anywhere.. when a tsunami wipes everuthing its a force but not God's wrath or something.. its just the earth's crust gone awry.. now u may say why did it go awry and that it cos of God...!!!! I cant argue that...😆

anyway, let's settle these issues of hypothesis and origins of the wonderful nature around us before we move on, shall we? need to pin you down before we go sliding on to other things. 😆.... sure

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

lol. in case you missed it, i have been carefully calling what i have as hypothesis. as it turns out now, that's no less than what you have not really saying this you are doing the blunder of justifying the existence of airplane by .our puhkpak vimana.. was that an hypothesis or figment of imagination? 😆only difference is imo you mock other people's viewpoints with very little to back you up I dont mock logical replies..but guessing based on unknown is like having a field day..😆. now before we move on and disect all the rest of what you came up with, do answer some questions:

is it still a hypothesis if you already have what you call "exhaustive information"? just dont be chucking words and ideas around because they sound good. got to make some sense too. i think😛..All I am saying whats the basis of the hypothesis.. if it is some scientifically proven theories.. what is the connecting thread?

now, for you the origins and the final destination can be found in nature. at least that's what we are now given to understand if i am reading you correctly. pray, how did nature come aboutIf I dont know does it mean any guesswork is fine...? or did nature somehow evolve out of nothingnessIf there are no answers to some questions doesnt mean every answer is valid...? even the big bang theory conjectures that the universe was within a singularity. singularityExpanding universe was proven by doppler shift so science works its way through but its ongoing.. you can pose a theory something today which can be defied tomorrow.., but not nothingness. again I am not saying I know the answers to these questions but know for sure what cant be the likely ones...😊how do u get something like nature from nothingness? or did the singularity itself come out of nothing?😛.I would go in trance soon will answer you then...where is my LSD...?😆

for you nature explains it all. for me, it is only a small start. there's so much in nature that is darkbased on what... all if say is based on the accepted premise you havnt experienced or deduced...on your own...😊, mysterious or unexplanable. moreover, you have not even presented a hypothesis of how we got to that nature in the first placeIf I havent does it give right to establish a God with a will!!!????. third, maybe for us, our abstract understanding of god/ religion pertains to how/ what gave rise to it all. call it unified force, unified field, call it supreme, whatever. as long as we dont have answers to things, that's where religion and faith comes in right now you know where i differ.... i dont believe that if you dont have any answers you can get away with any answer.... we see things working. too much for it all to be just a coincidence for eg?, though it well might be. meanwhile, is it so ludicrous to bet that the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the existence of that universal supreme force? Supreme force is there but there is no will in that force... we dont have something planning happening anywhere.. when a tsunami wipes everuthing its a force but not God's wrath or something.. its just the earth's crust gone awry.. now u may say why did it go awry and that it cos of God...!!!! I cant argue that...😆

anyway, let's settle these issues of hypothesis and origins of the wonderful nature around us before we move on, shall we? need to pin you down before we go sliding on to other things. 😆.... sure

lol. so we can now boil down your point to following: "i dont believe that if you dont have any answers you can get away with any answer".

first, neither i nor you nor anyone else has answers. neither does science. not yet. you'd be in line for the next nobel if you thought you were.😆 so no harm there if we dont have definitive answers.

but that does not mean we cannot or should not formulate reasonable hypothesis. in fact, that is often the scientific/ investigative/ analytical approach. form a hypothesis and then see if you can prove/ disprove it. we often learn something in the process and advance the boundaries of what we do know.

somewhere up there, you were putting together "hypothesis" and "having exhaustive information" in the same breath. inconsistent is what i pointed out. cant have fuzzy thinking and expect to get somewhere.

now as for specific hypothesis, i am making two points. first is on the existence of a god/ unified force. second issue is on reincarnation.

on the existence aspect, note here that there is no requirement for god to excercize his will all the time, even if he/ she existed. that's the first flaw with your argument. perhaps god leaves it to our individual karmas to decide whether we'll get swept away by that tsunami or not? i dont know. you dont either. or do you know something we dont? but what's clear is that your argument does nothing to refute the existence of a supreme being, or even karmic destiny. at least our explanation, unproven as it might be in the same sense as the theory surrounding gravity, does explain how we get all this order amidst chaos, or why someone gets born rich /poor / with deformities.

second, on reincarnation. i still maintain that it is a hypothesis that is closer to ideas of scientific principles than the alternatives. dont want to revisit this again. read the article or my earlier points if u need further understanding on the subject.

u are simply saying- it aint so. or this is not logical or that is not. very logical indeed😆

Originally posted by: chatbuster

lol. so we can now boil down your point to following: "i dont believe that if you dont have any answers you can get away with any answer".

first, neither i nor you nor anyone else has answers. neither does science. not yet. you'd be in line for the next nobel if you thought you were.😆 so no harm there if we dont have definitive answers.but you knowing whatever you know you can always know the logical progression ni thought processes.. through analogy and deduction...

but that does not mean we cannot or should not formulate reasonable hypothesis. in fact, that is often the scientific/ investigative/ analytical approach. form a hypothesis and then see if you can prove/ disprove it. we often learn something in the process and advance the boundaries of what we do know.somewhere up there, you were putting together "hypothesis" and "having exhaustive information" in the same breath. inconsistent is what i pointed out. cant have fuzzy thinking and expect to get somewhere.hypothesis comes from either experimentation and observation (consistent) or by deduction.. you have not established your hypothesis on any of these premise and resorted to the unknown to justify the claim in a way...😊

now as for specific hypothesis, i am making two points. first is on the existence of a god/ unified force. second issue is on reincarnation.

on the existence aspect, note here that there is no requirement for god to excercize his will all the time I am not concerned with exercising just existence of the same which I refute.. since there is no empirical evidence to suggest anything close.., even if he/ she existed. that's the first flaw with your argument. perhaps god leaves it to our individual karmas to decide whether we'll get swept away by that tsunami or not So everybody getting swept in the same Tsunami had similar karmas!!!! and thats what I deduce from your argument!!!! ? i dont know. you dont either. or do you know something we dont?Its a matter of observation of perception.. You saw hammer causing coma, I saw a lesion on the cerebral cortex.. most often its not what you or I know.. but its the matter of our perception which differs...😊 but what's clear is that your argument does nothing to refute the existence of a supreme being, If I say laws of gravity dont apply to you from empire state building.. I am sure you wont go there and attempt to leap just to prove a point...😉or even karmic destiny. at least our explanation, unproven as it might be in the same sense as the theory surrounding gravity what you mean unproven... gravity is veri much proven empirically so what you are talking here... dont have to go to general relativity for digression..., does explain how we get all this order amidst chaos, or why someone gets born rich /poor / with deformities. I reasoned this out earlier and there is no mystic.. there is cause and effect... relationship in these cases...

second, on reincarnation. i still maintain that it is a hypothesis that is closer to ideas of scientific principles than the alternatives. dont want to revisit this again. read the article or my earlier points if u need further understanding on the subject... you didnt make a single point leading to establishing reincarnation.. but your talk about coninutity without connetivity was making some kinda guesswork I wont call an hypothesis...you dont have premise for an argument...😊

u are simply saying- it aint so. or this is not logical or that is not. very logical indeed😆... See my empire state eg.. above some statements are better believed than proven right?😉

Ok just to avoid going in circles.. here is the thing... give me a few bulleted propositions based on which you infer the possibility of reincarnation... use as few words as possible.😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

😛.I would go in trance soon will answer you then...where is my LSD...?😆

Excellent debate both you guys..👏.. Carry on.

Btw Qwerts.. LSD stands for Let Sudesh Dazzle or Debate? 😉 😃