Soul?

[lightgigantic]

It may be that 95% of all scientists are not out proofing the model of an electron, but the evidence presented is convincing enough. Moreover, the remaining 5% who do, are doing it critically, so that their papers may hold up in the arena of peer review. Science operates on a self-correcting system; if someone conjures up a bogus theory based on fabricated evidence, given time, a competing colleague will take notice and expose it.

same thing happens in theism - anything done artificially will fail

Compare this with a mainstream religion. Criticism is not invited. Their holy scriptures do not present evidence. Some of them just state that if you don't believe their true word, you'll be punished for an eternity.

therefore theism that operates like that eventually fails and god or god's pure representative reestablishes the same eternal principles of religion

BG 4.2: This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

BG 4.3: That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend and can therefore understand the transcendental mystery of this science.

 

[Kumar]

katha Up. 2.2.13
The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

Mukunda Up. 3.3.1
The Lord and the living entity are compared to two birds sitting in a tree. While the illusioned living entity eats the fruits of the material world, the Lord as Supersoul and best friend witnesses these activities.

Within each body there are are two souls
jiva (the living entity - who desires) and paramatma (god as a witness/controller in the heart)

Do you mean that a specific soul is a specific form of eternal god?

 

[imaplanck.]

I think you have given the wrong link - you don't have a post on it

77, scroll down

 

[lightgigantic]

Do you mean that a specific soul is a specific form of eternal god?

No, I am saying that there exists an eternal relationship between 2 eternal entities, jiva tattva and vishnu tattva

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattva#The_tattvas_in_Vaishnavism

 

[Kumar]

No, I am saying that there exists an eternal relationship between 2 eternal entities, jiva tattva and vishnu tattva

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattva#The_tattvas_in_Vaishnavism

But that indicates jiva tattva a modification of vishnu tattva.

The tattvas in Samkhya
The Samkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two eternal realities: Purusha and Prakrti. It is therefore a strongly dualist philosophy. The Purusha is the centre of consciousness, whereas the Prakriti is the source of all material existence. The twenty-five tattva system of Samkhya concerns itself only with the tangible aspect of creation, theorizing that Prakriti is the source of the world of becoming. It is the first tattva and is seen as pure potentiality that evolves itself successively into twenty-four additional tattvas or principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattva#The_tattvas_in_Vaishnavism

I think, it tells about evolution theory of energies, matter, atoms, molecules, cells, body etc. from prime force.

 

[lightgigantic]

But that indicates jiva tattva a modification of vishnu tattva.

I don't understand??

I think, it tells about evolution theory of energies, matter, atoms, molecules, cells, body etc. from prime force.

tattva just means "truth" - sankhya deals exclusively with dilineating the material nature - goes into details around text ten here
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/26/en
sankhya deals with cause and effect of material articles but doesn't touch on the issue of the soul (in other words it defines how matter can form a body suitable for the soul to inhabit, but it doesn't establish anything about the cause of the soul, since sankhya busies itself with analyzing the material world, beginning from pradhana - the concentrated form of the three gunas)

 

[lightgigantic]

77, scroll down

that is not general principle. that is a confidence statement

her e is an example of what would be a general principle - "Religion is an imagination because all things that are real can be seen with one's eyes and I have never seen god."

Its not a very well structured general principle, but still, it is stated - the general principle for determining whether something i s real or not is whether one can see something with one's eyes - and since i haven't seen god with my eyes, god is not real.

Another general principle could be - something is real if enough people think it is real (again, not such a great one).

the idea behind a general principle is that it can be applied to a variety of circumstances to determine whether it is infact adequate - for instance, if one cannot see an electron with one's eyes, and if electrons are real, then it indicates that the general principle is faulty.

So it is well established that you think religion is a fantasy, but I am asking you to elaborate on what general principles you apply to determine whether or not something is fantastic.

 

[Kumar]

I don't understand??tattva just means "truth" - sankhya deals exclusively with dilineating the material nature - goes into details around text ten here
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/26/en
sankhya deals with cause and effect of material articles but doesn't touch on the issue of the soul (in other words it defines how matter can form a body suitable for the soul to inhabit, but it doesn't establish anything about the cause of the soul, since sankhya busies itself with analyzing the material world, beginning from pradhana - the concentrated form of the three gunas)

The tattvas in Samkhya
The Samkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two eternal realities: Purusha and Prakrti. It is therefore a strongly dualist philosophy. The Purusha is the centre of consciousness, whereas the Prakriti is the source of all material existence. The twenty-five tattva system of Samkhya concerns itself only with the tangible aspect of creation, theorizing that Prakriti is the source of the world of becoming. It is the first tattva and is seen as pure potentiality that evolves itself successively into twenty-four additional tattvas or principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattva#...in_Vaishnavism

Does above not tell prime two eternal realities; Purusha and Prakriti, from which every material existance is evolved?

 

[lightgigantic]

Does above not tell prime two eternal realities; Purusha and Prakriti, from which every material existance is evolved?

yes, but prakrti has a source too
prakrti evolved from the adi purusa

BG 7.6: All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

BG 7.7: O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

just as it is absurd to talk about energy that does not have a source, it is absurd to talk of prakrti without a purusa

 

[Kumar]

Four fundamental interactions/forces are understood in science but their prime source or "prime force" is yet to be known in science. However each force has its mediater i.e. Strong force: gluons, Electromagnetic force: photons, Weak force : W and Z bosons and Gravity:gravitons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

This indicates dualist philosophy. Prime force of all these four forces and its mediater (may be Purusha and Prakrti or Prameshwar and Prmeshwari OR GOD and GODDESS) is either unknown in science or will be indescribable, still omni-...as indicated in religions.

 

[lightgigantic]

Four fundamental interactions/forces are understood in science but their prime source or "prime force" is yet to be known in science. However each force has its mediater i.e. Strong force: gluons, Electromagnetic force: photons, Weak force : W and Z bosons and Gravity:gravitons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

This indicates dualist philosophy. Prime force of all these four forces and its mediater (may be Purusha and Prakrti or Prameshwar and Prmeshwari OR GOD and GODDESS) is either unknown in science or will be indescribable, still omni-...as indicated in religions.

the soul operates out of the same potency as god.
That is it is transcendental thus not visible by empirical standards.
The effects of the soul can be perceived however
just as an electron is not visible, but one can perceive its movements by its trail when passing through a gas

 

[Kumar]

the soul operates out of the same potency as god.
That is it is transcendental thus not visible by empirical standards.
The effects of the soul can be perceived however
just as an electron is not visible, but one can perceive its movements by its trail when passing through a gas

How such movement of soul can be measured scientificaly alike as measured of an electron?

 

[imaplanck.]

that is not general principle. that is a confidence statement

her e is an example of what would be a general principle - "Religion is an imagination because all things that are real can be seen with one's eyes and I have never seen god."

Its not a very well structured general principle, but still, it is stated - the general principle for determining whether something i s real or not is whether one can see something with one's eyes - and since i haven't seen god with my eyes, god is not real.

Another general principle could be - something is real if enough people think it is real (again, not such a great one).

the idea behind a general principle is that it can be applied to a variety of circumstances to determine whether it is infact adequate - for instance, if one cannot see an electron with one's eyes, and if electrons are real, then it indicates that the general principle is faulty.

So it is well established that you think religion is a fantasy, but I am asking you to elaborate on what general principles you apply to determine whether or not something is fantastic.

Its a valid priniple of logic, the fact you cant see that lies in your inability to differentiate between logic and fantasy.

As for the statement " electrons exist"- it is evidencial that this is true from observing bonding of atoms, electro-magnetic forces, static-magnetic forces and any & every test you care to apply.
The statement "god exists" has zero evidence and has failed every test applied to it.


Do you see where you have gone wrong in your analogy?

 

[lightgigantic]

How such movement of soul can be measured scientificaly alike as measured of an electron?

when the soul is active, it manifestion in matter can be verified (like the distinction between a dead person and a living one - its quite obvious)

Dr singh (PHD organic chemistry) has ventured this

Matter by itself

1. Inert and dead
2. Characterized by either low information content or absence of specific form beyond atomic and molecular structures
3. Reduces to thermodynamicaly stable states
4. Exhibits less organized flow of matter
5. Tends to lose form or pattern under transformation
6. Grows by external accumulation only (eg Crystal>>Crystal)
Exhibits only passive resistance (eg mountain)

Matter associated with Life

1. Animated substance or entity (eg a vehicle with a driver or a bird etcetc)
2. Characterised by high information content and very specific form
3. Thermodynamically unstable states play a dominant role
4. Exhibits a precisely regulated flow of matter (metabolism)
5. Undegoes transformation without loss of complex pattern (reproduction).
6. Grows from within by an intricate construction process (Eg Baby > Child > Youth > Old age)
7. Adaptive: tries to actively over come obstacles

 

[imaplanck.]

Actually the Quantum double-slit experiment does constitute as evidence...if the electron that makes up the brain is in superposition when not observed how can the brain be the cause?

The atheist can say nothing to this, they'll just say its BS or something speculative....many physcists support the many-minds intepretation and the consciousness causes collapse theory...both which require some type of immaterial mind.....the atheist is speechless and will try to deny this in order to hold on to their atheistic faith...because atheism requires sooo much faith...

ROTFLMAO

The double split experiment simply proves the uncertainty principle of particle-wave duality.

 

[lightgigantic]

Its a valid priniple of logic, the fact you cant see that lies in your inability to differentiate between logic and fantasy.

As for the statement " electrons exist"- it is evidencial that this is true from observing bonding of atoms, electro-magnetic forces, static-magnetic forces and any & every test you care to apply.

who does the observing?
Hardly 95% of qualified scientists ... what to speak of the general public

The statement "god exists" has zero evidence and has failed every test applied to it.

every test except the tests recommended in scriptures and by saintly persons

Do you see where you have gone wrong in your analogy?

perhaps if you could indicate on what authority that you say every test applied to perceive god has failed I could.
I mean given that the claims of physics are perceived by physicists who apply the processes advocated by physicists, (and not say, newspaper journalists) doesn't it seem to indicate that verifying the nature of god's existence is monopolized by saintly people.
I don't think it s valid to say that god does not exist becasue he has not been evidenced by contemporary science (ie empiricism in pursuit of reductionist paradigms) because such methodologies are not advocated by either scripture or saintly people

 

[imaplanck.]

who does the observing?
Hardly 95% of qualified scientists ... what to speak of the general public

every test except the tests recommended in scriptures and by saintly persons



perhaps if you could indicate on what authority that you say every test applied to perceive god has failed I could.
I mean given that the claims of physics are perceived by physicists who apply the processes advocated by physicists, (and not say, newspaper journalists) doesn't it seem to indicate that verifying the nature of god's existence is monopolized by saintly people.
I don't think it s valid to say that god does not exist becasue he has not been evidenced by contemporary science (ie empiricism in pursuit of reductionist paradigms) because such methodologies are not advocated by either scripture or saintly people

I BELIEVE THERE are fairies at the bottom of my garden, Im going to write about it onarollof toilet paper, I will never produce evidence or will you or anyone else find any. You cant question me because Im a haloed prophet of the fairies.
How would you describe me and my bog roll?

 

[lightgigantic]

I BELIEVE THERE are fairies at the bottom of my garden, Im going to write about it onarollof toilet paper, I will never produce evidence or will you or anyone else find any. You cant question me because Im a haloed prophet of the fairies.
How would you describe me and my bog roll?

since you say that no one else will be able to find any evidence , not too highly.

There are statements in the scritpure however that assert that anyone can determine the nature of god.
They compare, just as one is free to take bath in the ganga during magha (the cooler month) everyone is free to practice spiritual life
the import is of course that many people do not bath in the ganga during winter becasue they perceive it as unpleasant - the notion of giving up sinful life, worshipping god with humility and associating with saintly persons (the essential process of any religion you care to mention) is also commonly disbanded for the same reason

 

[imaplanck.]

There are statements in the scritpure however that assert that anyone can determine the nature of god.
They compare, just as one is free to take bath in the ganga during magha (the cooler month) everyone is free to practice spiritual life
the import is of course that many people do not bath in the ganga during winter becasue they perceive it as unpleasant - the notion of giving up sinful life, worshipping god with humility and associating with saintly persons (the essential process of any religion you care to mention) is also commonly disbanded for the same reason

I will put those things or my sacred toilet paper too, how do you feel about us now?

 

[lightgigantic]

I will put those things or my sacred toilet paper too, how do you feel about us now?

us?
I thought you said noone except you had access to this perception

“
Originally Posted by imaplanck.
I BELIEVE THERE are fairies at the bottom of my garden, Im going to write about it onarollof toilet paper, I will never produce evidence or will you or anyone else find any. You cant question me because Im a haloed prophet of the fairies.