• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Basic & Gross/Current?

Hey! I get it!





No, just kidding.

My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.
Click to expand...
 
Kumar said:
It appears that this issue is difficult to understand for you.
Click to expand...

Not particularly, but I think your sentence didnt parse correctly.

Kumar said:
I written in simple language telling that Since GOD is of everything & being, being omnipresent, one should first understand his IN or God in him.
Click to expand...

What is his IN? I dont think this is translating properly.

Seriously, I take no issue with your theory - but Im having a tough time deciphering your English. Please dont take offense, I understand English is probably your 2nd language.

Kumar said:
This should be the basic/prime understanding which if one can't understood, can be considered as understood nothing--eg understanding of fundamental interaction, its meditors, elementary particles and their basis/prime is of prime importance at basic level. Ok?
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that Im misunderstanding much of your post, if I indeed accept what you are saying as true, what does it mean for me in the real world?

It sounds as if you think God is something very basic that underpins everything - does this negate the possibility of intelligence?
 
PixyMisa said:
First define God. Then show that it exists. Then you can discuss how we should respond.


That doesn't mean anything.


So?
Click to expand...

You don't believe in LIVE EVIDANCES or evidances by LIVE BEINGS that too humans but just believe in machines or machine counted aspects.
 
devnull said:
Not particularly, but I think your sentence didnt parse correctly.



What is his IN? I dont think this is translating properly.

Seriously, I take no issue with your theory - but Im having a tough time deciphering your English. Please dont take offense, I understand English is probably your 2nd language.Ignoring the fact that Im misunderstanding much of your post, if I indeed accept what you are saying as true, what does it mean for me in the real world?
Click to expand...

Many other people here do understand me. Just request then to translate me to you.




It sounds as if you think God is something very basic that underpins everything - does this negate the possibility of intelligence?
Click to expand...

Very basic & central--like midpoint/line.

No HE is said to be omniscient because HE has equanamity & knows about both sides.
 
Kumar said:
It appears that this issue is difficult to understand for you.
Click to expand...


No, your [ab]use of English is difficult to understand.
Kumar said:
I written in simple language telling that Since GOD is of everything & being, being omnipresent, one should first understand his IN or God in him. This should be the basic/prime understanding which if one can't understood, can be considered as understood nothing--eg understanding of fundamental interaction, its meditors, elementary particles and their basis/prime is of prime importance at basic level. Ok?
Click to expand...


See what I mean?
 
Kumar - all brains capable of thought, as far as we know, are biological in nature.

What evidence do you have that thought, or some sort of brain, can exist outside of biology with "forces"?
 
Hello. Good or bad, good act & sin, ups & downs, back & forth, actions & reactions.....by omni.....qualities.
 
Kumar said:
You don't believe in LIVE EVIDANCES or evidances by LIVE BEINGS that too humans but just believe in machines or machine counted aspects.
Click to expand...
I don't automatically believe stories of impossible events. That would be foolish.
 
devnull said:
Kumar - all brains capable of thought, as far as we know, are biological in nature.

What evidence do you have that thought, or some sort of brain, can exist outside of biology with "forces"?
Click to expand...

We have just looked our reach. All Others can also have intrincts.

According to Jainism, Universe and its constituents are uncreated and everlasting. These constituents behave according to the natural laws and their nature without interference from external entities. Dharma or true religion according to Jainism is vatthu sahāvo dhammo translated as "the intrinsic nature of a substance is its true dharma." Kārtikeyānupreksā (478) explains it as : “Dharma is nothing but the real nature of an object. Just as the nature of fire is to burn and the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect, in the same manner, the essential nature of the soul is to seek self-realization and spiritual elevation.”[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Jainism)
Click to expand...
 
PixyMisa said:
I don't automatically believe stories of impossible events. That would be foolish.
Click to expand...

It may be due to;

"1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters."

You can't say impossible but can say yet looks immpossible" as nothing can be Immposible. Since science is under process, not yet absolute & final, who knows what new can come next tommorow. Not so?
 
Kumar said:
You can't say impossible but can say yet looks immpossible" as nothing can be Immposible. Since science is under process, not yet absolute & final, who knows what new can come next tommorow. Not so?
Click to expand...


That's no reason to believe every bit of nonsense that comes along. If you want to demonstrate that something exists, or is possible, you need to provide evidence for it.
 
"<an Olympic diver who always displays remarkable equanimity on the platform>

Those who are doomed to become artists are seldom blessed with equanimity. They are tossed to drunken heights, only to be brought down into a sludge of headachy despair; their arrogance gives way to humiliation at the next curve of the switchback. —Patrick White, Flaws in the Glass, (1981) 1983"

Try to acquire Equanimity.
 
Kumar said:
It may be due to;

"1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters."

You can't say impossible but can say yet looks immpossible" as nothing can be Immposible. Since science is under process, not yet absolute & final, who knows what new can come next tommorow. Not so?
Click to expand...
Not so.
 
Kumar said:
Many other people here do understand me. Just request then to translate me to you.






Very basic & central--like midpoint/line.

No HE is said to be omniscient because HE has equanamity & knows about both sides.
Click to expand...

Your English is very hard to follow.
 
Kumar said:
"<an Olympic diver who always displays remarkable equanimity on the platform>

Those who are doomed to become artists are seldom blessed with equanimity. They are tossed to drunken heights, only to be brought down into a sludge of headachy despair; their arrogance gives way to humiliation at the next curve of the switchback. —Patrick White, Flaws in the Glass, (1981) 1983"

Try to acquire Equanimity.
Click to expand...

Can I buy it on Ebay?
 
Kumar said:
It may be due to;

"1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters."

You can't say impossible but can say yet looks immpossible" as nothing can be Immposible. Since science is under process, not yet absolute & final, who knows what new can come next tommorow. Not so?
Click to expand...

It will come through research and experiment,not by making up nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom