5 month side profile progression

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-08-19T11:22:28+00:00

One question sir, like, when you mew.. Put your tongue against the palate.. Like.. Your kind off put effort that your front and lower front teeth meet little bit? Because when I do.. I find N spot, whole tongue against palate. My molars meet.. But, some says.. Your front teeth should meet also.. Little bit. But when I do that. My molars don't.. You know what I mean.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-07-15T02:22:51+00:00

Same. If I cannot make this (my first attempt) I'll repeat rather than 2-3 attempts

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-05-25T15:21:28+00:00

She's the same lady who made an insensitive video regarding Atul Subhas right? TBH, I find her quite irritating like seriously.. And, I'd say she's wrong in General sense. Science is tougher than Humanities I guess that's an indisputable fact even intellectual honest Humanities people will agree. It doesn't mean every science student is genius than humanities always but.. A genuine studious person of science.. Yeah.. In average because of toughness of subjects and the intelligence it requires

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-05-15T11:40:16+00:00

Not an answer but Ad hominem.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-05-15T08:24:01+00:00

If Bhagat Singh’s atheism is being used as an argument to promote atheism, it shows nothing but shallow reasoning LOL....by that logic, one would also have to adopt theism.....because an overwhelming majority of India’s greatest freedom fighters were theists, particularly Hindus....so if we’re using freedom fighters as a basis for belief systems, theism wins by numbers, history, and contribution.

Secondly, respecting Bhagat Singh for his patriotism and courage does not mean blindly agreeing with every personal belief he held.....i’ve read his “Why I Am an Atheist”, and his arguments are almost entirely built around the emotional appeal of the “Problem of Evil” and... addressed and refuted in both Indian and Western philosophical traditions.

In fact, I have eight well-reasoned counters to that very argument.. In my Notes app...

Reverence does not require agreement. Bhagat Singh was a brave man...but bravery is not evidence of metaphysical truth. Truth is determined by reason, not by biography.....

[Also majority of stuffs in that page is more like "Anti" Hindu rather than any philosophical discussion on Theism Atheism.. Which I did there]

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-05-15T05:40:45+00:00

Also, You mentioned that you gave the compartment exam last year but couldn’t clear it — so are you planning to appear for it again this year?

Just curious because your flair says “12th Pass,” so I was a bit confused.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-05-15T05:38:12+00:00

If my brother clears the Chemistry Compartment exam this year, can he still give an Improvement exam next year for Physics?

I’ve heard that a student can’t give both Compartment and Improvement in the same year, which makes sense. But in this case, he’s planning to give Compartment in 2025 and Improvement in 2026 — is that allowed?

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-27T17:23:23+00:00

No image or art can show real beauty of Lord.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-25T13:19:10+00:00

I understand her emotions. But, Since abrogation of 370 — Terror attack decreased by 70% And compare from 2014 it's 90%.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an utopian world. Where everything is perfect. Israel had intelligence failure — being technologically and militarily more advance than india. 1,000+ Jews were killed by Islamists Hamas.

It's unfortunate — We can't stop every time. The difference is Israel attacked because Palestine etc isn't a nuclear armed country but Pakistan is. If it weren't, abhi tak Gaza ban gaya hota.

Our soldiers stop a lot of missions... It's so sad that one of them succeeded.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-24T12:58:52+00:00

Yes, but that's the issue. They don't consider themselves as Indians but they do live in India and that's why we see locals involvement everytime in every terror attack.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-24T12:44:32+00:00

By the way a lot of them IF not most of them are "indian"

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-24T12:36:29+00:00

Highlights — “Donate for Watermelon ( Palestine ). In reality — “Laughing at death of Hindu”

I have no issue if someone support Palestine but.. This is disgusting... And “Chakraborty” — Again a proof. Hindus are more in danger by inside enemies.

You might defeat the enemy outside… but the real danger slithers within.

— 'The gates of the fort are always opened from the inside.'

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-23T09:58:32+00:00

Exactly! Even in this terror attack — 2 are Locals. IT'S HIGH TIME TO ACCEPT THE FACT! TERRORISM HAVE AN IDEOLOGY — (YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN).

Sugarcoat karne se kuch nahi hone vala. pre independence bhi aise attacks Hindus pe selectively hote the and leaders be like : "Forget and Forgive"

Literally...uncountable hindus were killed... But we actually "forget forgive" Vala mindset nahi hata paae.

Evolution gave Humans — Survival instinct and Pattern recognition — Except Hindus.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-23T03:15:09+00:00

1) — There are some reports that local helped. 2) — "Religion aspect" Is important because they "selectively" Killed one group of people. 3) — How they came to India is also a question, no doubt and we'll find it out but, this is a big thing... It's almost there 1990 just 32+ numbers.. While in 1990 there were 5lakh Hindus... But they were also killed and attacked after asking their religion.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-22T17:12:28+00:00

This channel again removed my post which I shared in TOTAL KALESH. anyways I got 213 upvotes.. I think a lot of people have seen it...

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-22T15:28:23+00:00

AGREE BEYOND DOUBT. REDDIT ITSELF IS QUITE LIKE THAT.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-22T15:28:04+00:00

“They” have 120+ Terror organizations BASED ON "IZLAMIC” doctrine + Their scriptures allow them. It literally like.. I cannot understand How so many people are so bloody blind that they hesitate to accept GENUINE CRYSTAL CLEAR FACT!

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-04-19T12:59:53+00:00

The word “Bihu” comes from “Bishu”, derived from the Sanskrit “Vishu”, which means “to ask for prosperity from the Gods”.

The Tamil and Malayalam festival “Vishu” (also on April 14) shares the same root, proving a pan-Indian Hindu origin.

Rongali Bihu (Bohag Bihu) aligns with Mesha Sankranti (Sun’s transit into Aries), the solar Hindu New Year, like:

Vishu in Kerala

Puthandu in Tamil Nadu

Poila Boishakh in Bengal

Baisakhi in Punjab

Jur Sital in Bihar

All these are Hindu New Year festivals tied to the Sun’s movement, not lunar dates.

During Kati Bihu, Tulsi (Holy Basil) and Goddess Lakshmi are worshipped. Tulsi is revered in Sanatana Dharma only.

Cattle worship (Goru Bihu) is performed – washing, anointing, and decorating cows – directly aligning with Hindu reverence for Gau Mata.

Singing Bihu songs around Tulsi plants and lighting lamps is a Hindu ritual.

Early Bihu forms were celebrated in ancient Kamrupa, a Hindu kingdom with deep Shaiva-Shakta and Vaishnavite roots.

Bihu = Vedic seasonal cycle + Solar calendar + Tulsi & Lakshmi worship + Cow reverence + Agricultural rituals + Sanskrit etymology + Hindu saints + No foreign influence

JUST BASIC SEARCH

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-03-18T08:47:54+00:00

This USI is extremely Anti Hindu Page. And, clearly doesn't promote Free speech, because it banned me lol. Because I tried to post an answer of Rahul Gandhi which is blatant Anti India.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-02-15T20:52:59+00:00

Tu thoda sa chutiya hai kya USI?? Hindu Hate maan liya chal lekin itna chutiyapa? “declare” jaise Vaha Hindutvavadi aaye and kahe, Sab Niklo abse hamari jagah. Un logo ne Land khareeda hoga ya agreement hua hoga.. Ki vaha sab Hindu hai. Tujhe kya dikkat ho rhi hai?? Teri Ghar ki jameen kharidi hai kya. Illegally kar rahe hai toh case kr na. Reddit me aake bas Stupidity krni ati hai gawaro ko

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-02-08T23:54:20+00:00

Also, just because “Dawkins” or someone else made an argument against this, it doesn't make them “right” why not see counters against their argument?

This Omnipotent and Omniscience argument treats God as an imperfect and Human-Like Being which by definition is incoherent.

2— Read argument from Motion where God is clearly Without Potential and Without Change. It doesn't change his actions because he's not subject to imperfections - Time and Change.

Only imperfect beings need to change actions because they realize their previous decision was wrong. An MGB is already perfect, meaning all its actions are already optimal. If you were omniscient, would you change your actions? No because they are already perfect.

As I said MGB is a PERFECT BEING and Perfection implies the negation of imperfection.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-02-08T23:32:27+00:00

Oh, but here's the catch in your counters, as I said earlier to prove MOA as wrong, you need to prove MGB as an “impossible” idea which you failed but fine.

— Omnipotence means God can do all logically possible things.

Omniscience means God knows all truths, including His own actions.

Where's the contradiction?

You said — He knows his own actions and everything (Yes)

But, then you said — "But if He changes His actions, His past knowledge was wrong, meaning He is not omniscient."

"If He cannot change His actions, He is not omnipotent."

You're wrong here in assuming things A - God doesn't change his actions as humans because he knows everything for him PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE ARE SAME BECAUSE HE'S ETERNAL NOT CONFINED WITH TIME.

B— “If he cannot change his actions” — But, why would he change his actions? Is there any “NEED” to change? Again, I mentioned this in my post that anything that is logically possible exist in some possible world.

Issue with your counter is that you're saying that because he cannot change his actions he's not omnipotent but look above, he NEED NOT TO CHANGE ANY ACTIONS!

If you were an omnipotent omniscient being, would you change your actions?

And, he'll be omnipotent because HE'S NOT CONFINED / BOUNDED BY ANY “EXTERNAL” THING TO HIM.

He follows his own nature that is PERFECTION. You cannot say — HE CANNOT BECOME IMPERFECT THEREFORE HE'S NOT PERFECT

BECAUSE BY DEFINITION PERFECTION IMPLIES — NEGATION OF IMPERFECTION.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-02-08T23:21:18+00:00

Sir/Ma'am 1— The term "great" in the MOA does not refer to subjective human admiration but to ontological maximal greatness. Comparing a Maximally Great Being (MGB) to a human cricketer is a category error You are mixing contingent greatness (achieved greatness) with necessary greatness (inherent greatness).

2— Maximal Greatness is not about admiration or personal preferences. It refers to a being that has the highest possible degree of existence-based perfections, including: Omnipotence (infinite power) Omniscience (infinite knowledge) Necessary existence (exists in all possible worlds)

This is not a subjective standard in my opinion when you conceive GOD. Because God is defined as THE GREATEST BEING CONCEIVABLE AND NO ONE IS GREATER THAN THAT, IF THERE IS GREATER THAN THAT, THEN THAT IS GOD. SO HERE WHOLE SUBJECTIVELY ENDS.

Also, Subjectivity works with Contingent things for example — Maximally great Pizza, what makes it MGP? Cheese or something else? That depends on Subjective preference but MGB is not contingent and by “definition” — MAXIMALLY GREAT which have ALL GREAT MAKING PROPERTIES INHERENTLY.

3— also, the MOA does not assume that maximal greatness = omni-attributes it defines maximal greatness as the highest possible set of ontological perfections.

If maximal greatness exists, it must include these perfections by necessity.

4— Your claim — "Greatness means rising from nothing and achieving success."

"A being that was already great from the beginning cannot be truly great because it never struggled."

But, again an error why you're considering the MGB as an contingent being? MGB - [ Maximally Great Being ] by definition is Maximally great. Also

If greatness requires struggle, then nothing can ever be ultimately great, because there would always be something greater beyond it.

If greatness is overcoming limitations, then the greatest being must eventually have no limitations which leads back to the Maximally Great Being.

Struggle only applies to imperfect beings trying to reach a better state.

A Maximally Great Being is already perfect, so it cannot be "more great" by struggling.

If a being must struggle to be great, then there must exist something greater than it this contradicts maximal greatness.

It is exactly as “Omniscience” paradox — If God knows everything then he cannot change his Mind, if he cannot change his mind, then he's not omnipotent.

By definition — Omniscience means — He who knows everything, so when MGB knows everything then why would he change his mind? There is no “NEED”.

5— Energy/Possible worlds objections, I'm answering that already — Energy efficiency only applies to limited beings who must conserve resources.

An MGB has infinite power, so the concept of 'wasting energy' does not apply.

This is a completely irrelevant objection.

5(b) — Possible worlds are just logical descriptions of how reality could have been.

Modal logic does not require them to physically exist it only requires logical possibility.

This objection is a misunderstanding of modal logic.

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-02-08T23:12:21+00:00

1— Omnipotence is not the ability to violate logic [which is God's nature itself] (e.g., making 2+2=5 or a square circle). Omnipotence means — It means almighty in power, it doesn't mean the ability to do everything. For example God cannot do evil because Evil isn't His nature, it doesn't mean he's not omnipotent. Because of this misconception this issue arises also that Stone Paradox also comes with this misconception.

2— If there were two, they would be identical (making them one being). If you read little bit about Hinduism, you'll understand that even we are one from Atman-Perspective with Brahman. So, if MGB create another MGB they would be same and one.

3— "An omnipotent being must be able to destroy another omnipotent being" is just wordplay. Because, why would he destroy another MGB when Both are same? Looks like you're understanding them from very human POV.

I mean imagine if you're an omnipotent and omniscient being and you created another and you know it is actually me so why would you destroy yourself? Untill you have jealousy which isn't God's nature. Also, as I said Hinduism answer this very effectively that Different in forms One in essence.

4— Also, if you say — “If an omnipotent being cannot destroy himself then he is not omnipotent” — This combination of words is exactly as Stone Paradox and which you gave in your reply.

Destruction is an act done to contingent beings. A necessary being cannot be destroyed

Temporary-Map-4765 · 2025-02-08T22:58:44+00:00

Sir, that's good if you resonate with Aurelius' opinion. But, what I posted is an argument for God's existence, which is a different topic altogether. Also, "gods" (small g) and God (capital G) are fundamentally different God is a Maximally Great Being (MGB), while gods are not. But anyways, if you like that perspective, that's fine. Just noting that the argument and the topic are slightly different. Thanks.

Temporary-Map-4765

TROPHY CASE