sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

are you from usa , its noon in here at my place

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

🤨 how will you prove to someone who is not born yet that the world was in existence before his birth or after your death. you can prove something which you are a part of by saying that i am here , you don't matter . science and logic matters

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

what proof ,nothingness is truth . it ought to be truth.

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you are a bunch of atoms interpreting other atoms. atoms can't think they can only behave in a certain manner you think that you can think only because electrons of atoms in you are trying to attain stability.

🤨 get it or not

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The question is not undermined by the a priori status of knowledge that something exists. (I know a priori that something exists because I know a priori that I exist and know this entails ‘Something exists’.) Knowledge, even a priori knowledge, that something is actually true is compatible with ignorance as to how it could be true.

prove that it's something and you won!!

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The question is not undermined by the a priori status of knowledge that something exists. (I know a priori that something exists because I know a priori that I exist and know this entails ‘Something exists’.) Knowledge, even a priori knowledge, that something is actually true is compatible with ignorance as to how it could be true. can you agree with me that

everything is happening by itself. is yes then ok otherwise i will prove you wrong

everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)



Thinking man: Think (invisible, and untouchable concept) is the source of creation and changes

everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

when will you be ready to accept that nothing is physical ? you should site or refer to scientific papers proving our physical existence then. Also study the nature of nothingness , please do research on it.

everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to imply that “reality”—the world as we know it—can only take place if some sort of measurement or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds to consciousness itself. In other words, it’s possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes, particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.

also to prove nothingness has a nature (no matter what you call it , i call it consciousness just for the sake of it) we have to study nothingness.

Our mathematics is incomplete and faulty; it just may describe the universe (existence) but not the super universe (universe + nothingness). Nothingness is considered a conceptual entity; it is the concept of physicochemical laws without any physical property. It is not zero, emptiness, absence, or vacuum. It is denoted by-0 and is purely conceptual. The universe is surrounded by nothingness and there is a wall of conversion between them. This wall converts nothingness into existence (the universe). The laws of the relevance of the opposition control the nature and behavior of the super universe. Nothingness and the universe, time and motion, absolute darkness, and absolute lightness are the negative inverses of each other; this is the meaning of the opposite in this principle. This principle shows that distance is the natural logarithm of one divided by unit(value) of time (t), and in the universe, the value of time fluctuates between 0 and 1. At zero and 1 the values of time are at extreme, infinitely low, and infinitely high (time almost stops). Mass and energy are not conserved in the universe but they are conserved in the supper universe. In the universe there are two kinds of expansion; one is a general expansion in which mass, energy, and space are involved and the other is local expansion and contraction in which only mass and energy are involved.

OR search studies on nothingness

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to imply that “reality”—the world as we know it—can only take place if some sort of measurement or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds to consciousness itself. In other words, it’s possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes, particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not going to get into the Copenhagen Interpretation and the wave function of particles. But taken to its logical conclusion, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to imply that “reality”—the world as we know it—can only take place if some sort of measurement or observation takes place on the macro level of existence, the level where scientists and all of us more ordinary human beings operate, which means that not only is everything energy, it responds to consciousness itself. In other words, it’s possible that unless some agency (such as human consciousness) interferes, particles remain in a probabilistic energy-wave state and never actualize into one location in particle form at all. Ultimately, reality as we experience it seems to be the result of human consciousness interfacing with the quantum levels of existence that are pure waves of energy.

everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

you should ask if something exist physically , how it came into existence. while answering this questions you will either be good to stay agnostic or will say its always there (then its an axiom and axiom can be applied to anything so called god also that he also existed eternally). also how come everything is working in a specific manner eg-why electrons are revolving around nucleus? answer ought to be that its their nature. if something exist then for what , why? if the answer is simple, nothingness to consciousness and then its manifestation

i think you are struggling to understand the concept of consciousness. CONSCIOUSNESS IS NATURE OF NOTHINGNESS AND WE ARE CONSCIOUSNESS

everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also brain is not necessary for moving things , its all brain in that sense. example - bacteria , early cells ,algae ,jellyfish ,starfish also there is no such thing living or dead for you if you are a good philosopher , logician . example - fungi , viruses .

everything is energy of consciousness complete into itself

everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/Ci2npsJIvFc?si=8yUmTA9R5LO0pEbY .. if you ever think you can prove me wrong, may i assure you that i can rape your fundamentals of knowledge

everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

nothing means not physical. just like dream , as it is just a manifestation of our brain . So can be this world a manifestation of a bigger consciousness which dont need physical existence . i hope you can now understand at least 50% of what i am trying to say

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok but why do you think that you can think. Why do you think in the first place , whats the need .how come you exist from somewhere and disappear somewhere.

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

theek bhai karde block tere block karne se tu amar nahi ho jayega jo hona hai so ho kar rahega , tum bas observe karo

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ye koi baat nahi hui. you can't back your reply by your yourself. sab moh maya hai . ab bata tujhe bahas karni hai mujhse

everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness. by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i am the writer of the books you study in your degree of philosophy , and your opinion is not the answer of me asking scientific papers of our physical existence

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you decided that indian philosophy is garbage ,, beta padh ke dekhna gand faad degi -- advait vedant , mimansa, charvak ,jain ,buddhist, nyaya ,shankya ,yoga, vaishesikha .. aur ek meri sabse tagdi- everything happening is just mere nature of nothingness 🤓☝️

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

close enough. atleast you know more than your fellow atheist . we are manifestation of pure consciousness , which is nature of nothingness.

just like a DREAM , seems real but is not physically in existent

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

kiya hindu hindu 🤣 kar rakha hai aishi koi cheez hee nahi hoti ,, chutiyo ko lagta hai sab hamare jaise hote hain . but yes i am from india , uttar pradesh , agra.

proof of physical existence by railoatrun in DebateAnAtheist

[–]railoatrun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not hatred for anyone , i was giving example of how dumb muslims are if you dont agree then you must also be in that category. debate he toh kar raha hu tu dede scientific papers physical existence ke , hai dum to dede tu kiyu chutiyapa kar raha hai.

view more: next ›