Bhai islie sanskirt learn krana jaroori hai Kyonki vedas me jo sanskirt use hoti hai vo kafi complex Or jo reader use padhta hai Uski interpretation dusre reader alag hoti hai bcz Sanskirt's one single word ke bahut saare prayaywachi hote hai Or aap kis contaxt me use padh rhe hai uske heesab se aap use interprit kar sakte hai That's why if someone need to read vedas Sanskirt learning is compulsory Taki aap usko apne contaxt me interprit kar pao
24:55 I only found a mistake here. Actually axioms are unproved mathematical statements that are accepted to be true and are called self evident to do further mathematics. There are 7 axioms I think. One of them is a line is made up of infinite points. We can't prove that but we can prove 100s of other postulates by assuming this statement to be true.
@@vimoh No actually. Axioms and Postulates in maths can't be proved, even when tried, because they are the building blocks in mathematics which are used to prove theorem(say A). We assume them to be true so we can start further reasoning. The only way we can prove an axiom is by circular reasoning. We first assume the theorem A to be true and then go back to the axiom. And here the theorem A works as the axiom. But the thing is axioms aren't extraordinary claims. There are 5 or 7 axioms and they are intuitive statements like parallel lines never meet in flat space, all right angles are equal to one another, a circle of any radius at any point can be drawn, etc. and we prove other things from these.
@@RandomIndianUsingYT Maybe we can say axioms are true in the same way vimoh explained how we know a tree exists in front of us when we see it. I think another way is to actually see at the real world. If by assuming one axiom to be true, we found certain theorems valid and later we also find the theorems to be giving accurate results and predictions in real life, then we can say the axioms or postulates are not wrong.
That's a good point. Thanks for explaining. I am no mathematician obviously. I was using the 2+3=4 example to only show that when someone comes with a claim like "reality is consciousness" and says it's the same as 2+2=4, I can show them that there is a difference between the two. Math works and can be used to make predictions. Therefore there is reason to think of it as more than something we just started believing. Unlike other claims.
Actually its true, most bramhins teach Sanskrit only to their bramhin students. I had a friend who was bramhin and he used to go to another old bramhin's Sanskrit class. When i showed interest in that class he used to change the subject.
@@rushikeshsapkal7674You had one or two classes a week. That's not how you learn a language. Languages require immersion. You have to talk to people who can read sankrit to emulate the pronunciation and rhythm of the language. You have to read Sanskrit extensively, which almost always means reading scriptures, and epics, and their commentaries. Once you have done these things for a few years, you also need to be a part of a community that reads and communicates in Sanskrit. In India, good luck doing that if you're not a Brahmin. I'm also going to tell you that you don't know sanskrit. The question now is, why should you know Sanskrit? Does it add any value to your life? If you learn to speak any other foreign language, even Mandarin, it improves your resume, your salary and it introduces you to a new literature and people. What do you get with Sanskrit? Everything written in it is not only scientifically outdated, but also philosophically stagnant. It is the most useless Indian language to learn unless you're perhaps a linguist or a student of theology. Learn Tamil, Punjabi, Bengali, or Gujarati. You will see the obvious benefits. Learn your own native language if you have now defaulted to a popular tongue like English or Hindi, and reconnect with your ancestral brethren.
My name is Advait, and as an NRI born outside India, I have spent a long long time immersed in Western culture, never having much contact with my home culture. Combined with the fact that my parents are strong Hindutva supporters, I always felt uncomfortable thinking too much about my Hinduism critically, even though I was incredibly religious. Over here though, Hinduism gets mixed up with New Age bs (imagine 1970s Woodstock + ISKCON stuff), which meant that even when I was young I had doubts. When I was 17, I realised that I don't believe it any more, and have spent the past year experiencing what I now know to be a common experience for atheists all over the globe. However, most of the media I consume is relevant to America and a Christian context, so thank you to Vimoh (and r/atheismindia) for helping me both learn more about my culture, the meaning of my name, and to come to terms with the idea that walking away from Hinduism doesn't necessarily mean not being an Indian any more.
@@amaranthswami2577 Wdym? If you mean that I come across as emotionally vulnerable and rant-y, then you're probably right. I probably am. And perhaps one could go so far as to say that it's wrong to use my personal struggles to make a semi-political point. But that scarcely changes the fact that, looking past my doubtlessly emotionally loaded language, I am right.
Why do people who don't believe in God and religion need to learn sanskrit to be able to interpret holy scriptures just to debunk them but people who believe in God and religion need not even know how to read and write? 🤨
Bhai islie sanskirt learn krana jaroori hai Kyonki vedas me jo sanskirt use hoti hai vo kafi complex Or jo reader use padhta hai Uski interpretation dusre reader alag hoti hai bcz Sanskirt's one single word ke bahut saare prayaywachi hote hai Or aap kis contaxt me use padh rhe hai uske heesab se aap use interprit kar sakte hai That's why if someone need to read vedas Sanskirt learning is compulsory Taki aap usko apne contaxt me interprit kar pao
He was right... Axioms cannot be prooved... It was accepted as a fundamental thing... In physics too we have 7 basics axiom type things... That we call fundamental quantities... We don't know what they are, atleast some we are know but rest we don't... So basically we rely on our assumed things...
Subjective experience is a science too: ''Psychology, at its core, is all about the scientific method. It uses empirical research and careful observation to examine how people behave and think. To collect and analyse data; researchers use a variety of approaches like surveys, experiments, observation and statistical analysis.''
26:51 Mein toh apne aap ko human manta hu. Mein khudko pinch nahi karta sapne mein. Jump karta hu, 10 15 meter gaya toh sapna hai. After that lucid until some creeper blasts off my unconsciousness and I wake up.
Vimoh was being too rude and not letting that guy put his opinion properly. Continuously breaking his flow and interrupting his talks. And than vimoh was accusing the guest of being rude.
Vimoh is not even listening to that guy. He is trying to quote Advatya which is nothing to do with the specific religion. And by not knowing sanskrit people have intrepretted things differently and the best example is - 'Bhagwat Geeta as it is' by ISCON, and many more. The reason is fairly simple though, they have some kind of confirmation bias. The guy on a call could not give an example properly, Adavat simply says non-duality. For example, human is dead, then buried, eaten by insects, mixed with soil, the plant grows from the same soil consuming sun and water, and now all these forms change into fruits, human eats the fruit. This is one of the cycles I tried to explain. Here, Vedanta or Advat points out is if as a human your ego says everything has its own existence, or your superior than other etc. then its a false interpretation. Technically there is one super energy called as Brahm operating in the realm of dimention we call it as Time, this brahm keep on changing forms from one to another and this cycle goes on. Nothing is 2 thats the fundamental condept. In physics we say energy is neither created nor destroyed it simply changes its form. Now I am not saying both of the concepts are exactly same or right, they may be or may not be. But if we see and experience, we feel this concept is true. Basically According to Vedanta or Advatya nothing is real, everything is subjective and relative. For a dog everything is black and white, for humans we see colors. There is no way we can know the truth or reality. It's strictly how we precieve. Important thing here is that comparison of vedanta and Science is like comparing apple with oranges. Vedanta is about study of subject whereas science is all about study of objects that subject is precieving. As per vedanta, subject and object are interdependent, none can exist without the other. Same has been proven by double slit experiment. Both science and vedanta are trying to answer questions of humans. Thats the reason Vedanta rejects all the religious beliefs and rituals. Its a totally different branch of Hinduism, infact its more like a philosophy based on experience and self study of people, but generally people confuse Advatya with orthodox scriptures
Personal experience in itself amounts to first layer of evidence. Then that personal experience, with peer review and comparison, could be confirmed or negated by people around us. On a grander scale, there may be people who do not share the personal experience i do, and some person who do share, according to their nurture and nature. And then there are some fundamental physical experiences/states that no human could deny. I've always felt that it's that simple. When going into investigations into subjectivity and perceptions INTO yourself, you *may* find yourself in a much more surreal realm. Your subjective experience is best used in understanding your own self, your mind, your body and the link between them, and the various parts of your psyche. Your dreams and your inner visions and your imagination are the most surreal things there are. Those can be called "purely subjective", and people like Carl Jung have come close to understanding that even in the realm of our imaginations, we have common tropes (whether we are from the Appalachians, or Africa, or Bihar, or Rome or Tokyo) that we call archetypes, hinting to something that he called a "collective consciousness". That's the closest one could come to the cusp of understanding a surreal concept. There will be people who say that "a naturally blind person's perspective of the world is diff from someone who isn't" and you'll only be right until the criteria moves away from visual stimuli. The person will most definitely experience physical forces such as gravity, the decay of time, and physical pain. Here again an argument will be made "some people can't feel pain", in order to make the "mera subjective tera subjective kiska objective" point. Multiple studies done all across the world using standardized tests will reveal the statistic which would tell that such people are a deviation in the norm in a general spectrum of feeling pain in whatever sample/population that test is done on, and so on and so forth. It's not all a huge mystery, some things are verifiable in this universe. Get a grip. Thanks, Vimoh, nice talk.
I will really like Mr. Vimoh to make a video about emotions , feelings and all other things which science isn't able to quantify and thus implying the importance of need of speeding up the research in the same .
Tark ke paar kya hota hai , agar tark ke paar kuch nahi hota to ye to ek believe jesi baat ho gai na ki tark ek last point hai , usi tarah in hindu dharm jo ved ko pramaan maana (believe) hai to wo asthik aur jo believe na kare wo nasthik ye parameter unhine banaya hai , jo ki sahi nahi hai , aap uski questioning ko rook rahe hai mai ye kahena chahta hu ki ham chahe jitna kah le ki ham believes pe 100% believe nahi karta ,lekin usse believe karna ki padega chahe wo bilkul kam believe kare , agar wo ek bhi believe nahi karta to wo survive hi nahi kar paayega , to mai ye kah raha hu ki tark sirf physical world ke liye sahi wo fact based hai jo ki bilkul sahi baat hai , lekin facts ke aage bhi to khuch hoga , please sir bataye ki ye thik hai ki nahi , by the way i love this type of debates ❤
You forgot to say that we too are riddled with our own biases which is why objective evidence like math is important alongside our experience, our perception and the judgement we make of our experience. Sirf apni judgement karna hai toh mai toh kuch bhi bol doon?!!.. Moon merese kuch pachaas kilometer door hoga!! 😅
During Newton's time itself it was known that Newtonian Mechanics was not the complete truth. For example it couldn't explain the orbit of Mercury. Newton said that God might intervene and make things right sometimes(for the other orbits). BTW nice conversation . I would like you to introduce the Indian Philosophy of Charvaks - specially the material school of thought for Consciousness. Also, how would anyone explain an conscious AI? which is bound to happen in the next 5-10 years.
How can he explain the conscious AI is not even a reality. Bound to happen and happened are two different things. There are a lot of flaws in the existing AI. Because it just a digital reflection of what we are. And we are no perfect.
Hello Vimoh. I wanted to express my gratitude to you, for being one of the few rationalists we have. Most atheists I know were influenced by people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking etc. The thing is, these people are either very old, or have already passed away. It is people like you who are keeping the pillar of logic and reasoning strong with the youth, I hope you grow more popular as time passes by.
Its just a matter of avoiding some uncomfortable things. If you are a non believer, then you can very easily say that this text is thousands of years old and people back than had some wrong conceptions of the world, but if you are a believer and your life depends on some very old book written in a dead language and you believe it contains some profound knowledge then you play these games to avoid criticism and justify your beliefs.
Modern Muslim Apologists play the same game. Whenever you point any mistake, discrepancy or contradiction in Quraan, they give exactly same response as this Brother
While Einstein's theory is more accurate in extreme situations, Newton's laws are still widely used for everyday calculations because they are simpler and work well for most typical scenarios.
Consciousness is undefined. Meaning of life is undefined. "Meaning" has multiple definitions. "Life" has multiple conflicting definitions. "Everything has a creator" is a baseless concept (because "to create" had no meaning before Neolithic age). So, every concept that spiritualism centres around are either having no clear definition or absolutely crap. That is why, it is so difficult to begin a valid conversation with believers. But, problem is, through all these blind spots, a group of people try to influence rational thinking. So, rational thinkers should not stop or avoid communication with beleivers. Most importantly, should not hurt the ego of believers. Rather, we should try to explain the questions they have. Like subjectivity of "consciousness" is now facing the greatest challenge, Large Language Models.
Hi Vimoh you made some critical errors in this video- 1. 99% is a belief its not a calculated belief because you don’t know what 100% entails and how to differentiate between 65%,78% and 99%. 99 was just an arbitrary number you picked 2. Axioms cannot be proven 3. Mathematics has its own problems please look into work of Gödel 4. Colour Green, Red. You cannot be sure not even 99% as you claimed that both of you are seeing the same thing in same saw even if language says the same. Colour blind people call an apple an apple but we both see different things 5. The line of argument you picked for bigbang is exactly what theists pick for religion. They feel because there are some truth it’s reasonable to believe unless proven otherwise which you said for bigbang Fyi my position is full fledged agnosticism as I don’t believe i can even know enough to assign % to experience to make even a calculated belief
vimoh is not insulting him he's points are strong that how did he know that dead matter can't create a living entity ? did he experienced it ? no ! he is making a logic the main thing is it's just a hypothesis now that matter can't create life , he can be true but if it is not proven then how he belief that it is true ?
who was this guy who was defending advaita vedanta using subjective experience..Instead he should have been taking a position to refute subjective experiences 😂
@@SUCcCk When you're conscious of something, you say... "I am alive" "I am aware of Qutub Minar" "I know my foot hurts" "I think you're a thief" "I feel sexy" No matter what the object of the experience you're having is, the subject is always you. It is you who is being subjected to all these experiences. YOU ARE THE SUBJECT and YOU ARE CONSCIOUS Therefore, SUBJECT = CONSCIOUS, or, we can say Subjectivity = Consciousness
Yes, but everything is subjective because of consciousness but some conscious being can't realise an rational subjectivity like humans It's like an tinder amount of difference, And I think that collection of similar subjectiveness Creates a objective facts in humane world
Sanskrit is spoken in very less areas I am a Hindu Brahmin and in don't know about Sanskrit because i am living in Mumbai , where I studies in English school but not in hindi first understand what is language ? language is a way of sharing your information to another person I can name apple as a mango, if there is a perception in every one's mind that apple is named as a mango then if I say mango you will imagine apple ? right ? then if a same thing named as a different name and it can be true then why ? that guy can't explain that Sanskrit shloka into Hindi ? or English The apple is apple because of its nature , shape , taste , colour it identified because of it but not because of its name as an apple so that Sanskrit guy can also explain it by Hindi or English word or if it's doesn't have a word then he can explain its nature or give an experience of it then it will be true or accurate or it has an evidence
Bhai islie sanskirt learn krana jaroori hai Kyonki vedas me jo sanskirt use hoti hai vo kafi complex Or jo reader use padhta hai Uski interpretation dusre reader alag hoti hai bcz Sanskirt's one single word ke bahut saare prayaywachi hote hai Or aap kis contaxt me use padh rhe hai uske heesab se aap use interprit kar sakte hai That's why if someone need to read vedas Sanskirt learning is compulsory Taki aap usko apne contaxt me interprit kar pao
2+2 = 4 only if we accept current decimal system. Its an axiom because the current system of communication is simply accepted. Mathematics is abstract, not material. One silly argument to counter you. If you proved 2 bananas + 2 bananas = 4 bananas. That does not mean 2 + 2 = 4. How can you say that whatever is applicable to bananas is applicable to everything.
My goodness, the word salad the caller threw around. About experience, I would argue that we can be 100% certain if we're clear on the characteristics of something we're talking about. If the caller asks you if you can be 100% sure of seeing a tree, you should ask him what are the characteristics he attributes to a tree; like something that is attached to the ground, takes in nutrients from the ground to grow, has a trunk, leaves and so on. If you can verify that something matches those characteristics, you can be 100% certain about it.
this guy is going to go on a long merry go round in future full of word salads that vedantis throw without any evidence i mean logic is a tool of seeking truth but ultimately if logic is not backed by evidence its as good as imagination i myself suffered a lot on this merry go round for more than one year they just have words and words nothing else they just build a tremendous structure of thought in their heads and derive pleasure out of its complexity btw a lot of nondual experiences etc also come under the domain of psychedelic experiences or what these people claim to be ultimate state as samadhi is the altered state of mind trying to alter the normal way we perceive things will make you go crazy and mentally ill i did all of this bs.
Dear vimoh, love your debates. But sometimes you get carried away, for example in the ‘axioms’ topic you were wrong. ‘Axioms’ are taken as self evident and cannot be proved. They are taken as self evident and are accepted without proof. They are used as the foundation for a particular system of reasoning. So you should clarify about this.
I think the point about axiomatic truths needed a little more attention. A proof in mathematics is not using "evidence" as we might understand from physics. a proof is a chain of logical conclusions based on certain assumptions. an axiom is a special kind of assumption but an assumption still. the reason why axioms are special is that we have not found an exception to the axiom's statement, YET, but there is no way to prove it using more fundamental truths. the best example is of Law of Complement: a (boolean) statement can't be true and false at the same time. there is no way to "prove" it as such but assuming otherwise would break down our understanding of logic itself. if, however, tomorrow we find a contradiction to this law, unlikely but theoretically possible, then all of modern philosophy, mathematics, physics would have to be re-written. axioms are therefore not universal truths but the most basic assumptions we must make before we can even begin to work. also, 1+1=2 does have a proof. it is over 300 pages long. Whitman's Principia. pehle woh padh ke aao. 😆
i have had this kind of conversation with philosophy students. philosophically it is near impossible to know if any of our observations can be trusted. however, the physical sciences start with the assumption that if multiple experiences correlate then the observations are reliable (not "trusted"). it is an important hack we need to get work done. no professors of science talk about it but they should.
Let me try to make it clear. May be..... Your green is my blue and my green is your blue. But if both of us see an object which appears to me as green and which appears to be blue to you, but whatever we see we agree that its one object and we agree to give it a common name. If we name it red, then my green which is your blue is red for the language. So all my greens will be green for me and I will call it red. Your blue will be blue for you always you will call it red. Both of us will be calling it red, but can we be sure that it appears to be same to both??? So knowledge is never 100% or knowledge is not defined to be something 100%.
😅 that's what vimoh said 99% he doesn't need to have 100% it's far enough to refute the argument some mysterious being farted and universe came into existence.
arre bhai.. your green and my blue thodi hota hai. you dont get to decide that blue is green or that green is red. The point of language is that we have collectively decided/predecided that the greenscreen is a greenscreen because we collectively agree what green looks like to us. cant call it redscreen and say that its "my truth" . chal bsdk! These are objective and collective facts. If you want to get into subjective truths in this example, it would be something like you saying 'I like green, it make me FEEL good, or it's my favorite color or I hate green' stuff like that and I can't really disagree with your experience. I can however disagree with you about my feelings of green.
Consciousness is different from matter because when a person is alive and when is dead if we compare the weight we won't find any difference so how can you say matter= consciousness
The number 0 ko agar kisi bhi non zero number se add karenge toh NON ZERO number hi aayege Bhai ko intuition and logical reasoning me difference nhi malum hai. Apna point prove karne ke liye kuch bhi bol rahe hai.
if matters can create consciousness ness, then why can't we bring dead back to life.. as mordern human knows each cell of human body and how it functions.. then why a dead person can't be brought back to life ? replace damaged part and bring the dead man alive.. this question really shook me
no but we can light it up... exactly my point who gives that first kick.. in a mother's womb when the first heart bit starts, who turns on ignition... what is that.. and once turned on it beats till one dies.. also human knows how a heart functions each artery vains chamber etc etc.. then why can't we restart a dead heart and run it for another 70 years
With due respect, i would like to say that , it's not the Brahmins only who are authoritative to explain Vedas...there are many non Brahmins who have a good command in vedas...A greater example is Swami Vivekanand..maata Amrityamayi who was both non Brahmin and ladies too...and second thing, labeling that Brahmins are authoritative is not fitting suitable to scholars like you, we should remember that it was the Brahmins who were also came forward to reform Hinduism like dayanand saraswati and many more...
I have concluded that Advaita is just some philosopher's frustration with the inefficiency of human language or worse, his own frustration in not using language efficiently
The same reason why I prefer modern expositions rather than Traditional ones. Traditional ones will mess up the thing,unless you totally buy their framework. Indian epistemology relies on absolute certainty, which will appear too theoretical for practical purposes. (Not saying all schools did so)
This is a ridiculous discussion. What is the main objective of believing in something? Is the objective of believing in Ram the same as believing in Jesus? The concept of ex-"hindu" itself is cringe. What are you excommunicating from exactly? what is "hindu"? To say, philosophy can be explained to anyone simply.... is a false statement.
I think that the person is little correct, Think about the tree, there are 300 million colour blind people in the world, for them the tree will not be green, By various researches we know that various species don't see colours as we see colours, Then the actually what is the colour of the tree ? Is the green which I see is just made by brain and processing light. What I am hearing is not what I am understanding, it was actually just a bunch of vibrations, it is actually my brain which processing those vibrations and making a meaning out of out ? Isn't it ?
Mera question hai ki aap atheist hai toh jab aap marenge toh apke sath kya hoga apko jalaya jayega ya dafan kiya jayega Agar koi god nahi hai toh thik hai aap bhi bach jayenge aur hum bhi jayenge jahannam se par tb kya hoga jab marne ke baad pata chale ki god exist krta hai toh god ko manne mein uske exist manne mein koi burayi nahi hai marne ke baad kuch nahi raha toh best hai tum bhi safe hum bhi safe but just think what happen when god exist..the choice is yours
Are bhai agr God exist bhi krta hoga to aisa thodi hogi ki wo Khud ki worship krvana chahta hoga or chahta hoga ki saare usko respect kre bina jaane ki wo exist krta hai. Agar aisa krvana hai to pehle koi proof to hona chahiye na ki wo exist krta hai or Religious books proof ni hai uske hone ka yeh saari humans ne likhi hai khud ke fayde ke liye
In Atheism , is it like we have to deny the historical existence of 'people' like Krishn and Ram , and regard them mere mythological characters? I'd rather say that they were pure humans, the mystical stories related to them are just mere exaggeration about there persona..people put them in the cage called 'Temple' , and said we cannot follow what they did because they are Gods and we are humans.very similar to what happend with Buddh and Mahavir. My Atheism would regard them all as 'Great Souls' , The 'Maha-atmans' (Not mystical..purely humanly)
There are 30 known constants of the universe, and if only one of them differed by 0.001%, nothing would exist. So, there must be a higher entity that fine-tuned the universe very precisely, keeping it from unchanging; otherwise, nothing would be possible. The idea of an infinite regression is impossible because we exist. If it were infinite, we wouldn't be at this stage. Therefore, there must be a beginning, a final cause that doesn't have any cause to exist, proving our existence. This entity is referred to as a higher power and possesses attributes at an omni level. In Islam, it is called the one and only God, 'Allah.'
Pahle isko Sanskrit me pad le
Pahle isko Arabic me pad le
Pahle isko Hibrew me pad le
Sanskrit wale se pucho ki kya tu ne arabic me quran padhi ya Hebrew me tora'h padhi, jo tumko nhi maante,, isi tarah dusro se b puchna chahiye😂😂
Bhai islie sanskirt learn krana jaroori hai
Kyonki vedas me jo sanskirt use hoti hai vo kafi complex
Or jo reader use padhta hai
Uski interpretation dusre reader alag hoti hai bcz
Sanskirt's one single word ke bahut saare prayaywachi hote hai
Or aap kis contaxt me use padh rhe hai uske heesab se aap use interprit kar sakte hai
That's why if someone need to read vedas
Sanskirt learning is compulsory
Taki aap usko apne contaxt me interprit kar pao
Other languages me itne saare prayaywachi nhi hote
Sankirt me single word ke 20 se jyada prayaywachi bhi hote hai
Har argu ko dhrm ki drasti se mat dekho
Sanskirt is most scientific language
@@vishuprajapati4123 do you also code in Sanskrit?
There was no Advaita Vedanta in the entire discussion.
Thank you
Good to hear the closing remarks. Civilized disagreements are a thing of rarity these days
Vimoh is doing God's work. Oh wait.
Yes and no
😂😂😂
Your are correct in incorrect way 😆😆😆
Good one😂
Nice
24:55 I only found a mistake here. Actually axioms are unproved mathematical statements that are accepted to be true and are called self evident to do further mathematics.
There are 7 axioms I think. One of them is a line is made up of infinite points. We can't prove that but we can prove 100s of other postulates by assuming this statement to be true.
I said can be. Not that they have to be. Maybe I oversimplified it. Sorry. Maybe I should have said "shown to be true".
@@vimoh No actually. Axioms and Postulates in maths can't be proved, even when tried, because they are the building blocks in mathematics which are used to prove theorem(say A). We assume them to be true so we can start further reasoning. The only way we can prove an axiom is by circular reasoning. We first assume the theorem A to be true and then go back to the axiom. And here the theorem A works as the axiom.
But the thing is axioms aren't extraordinary claims. There are 5 or 7 axioms and they are intuitive statements like parallel lines never meet in flat space, all right angles are equal to one another, a circle of any radius at any point can be drawn, etc. and we prove other things from these.
@@RandomIndianUsingYT Maybe we can say axioms are true in the same way vimoh explained how we know a tree exists in front of us when we see it. I think another way is to actually see at the real world. If by assuming one axiom to be true, we found certain theorems valid and later we also find the theorems to be giving accurate results and predictions in real life, then we can say the axioms or postulates are not wrong.
I haven't deleted any comments here. Please stop implying that I have.
That's a good point. Thanks for explaining. I am no mathematician obviously. I was using the 2+3=4 example to only show that when someone comes with a claim like "reality is consciousness" and says it's the same as 2+2=4, I can show them that there is a difference between the two. Math works and can be used to make predictions. Therefore there is reason to think of it as more than something we just started believing. Unlike other claims.
Actually its true, most bramhins teach Sanskrit only to their bramhin students. I had a friend who was bramhin and he used to go to another old bramhin's Sanskrit class. When i showed interest in that class he used to change the subject.
Yeah but I've learnt sanskrit in school. Language and literature is okay, the religious literature side of sanskrit is a shitshow
@@rushikeshsapkal7674You had one or two classes a week. That's not how you learn a language. Languages require immersion. You have to talk to people who can read sankrit to emulate the pronunciation and rhythm of the language. You have to read Sanskrit extensively, which almost always means reading scriptures, and epics, and their commentaries.
Once you have done these things for a few years, you also need to be a part of a community that reads and communicates in Sanskrit. In India, good luck doing that if you're not a Brahmin. I'm also going to tell you that you don't know sanskrit.
The question now is, why should you know Sanskrit? Does it add any value to your life? If you learn to speak any other foreign language, even Mandarin, it improves your resume, your salary and it introduces you to a new literature and people. What do you get with Sanskrit? Everything written in it is not only scientifically outdated, but also philosophically stagnant. It is the most useless Indian language to learn unless you're perhaps a linguist or a student of theology.
Learn Tamil, Punjabi, Bengali, or Gujarati. You will see the obvious benefits. Learn your own native language if you have now defaulted to a popular tongue like English or Hindi, and reconnect with your ancestral brethren.
That is the only reason that sanskirit is dying ....
Cry more
@@mahikdmlmao it's literally the same as it was in mediaeval era
My name is Advait, and as an NRI born outside India, I have spent a long long time immersed in Western culture, never having much contact with my home culture. Combined with the fact that my parents are strong Hindutva supporters, I always felt uncomfortable thinking too much about my Hinduism critically, even though I was incredibly religious. Over here though, Hinduism gets mixed up with New Age bs (imagine 1970s Woodstock + ISKCON stuff), which meant that even when I was young I had doubts. When I was 17, I realised that I don't believe it any more, and have spent the past year experiencing what I now know to be a common experience for atheists all over the globe.
However, most of the media I consume is relevant to America and a Christian context, so thank you to Vimoh (and r/atheismindia) for helping me both learn more about my culture, the meaning of my name, and to come to terms with the idea that walking away from Hinduism doesn't necessarily mean not being an Indian any more.
Great naration
@@amaranthswami2577 Wdym? If you mean that I come across as emotionally vulnerable and rant-y, then you're probably right. I probably am. And perhaps one could go so far as to say that it's wrong to use my personal struggles to make a semi-political point.
But that scarcely changes the fact that, looking past my doubtlessly emotionally loaded language, I am right.
So which religion do you follow?
@@humaisabbasi None
If I'm not wrong , your parents are most probably from Karnataka or Goa right
Happy Manusmriti Dahan Divas
Let's celebrate the Victory of Good over Evil..
BrHmans over chamars 😠 😡 👿 😤 🤬
Good vs evil is subjective..nothing is 100%
@@zohebsaikia telling women to jump into fire of her husband's funeral is evil
@@sracharNot said in Manusmriti
@@rohitsawant4452 read it
I wanted to give an great example of a blind mathematician, Leonhard Euler.
He wasn't blind from birth though, he went blind later in his life
@@RR_theproahole yes but he did most of his great works even after he went blind
Why do people who don't believe in God and religion need to learn sanskrit to be able to interpret holy scriptures just to debunk them but people who believe in God and religion need not even know how to read and write? 🤨
Bhai islie sanskirt learn krana jaroori hai
Kyonki vedas me jo sanskirt use hoti hai vo kafi complex
Or jo reader use padhta hai
Uski interpretation dusre reader alag hoti hai bcz
Sanskirt's one single word ke bahut saare prayaywachi hote hai
Or aap kis contaxt me use padh rhe hai uske heesab se aap use interprit kar sakte hai
That's why if someone need to read vedas
Sanskirt learning is compulsory
Taki aap usko apne contaxt me interprit kar pao
Ha jese jese science new chije invent kare ek shlok ki new interpretation bana ke boldo ki yeto hamari book me pahele hi tha. 😂@@vishuprajapati4123
Because they have belief
सर आप को पहले बार आजाद सर के चैनल में देखा अमित सर के बहुत बड़ा फैन हूं आज से आप का भी फैन होगया हूं सर
He was right... Axioms cannot be prooved... It was accepted as a fundamental thing... In physics too we have 7 basics axiom type things... That we call fundamental quantities... We don't know what they are, atleast some we are know but rest we don't... So basically we rely on our assumed things...
Subjective experience is a science too:
''Psychology, at its core, is all about the scientific method. It uses empirical research and careful observation to examine how people behave and think. To collect and analyse data; researchers use a variety of approaches like surveys, experiments, observation and statistical analysis.''
but science accept only the evidence not something which is untestifiable
27:17 That is just a 3D map of the real world but it is inspired by Evil Withing 1 and 2 because it is broken and misplaced.
26:51 Mein toh apne aap ko human manta hu. Mein khudko pinch nahi karta sapne mein. Jump karta hu, 10 15 meter gaya toh sapna hai. After that lucid until some creeper blasts off my unconsciousness and I wake up.
Vimoh was being too rude and not letting that guy put his opinion properly. Continuously breaking his flow and interrupting his talks. And than vimoh was accusing the guest of being rude.
exactly
The guy was detouring from the question tbf. Instead of answering a simple yes and no question he started another argument.
Vimoh is not even listening to that guy. He is trying to quote Advatya which is nothing to do with the specific religion. And by not knowing sanskrit people have intrepretted things differently and the best example is - 'Bhagwat Geeta as it is' by ISCON, and many more. The reason is fairly simple though, they have some kind of confirmation bias.
The guy on a call could not give an example properly, Adavat simply says non-duality. For example, human is dead, then buried, eaten by insects, mixed with soil, the plant grows from the same soil consuming sun and water, and now all these forms change into fruits, human eats the fruit. This is one of the cycles I tried to explain.
Here, Vedanta or Advat points out is if as a human your ego says everything has its own existence, or your superior than other etc. then its a false interpretation. Technically there is one super energy called as Brahm operating in the realm of dimention we call it as Time, this brahm keep on changing forms from one to another and this cycle goes on. Nothing is 2 thats the fundamental condept. In physics we say energy is neither created nor destroyed it simply changes its form. Now I am not saying both of the concepts are exactly same or right, they may be or may not be. But if we see and experience, we feel this concept is true.
Basically According to Vedanta or Advatya nothing is real, everything is subjective and relative. For a dog everything is black and white, for humans we see colors. There is no way we can know the truth or reality. It's strictly how we precieve.
Important thing here is that comparison of vedanta and Science is like comparing apple with oranges. Vedanta is about study of subject whereas science is all about study of objects that subject is precieving. As per vedanta, subject and object are interdependent, none can exist without the other. Same has been proven by double slit experiment. Both science and vedanta are trying to answer questions of humans. Thats the reason Vedanta rejects all the religious beliefs and rituals. Its a totally different branch of Hinduism, infact its more like a philosophy based on experience and self study of people, but generally people confuse Advatya with orthodox scriptures
"Main aap ko kavi andar nehi leta hu" 🤐
Raste mein saap mil gaya, mera math tha don't mess around don't find out. So, I did not panic and crossed the road. I love methopotamus.
Personal experience in itself amounts to first layer of evidence. Then that personal experience, with peer review and comparison, could be confirmed or negated by people around us. On a grander scale, there may be people who do not share the personal experience i do, and some person who do share, according to their nurture and nature. And then there are some fundamental physical experiences/states that no human could deny. I've always felt that it's that simple.
When going into investigations into subjectivity and perceptions INTO yourself, you *may* find yourself in a much more surreal realm. Your subjective experience is best used in understanding your own self, your mind, your body and the link between them, and the various parts of your psyche. Your dreams and your inner visions and your imagination are the most surreal things there are. Those can be called "purely subjective", and people like Carl Jung have come close to understanding that even in the realm of our imaginations, we have common tropes (whether we are from the Appalachians, or Africa, or Bihar, or Rome or Tokyo) that we call archetypes, hinting to something that he called a "collective consciousness". That's the closest one could come to the cusp of understanding a surreal concept.
There will be people who say that "a naturally blind person's perspective of the world is diff from someone who isn't" and you'll only be right until the criteria moves away from visual stimuli. The person will most definitely experience physical forces such as gravity, the decay of time, and physical pain. Here again an argument will be made "some people can't feel pain", in order to make the "mera subjective tera subjective kiska objective" point. Multiple studies done all across the world using standardized tests will reveal the statistic which would tell that such people are a deviation in the norm in a general spectrum of feeling pain in whatever sample/population that test is done on, and so on and so forth. It's not all a huge mystery, some things are verifiable in this universe. Get a grip.
Thanks, Vimoh, nice talk.
I will really like Mr. Vimoh to make a video about emotions , feelings and all other things which science isn't able to quantify and thus implying the importance of need of speeding up the research in the same .
Hats off to your patience Vimoh…
Anecdotal experiences are not universal proof. 2+2 is 4, universally in the decimal system, not the subjective experiences.
Tark ke paar kya hota hai , agar tark ke paar kuch nahi hota to ye to ek believe jesi baat ho gai na ki tark ek last point hai , usi tarah in hindu dharm jo ved ko pramaan maana (believe) hai to wo asthik aur jo believe na kare wo nasthik ye parameter unhine banaya hai , jo ki sahi nahi hai , aap uski questioning ko rook rahe hai mai ye kahena chahta hu ki ham chahe jitna kah le ki ham believes pe 100% believe nahi karta ,lekin usse believe karna ki padega chahe wo bilkul kam believe kare , agar wo ek bhi believe nahi karta to wo survive hi nahi kar paayega , to mai ye kah raha hu ki tark sirf physical world ke liye sahi wo fact based hai jo ki bilkul sahi baat hai , lekin facts ke aage bhi to khuch hoga , please sir bataye ki ye thik hai ki nahi , by the way i love this type of debates ❤
24:50 Isse jada basic kya hota hai? 2 + 2 = 4, Abhi decimals add kar denge to kya haal hogo pata nahi
2:45 par mahabharat to draupadi ni nhi suni thi na...
Vimoh would please put your captions in English. I interested in your stuff but I don't know Hindi. I'm from Chennai.
You forgot to say that we too are riddled with our own biases which is why objective evidence like math is important alongside our experience, our perception and the judgement we make of our experience.
Sirf apni judgement karna hai toh mai toh kuch bhi bol doon?!!.. Moon merese kuch pachaas kilometer door hoga!! 😅
During Newton's time itself it was known that Newtonian Mechanics was not the complete truth. For example it couldn't explain the orbit of Mercury. Newton said that God might intervene and make things right sometimes(for the other orbits).
BTW nice conversation . I would like you to introduce the Indian Philosophy of Charvaks - specially the material school of thought for Consciousness.
Also, how would anyone explain an conscious AI? which is bound to happen in the next 5-10 years.
Just to point out Einstein's general theory of relativity fails to explain Black Holes. So there is a higher theory yet to discovered.
How can he explain the conscious AI is not even a reality. Bound to happen and happened are two different things. There are a lot of flaws in the existing AI. Because it just a digital reflection of what we are. And we are no perfect.
Hey Vimoh have you saw the latest
Sham Sharma Podcast
Where they discussed about casteism and how people deny it.
Hello Vimoh. I wanted to express my gratitude to you, for being one of the few rationalists we have.
Most atheists I know were influenced by people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking etc. The thing is, these people are either very old, or have already passed away.
It is people like you who are keeping the pillar of logic and reasoning strong with the youth, I hope you grow more popular as time passes by.
Watch for Alex O connor
Genetically modified skeptic
Rationality rules
I too feel the same.
English translation are the most correct authentic doors to people's thought in ancient times. Why people hate translations is beyond me?
Its just a matter of avoiding some uncomfortable things. If you are a non believer, then you can very easily say that this text is thousands of years old and people back than had some wrong conceptions of the world, but if you are a believer and your life depends on some very old book written in a dead language and you believe it contains some profound knowledge then you play these games to avoid criticism and justify your beliefs.
@@RR_theproaholedamn that's very accurately put.
@21:06 We see earth flat but it's round. So yes, we should consider the mathematics not our observation.
Modern Muslim Apologists play the same game. Whenever you point any mistake, discrepancy or contradiction in Quraan, they give exactly same response as this Brother
I wish I could have a conversation with this guy.
While Einstein's theory is more accurate in extreme situations, Newton's laws are still widely used for everyday calculations because they are simpler and work well for most typical scenarios.
I feel that he should read about indoctrination.
Consciousness is undefined. Meaning of life is undefined. "Meaning" has multiple definitions. "Life" has multiple conflicting definitions. "Everything has a creator" is a baseless concept (because "to create" had no meaning before Neolithic age). So, every concept that spiritualism centres around are either having no clear definition or absolutely crap. That is why, it is so difficult to begin a valid conversation with believers.
But, problem is, through all these blind spots, a group of people try to influence rational thinking. So, rational thinkers should not stop or avoid communication with beleivers. Most importantly, should not hurt the ego of believers. Rather, we should try to explain the questions they have. Like subjectivity of "consciousness" is now facing the greatest challenge, Large Language Models.
By that logic ..even western scientists could not take concepts from Hindu scriptures coz they don't know Sanskrit
Hi Vimoh you made some critical errors in this video-
1. 99% is a belief its not a calculated belief because you don’t know what 100% entails and how to differentiate between 65%,78% and 99%. 99 was just an arbitrary number you picked
2. Axioms cannot be proven
3. Mathematics has its own problems please look into work of Gödel
4. Colour Green, Red. You cannot be sure not even 99% as you claimed that both of you are seeing the same thing in same saw even if language says the same. Colour blind people call an apple an apple but we both see different things
5. The line of argument you picked for bigbang is exactly what theists pick for religion. They feel because there are some truth it’s reasonable to believe unless proven otherwise which you said for bigbang
Fyi my position is full fledged agnosticism as I don’t believe i can even know enough to assign % to experience to make even a calculated belief
Invite acharya Prashant on debate❤❤❤
vimoh is not insulting him he's points are strong that how did he know that dead matter can't create a living entity ?
did he experienced it ? no ! he is making a logic
the main thing is it's just a hypothesis now that matter can't create life , he can be true but if it is not proven then how he belief that it is true ?
Optical illusions, Magic tricks, Brain injuries, there goes subjective experiences.
who was this guy who was defending advaita vedanta using subjective experience..Instead he should have been taking a position to refute subjective experiences 😂
The subjectivity itself is consciousness.
@@karansarin1986 How ? I think they both are mutually inclusive
@@SUCcCk When you're conscious of something, you say...
"I am alive"
"I am aware of Qutub Minar"
"I know my foot hurts"
"I think you're a thief"
"I feel sexy"
No matter what the object of the experience you're having is, the subject is always you.
It is you who is being subjected to all these experiences.
YOU ARE THE SUBJECT
and
YOU ARE CONSCIOUS
Therefore,
SUBJECT = CONSCIOUS,
or, we can say
Subjectivity = Consciousness
Yes, but everything is subjective because of consciousness but some conscious being can't realise an rational subjectivity like humans
It's like an tinder amount of difference, And I think that collection of similar subjectiveness
Creates a objective facts in humane world
26:30 Kya ghusa raha hai, New body... bada mufat mein mil raha body. Munna Bhai ne toh ordr bhi nahi kiya. Leke kya karega
Sanskrit is spoken in very less areas I am a Hindu Brahmin and in don't know about Sanskrit because i am living in Mumbai , where I studies in English school but not in hindi
first understand what is language ? language is a way of sharing your information to another person I can name apple as a mango, if there is a perception in every one's mind that apple is named as a mango then if I say mango you will imagine apple ? right ?
then if a same thing named as a different name and it can be true then why ? that guy can't explain that Sanskrit shloka into Hindi ? or English
The apple is apple because of its nature , shape , taste , colour it identified because of it but not because of its name as an apple so that Sanskrit guy can also explain it by Hindi or English word or if it's doesn't have a word then he can explain its nature or give an experience of it then it will be true or accurate or it has an evidence
Axioms cannot be proven. 0/0 is infinity, 0! Is 1.. these CANNOT be proven.
Bhai islie sanskirt learn krana jaroori hai
Kyonki vedas me jo sanskirt use hoti hai vo kafi complex
Or jo reader use padhta hai
Uski interpretation dusre reader alag hoti hai bcz
Sanskirt's one single word ke bahut saare prayaywachi hote hai
Or aap kis contaxt me use padh rhe hai uske heesab se aap use interprit kar sakte hai
That's why if someone need to read vedas
Sanskirt learning is compulsory
Taki aap usko apne contaxt me interprit kar pao
Good ideas don't rely on the language they are written in.
Vimho be like ---- Arre bhai kehna kya chate ho ??
Kyunki aise logon se discussion karne aise chees ko leke jo objective naji hain vo difficult hai 😊
…I am not saying that you are not unworthy… 😂😂😂
I would love to See these conciousness advocaters of god... in next 20 yrs.... when machines will have conciousness
Chandni se upar nahi ja ne bala ye. Kamaal ka astronaut banega bhai. Crash specialist.
2+2 = 4 only if we accept current decimal system.
Its an axiom because the current system of communication is simply accepted.
Mathematics is abstract, not material.
One silly argument to counter you.
If you proved 2 bananas + 2 bananas = 4 bananas.
That does not mean 2 + 2 = 4.
How can you say that whatever is applicable to bananas is applicable to everything.
You're saying mathematical truths are contingent truth
26:29 26:30 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Loved this❤
My goodness, the word salad the caller threw around.
About experience, I would argue that we can be 100% certain if we're clear on the characteristics of something we're talking about.
If the caller asks you if you can be 100% sure of seeing a tree, you should ask him what are the characteristics he attributes to a tree; like something that is attached to the ground, takes in nutrients from the ground to grow, has a trunk, leaves and so on.
If you can verify that something matches those characteristics, you can be 100% certain about it.
Best conversation ❤😊
this guy is going to go on a long merry go round in future full of word salads that vedantis throw without any evidence i mean logic is a tool of seeking truth but ultimately if logic is not backed by evidence its as good as imagination i myself suffered a lot on this merry go round for more than one year they just have words and words nothing else they just build a tremendous structure of thought in their heads and derive pleasure out of its complexity btw a lot of nondual experiences etc also come under the domain of psychedelic experiences or what these people claim to be ultimate state as samadhi is the altered state of mind trying to alter the normal way we perceive things will make you go crazy and mentally ill i did all of this bs.
Quest for the search of truth!🙌
Dear vimoh, love your debates. But sometimes you get carried away, for example in the ‘axioms’ topic you were wrong. ‘Axioms’ are taken as self evident and cannot be proved. They are taken as self evident and are accepted without proof. They are used as the foundation for a particular system of reasoning. So you should clarify about this.
Yes. I clarified this bit in the next live stream.
I just cannot understand the point of this video. Vedant itself prescribe to leave 100% accuracy (bhram Satya jagt mithya ) then what is the point .
I think the point about axiomatic truths needed a little more attention.
A proof in mathematics is not using "evidence" as we might understand from physics. a proof is a chain of logical conclusions based on certain assumptions. an axiom is a special kind of assumption but an assumption still. the reason why axioms are special is that we have not found an exception to the axiom's statement, YET, but there is no way to prove it using more fundamental truths.
the best example is of Law of Complement: a (boolean) statement can't be true and false at the same time. there is no way to "prove" it as such but assuming otherwise would break down our understanding of logic itself. if, however, tomorrow we find a contradiction to this law, unlikely but theoretically possible, then all of modern philosophy, mathematics, physics would have to be re-written. axioms are therefore not universal truths but the most basic assumptions we must make before we can even begin to work.
also, 1+1=2 does have a proof. it is over 300 pages long. Whitman's Principia. pehle woh padh ke aao. 😆
i have had this kind of conversation with philosophy students. philosophically it is near impossible to know if any of our observations can be trusted. however, the physical sciences start with the assumption that if multiple experiences correlate then the observations are reliable (not "trusted"). it is an important hack we need to get work done. no professors of science talk about it but they should.
Contact Dr. Zakir Naik if you really want to know the answers to your questions… We all want to see it . Take the love ❤
Propagandist😅😂
medical doctor ke alawa aur koi nahi mila brother??
@@spuriusscapula4829 Jii brother
Let me try to make it clear.
May be.....
Your green is my blue and my green is your blue.
But if both of us see an object which appears to me as green and which appears to be blue to you, but whatever we see we agree that its one object and we agree to give it a common name.
If we name it red, then my green which is your blue is red for the language.
So all my greens will be green for me and I will call it red.
Your blue will be blue for you always you will call it red.
Both of us will be calling it red, but can we be sure that it appears to be same to both???
So knowledge is never 100% or knowledge is not defined to be something 100%.
😅 that's what vimoh said 99% he doesn't need to have 100% it's far enough to refute the argument some mysterious being farted and universe came into existence.
arre bhai.. your green and my blue thodi hota hai. you dont get to decide that blue is green or that green is red.
The point of language is that we have collectively decided/predecided that the greenscreen is a greenscreen because we collectively agree what green looks like to us. cant call it redscreen and say that its "my truth" . chal bsdk! These are objective and collective facts.
If you want to get into subjective truths in this example, it would be something like you saying 'I like green, it make me FEEL good, or it's my favorite color or I hate green' stuff like that and I can't really disagree with your experience. I can however disagree with you about my feelings of green.
Hey vimoh Iam Atheist Like You❤❤❤
Consciousness is different from matter because when a person is alive and when is dead if we compare the weight we won't find any difference so how can you say matter= consciousness
Caller ko hallucinations ki theory bhi padhna chahiye..! And become a seeker.
Sup, this was a surprise just was glancing through youtube and this pops up
But one fire plus one water one or tow or zero?
The number 0 ko agar kisi bhi non zero number se add karenge toh NON ZERO number hi aayege
Bhai ko intuition and logical reasoning me difference nhi malum hai. Apna point prove karne ke liye kuch bhi bol rahe hai.
if matters can create consciousness ness, then why can't we bring dead back to life..
as mordern human knows each cell of human body and how it functions.. then why a dead person can't be brought back to life ?
replace damaged part and bring the dead man alive..
this question really shook me
If a lamp is burning and the flame goes out, will it burn again when we refill the oil?
no but we can light it up...
exactly my point
who gives that first kick..
in a mother's womb when the first heart bit starts, who turns on ignition... what is that..
and once turned on it beats till one dies..
also human knows how a heart functions each artery vains chamber etc etc.. then why can't we restart a dead heart and run it for another 70 years
@@vimohwho lights that flame in us and what is that flame
It'll be a flame. But would it be the same flame?
why my replies aren't showing
bro confused solipsism with advaita
Aresir 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻very very good sir ❤❤❤❤
Epic discussion
With due respect, i would like to say that , it's not the Brahmins only who are authoritative to explain Vedas...there are many non Brahmins who have a good command in vedas...A greater example is Swami Vivekanand..maata Amrityamayi who was both non Brahmin and ladies too...and second thing, labeling that Brahmins are authoritative is not fitting suitable to scholars like you, we should remember that it was the Brahmins who were also came forward to reform Hinduism like dayanand saraswati and many more...
But vedas are not true but lies so vedas should be thrown into dustbin, in order to live a peaceful life.
14:23 😂😂😂😂
I have concluded that Advaita is just some philosopher's frustration with the inefficiency of human language or worse, his own frustration in not using language efficiently
The same reason why I prefer modern expositions rather than Traditional ones.
Traditional ones will mess up the thing,unless you totally buy their framework.
Indian epistemology relies on absolute certainty, which will appear too theoretical for practical purposes.
(Not saying all schools did so)
Woh aapko unke andar nahi lete Vimoh Sir bas aapki baaton ko le raha hain... You need to be careful I guess😂
11:37
Consciousness is nothing but electrical impulses inside the brain.
Is AI like chat gpt Are concious
This is a ridiculous discussion. What is the main objective of believing in something? Is the objective of believing in Ram the same as believing in Jesus? The concept of ex-"hindu" itself is cringe. What are you excommunicating from exactly? what is "hindu"? To say, philosophy can be explained to anyone simply.... is a false statement.
good spirited guy he was
Jay bhim 💙 sir
I think that the person is little correct,
Think about the tree, there are 300 million colour blind people in the world, for them the tree will not be green,
By various researches we know that various species don't see colours as we see colours,
Then the actually what is the colour of the tree ?
Is the green which I see is just made by brain and processing light.
What I am hearing is not what I am understanding, it was actually just a bunch of vibrations, it is actually my brain which processing those vibrations and making a meaning out of out ?
Isn't it ?
it is same philosophy as j krishna Murthy u know
This is what we call Galua
गूंगे आदमी को भी गुड़ मीठा लगता है।
Kaun tha ye banda and chahta kya tha
Very good debate
Mera question hai ki aap atheist hai toh jab aap marenge toh apke sath kya hoga apko jalaya jayega ya dafan kiya jayega
Agar koi god nahi hai toh thik hai aap bhi bach jayenge aur hum bhi jayenge jahannam se par tb kya hoga jab marne ke baad pata chale ki god exist krta hai toh god ko manne mein uske exist manne mein koi burayi nahi hai marne ke baad kuch nahi raha toh best hai tum bhi safe hum bhi safe but just think what happen when god exist..the choice is yours
Are bhai agr God exist bhi krta hoga to aisa thodi hogi ki wo Khud ki worship krvana chahta hoga or chahta hoga ki saare usko respect kre bina jaane ki wo exist krta hai. Agar aisa krvana hai to pehle koi proof to hona chahiye na ki wo exist krta hai or Religious books proof ni hai uske hone ka yeh saari humans ne likhi hai khud ke fayde ke liye
I like Vimoh debates on science and philosophy.
Bhai kaise jhelte ho in logon ko😢😢
Yeh speaker bolna kya chaah raha tha, samjha nahi
In Atheism , is it like we have to deny the historical existence of 'people' like Krishn and Ram , and regard them mere mythological characters?
I'd rather say that they were pure humans, the mystical stories related to them are just mere exaggeration about there persona..people put them in the cage called 'Temple' , and said we cannot follow what they did because they are Gods and we are humans.very similar to what happend with Buddh and Mahavir.
My Atheism would regard them all as 'Great Souls' , The 'Maha-atmans' (Not mystical..purely humanly)
No people will say that " you read the wrong english translations written by missionaries, westerners to show hindus in a bad light".
Is aadmi ko sapne se nikalo. Salute to Vimoh for patience.
There are 30 known constants of the universe, and if only one of them differed by 0.001%, nothing would exist. So, there must be a higher entity that fine-tuned the universe very precisely, keeping it from unchanging; otherwise, nothing would be possible. The idea of an infinite regression is impossible because we exist. If it were infinite, we wouldn't be at this stage. Therefore, there must be a beginning, a final cause that doesn't have any cause to exist, proving our existence. This entity is referred to as a higher power and possesses attributes at an omni level. In Islam, it is called the one and only God, 'Allah.'
Vimoh Bhai, ye Jo janab hain inko jalebi banakar bechni chahiye, ye bohot ghumate hai
God is in Maths
Then Give me a mathematical equation or a derivation to prove the existence of God.
@@ShivKumar-vs8yt binary 110
❤❤❤❤❤
Acha hua aap astronout nahi bane 😂😂