its not my theory stupid fuck, it did answer you directly in fact i spoonfeed you way too much but you are too stupid to understand it. my fault? its not my problem you are born stupid
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Roger Penrose confirms what Buddha saw while in meditation.
- Thread starter kryonlight
- Start date
its not my theory stupid fuck, it did answer you directly in fact i spoonfeed you way too much but you are too stupid to understand it. my fault? its not my problem you are born stupid
stupid idiot, i answered you question by saying vacuum = energy. asking this question merely display your stupidity more. it merely shows that you are too dumb and stupid to understand the reply.
Last edited:
Since you crave for an answer, I will give you my Theravada Buddhist understanding of the answer. It goes like this:
Consciousness exists dependent on physical matter as a requisite condition.
Physical matter exists dependent on consciousness as a requisite condition.
When one exists, the other also exists. There is no Creator. There is only co-dependent existence.
I quote the Sheaves of Reeds sutta as the basis for my understanding.
"Just now, friend Sariputta, I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form' But then I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously.' However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?"
"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
You may also like to read this article by Ian J. Thompson:
Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: A Causal Correspondence Theory
`New' Metaphysics
These ideas have the possible disadvantage (or feature) that the operation of ordinary inert physical processes requires further analysis. Basically, since the propensities for physical processes derive from mental processes, all physical dispositions must derive (or have been derived from) some prior psychical level. This may sound like pan-psychism, but I am not saying that all physical processes include their own consciousnesses. There is a simpler solution, if you can accept the new metaphysics that there is some kind of Source, composed of suitable `psychic' propensities, from which everyday material propensities perpetually derive. Since the operation of this Source is always according to past physical events, we saw above that this operation amounts to the constant production of new propensities as if a `physical law' were prevailing. That is the way most scientists prefer to see the world. It is only that sometimes things are not so simple.
There may be some reaction to the apparent `dualism' in these ideas, as I have postulated minds existing separately from brains. However, this separation is only in our theory: in practice they need each other, and function together as a unified whole - as the person.
Unfortunately my fren. Big bang theory does not teach what you imagined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
It says nothing about vacuum energy being the source of the big bang at all.
You are just trying to BS here and it doesn't work and you end up looking like a fool. Ahahahahahahahah..............
cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
It says nothing about vacuum energy being the source of the big bang at all.
You are just trying to BS here and it doesn't work and you end up looking like a fool. Ahahahahahahahah..............
cheers
Last edited:
Since you call us Sir.
Then hurry up wash the toilet and mop the kitchen ! Don't be lazy bum !
try enter university and take some basic physics course for god sake.
this is an well established theory stupid fuck, in fact that video the forumer earlier just now explain it in details. by the way ignorant fuck, that fellow in the video is a leading famous physcist, not your lan jiao church pastor trying to bullshit what is science
Last edited:
told you, and you still wont listen. what to do? some people are just plain incorrigible.
A video on youtube says God created the universe sir. You believe?
A video can say anything about anything, the proof is in credible sources such as wikipedia.
You see, when confronted by credible sources, you just get stuck and can't explain your way out anymore.
In other words, you cannot explain what exploded and where did the energy came from.
wikipedia WAS NEVER A CREDIBLE SOURCE. and stupid fuck, go search who the hell is that fellow that gave the talks, and he hang out with who, yes youtube cannot be trusted IF ITS A VIDEO MAKE BY STUPID FUCK LIKE YOU.
i lost count how many times i answered this. u are merely too stupid to understand it, its not my fault that you are born stupid seriously.
Last edited:
I laugh until pengsang.......can't understand how come u guys have the stamina to entertain someone whose brain has got some loose screw......
Do a google on Wiki and u get:
"Wiki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
A wiki is a website which allows its users to add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a rich-text editor. Wikis ..."
Credible ???
as good as u, me and any of us who cares to input anything we wanted......that's all from me...and I shall be watching from the sideline for add'l entertainment...
you hit the nail squarely on the head.
it is definitely a waste of time to replay to Kinana.
unfortunately your stupid answer does not hold water too.
just because someone postulated this Big Bang Theory , you used it to counter an argument.
what makes you think that this theory is 100% correct.
and just to show your stupidity , suppose i accept the big bang theory of creation , it just prove that there is no creator god as you claimed.
hahaha..... wiki is a CREDIBLE source.....as credible as you, me or any tom dick and harry can edit it to be...
last one from me here else the screw in my brain got loosen.......with crackling nuts sound.......
wahahahaha.....as credible as you, me and anybody who can type whatever we like into wiki....
just wondering if this loose screw guy is an Admin [or shielded by admin] since several of my friend's post don't seem to be able to get approve....? u guys better be careful who is behind this forum watching and gathering information to go after u later.......
stupid fuck, i bet you never made pass O level. thanks for confirming your stupidity and education level via saying this silly statement. now everything is crystal clear why are you so stupid.
https://academicskills.anu.edu.au/resources/handouts/wikipedia-use-do-not-cite
told you to study harder, at least enter poly. EVEN IN LOCAL POLYTECHNICS WIKIPEDIA CITATION FOR FINAL YEAR PROJECT IS NEVER ALLOWED From this silly statement of yours, it very much confirm the fact that you have never made it pass O level.
Last edited:
Similar threads
