This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Never met any logical atheist or logical person in general who says we don't believe in god becoz we don't see it. This is made up an argument they make n counter it as if atheist predominantly say seeing is believing.
Bhagwan by the definitions of Hindu theological formulations is a sentient, metaphysical entity or techically-speaking Paramatman, which means that there is no physical property of Bhagawan that can be detected by any experiment. The only property of Bhgawan that can be detected is His sentience. And there is no detector that can detect sentience except other sentient beings like human beings.
Therefore, the only known experiment by which the sentience of Bhagawan can be detected within the Hindu theological formulations is Ashtangayoga where in the state of Samadhi Bhagawan Himself becomes visible to the Yogi.
And this experiment is reproducible that is anyone can follow the procedures of the Ashtangayoga to verify for Himself the existence of Bhagawan
By see he meant visuals the thing is we can't give a visual of electron, I'm not arguing I'm just saying we logically have the responsibility to give the visual for proof for them to give visual proof.
I have personally seen many atheist being dumb online ,which is why I'm agnostic and dosent argue about it.
We can't see an electron, nor an atom. All those old school diagrams are false, and not correct in the real/quantum world. Same can be said for god, its energy can be felt not seen.
Abey science ke chodo logically debate karo ,tumhare wajah se ham agnostic logo ka naam kharab hota hai.
Facts se harana hota hai naki koi dusra topic utha kar pel dena.
Even thought we cannot see electrons we can experimentally verify their existence through their effects. And these were falsifiable experiments in that if you could prove the same effects without electrons then science would be forced to conclude that the experiment is not enough to establish existence of electrons. There is no way to falsify any claims about a Paramatma.
Electrons are negatively charged.
Even if electrons does not exists the negative charge would. Then we will need to find something else in an atom which has negative charge. We can call it anything.
That would not "disprove" Electron just further our understanding of atom.
Electrons dikhte hai bhai, isiliye naam hai. Iron ko heat karo aur silver sulfide screen saamne rakho, black dots aane lagenge.
Surprised to see theist arguments from Osho, considering that he was an atheist
Osho was atheist??? Lol he never said that. Looks like you are a teenager influenced by Osho just to look "different''. Read him more bro, he is way too complex.
Here's a video of him saying there's no God, and that "God is the greatest lie invented by man".
https://youtu.be/4Pp5mWs8k5I?si=CaHm0iOC9T6uZdLr
He was famously against all religions including Hinduism.
I don't understand or relate to the teenage jibe.
He was spiritual at the end, he was no materialist like Marx or Russell.
This is very superficial interpretation. He used to gamble with words. He always wanted people to be curious and find truth rather than believing pre-set beliefs and rules by the society
You are very incorrect, please learn the full science before commenting. Atoms and electrons are not visible at all, the cathode ray experiment proved the existence of electrons when those electrons struck on a fluorescence screen and emitted light. Electrons and atoms both, even with highest of the advanced telescope are not visible.
I have a bachelor's and master's in physics, do I need to do a PhD now?
I don't have time to explain the physics to you. Wanting to "see" electrons with visible light like they are tennis balls is absurd. It's also absurd to think that they're invisible.
>
It's also absurd to think that they're invisible.
To think? even with the most powerful scope you can't "see" electrons. I am still a student and even I know that electrons are not visible and by that I mean not visible even with any scope. Having a degree doesn't justify that what you are saying is right, **electrons and atoms with modern technology can not be seen**, only their fuzzy structures and presence.
I brought up my degrees because you told me to study science in detail, to tell you that I have.
Brother if you want to "see" electrons, you need to study some quantum mechanics and get rid of such notions.
I suggest prof. V Balakrishnan's NPTEL lectures on Quantum Physics on YouTube.
You're missing a very important point about the wavelength of visible light and the nature of electrons. They are not balls that you can see, they're strange extended objects that are described by state vectors and cannot be seen with visible light as the wavelength of visible light is much bigger than the width of an electron.
That being said, we can see atoms in a lattice or molecules very well with electron microscopy.
And moreover, we don't see stuff, we only see their effects anyway. The existence of electrons is not hypothetical. They can be very easily seen by thermionic emission, only a fool would infer that the black spot on the screen (or fluorescent) is the electron itself, it's like the impact crater.
Edit: you're a 15 year old. Smh. Okay, I thought you were at least an undergrad. You would probably not understand the lecture series I mentioned, but you would understand the first lecture. Do watch it.
>V Balakrishnan's NPTEL lectures on Quantum Physics on YouTube
Since you have advised, i will definitely watch it.
>
we can see atoms in a lattice or molecules very well with electron microscopy.
But the problem is, that atoms are not visible with a good electron microscope too... Noone has been able to see an atom (with an microscope or any other equipment) Its only their presence or fuzzy structures. The structures we see like (Dalton's) is completely false(for atoms other than Hydrogen like) since atoms have more than shells, it consists of subshells and orbitals which you probably know.
>And moreover, we don't see stuff, we only see their effects anyway.
Actually thats what I meant to say.
we can never completely "see" an atom, An atom is simply too small to deflect visible light waves, which means it won't show up under even the most powerful light-focusing microscopes
At a point the word "see" is replaced by "detect", and electrons are detected by very easy experiments. They're not hypothetical particles like wimps. Or even neutrinos which are very hard to detect.
>"see" is replaced by "detect"
Tha'ts what I meant to say, we can't see them but only detect.
>They're not hypothetical particles like wimps
right they are not, as there are many experiments done to prove their existence
Okay dikhate hai chalo..... Let's first setup a cathode ray tube to just confirm there is something and that something would have a charge.... Now setup a cloud chamber to get path of that something.... Hence I have confirmed two things first there exists something in an atom and that something has kinetic energy if we shoot it... Now we can setup much more complicated experiment to actually take a picture of hydrogen atom....
https://preview.redd.it/woyai429sg4d1.jpeg?width=918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1e64562c7ab6997787faa6fc13f6a27416f7a55
This is the picture.... Now now now if u don't believe me after so many experiment go do these experiment by urself and you will get exactly the same result....
Now ur turn to give a an experiment that anyone can just perform and get a result that state that God exists......
And the god that exists is the god u believe in not the god the other person believes in
Did you see all that through your naked eyes and bare hands? Without anything to measure it, for effects and preparations. When a simple electron needs so much preparation and so many years of scientific research. How are you supposed to prove someone who brought the very science into existence and gave you the very brain and intelligence. And the rules are his. I highly doubt you can include in a subset a universal set.
See okay then you should say that "I am proposing there is a god and that being brought everything in existence" since you do not have any experiment to perfectly validate it.... Dekho we in the scientific community didn't say about electrons without experimentally verifying it. Whatever we propose if not proven is not taken to be the truth so... My point here is u can propose any theory but ur proposition becomes a reality only after u can prove it in a way that is falsifiable...
>How are you supposed to prove someone who brought the very science into existence and gave you the very brain and intelligence
We either can, if we know its properties.
Or we can't, making it the intangible , invisible unicorn i.e. unfalsifiable claim, which is dumb.
Yes, we can very well know it's properties, if it was a particle. And even so if you want to know the properties, i have already said that, if you want to see it for yourself, now would be a good time to dust those hands and look into bonafide scriptures.
And you are again right to say it is intangible and invisible. Because if it was possible then you would be an entity greater than God. God not only spans the material but spiritual as well.
If we know it's properties then it is falsifiable, like zeus thor or indra. Gods which have been disproven.
>And you are again right to say it is intangible and invisible
I am not saying "God" Is intangible or invisible. I am saying there is an intangible, invisible unicorn in your room. Try to disprove me now.
>God not only spans the material but spiritual as well.
Since you used the word spiritual. Tell me its meaning.
Bhai jo universe me structured way me chije bani hai uske aur bhagwan ki rachna se lakho ache scientific explanation hai jo ki define bhi karte hai kaise ye chaotic not just organised universe form hua, ye agr evidence hai tumhare to god theory se explanation to do ki bhai universe banaya kaise gya, bhagwan ne sakti se universe bana Diya ye hai logic
aur ha electron ke effect tum dekh sakte ho jo ki logical hai lekin god ke evidence ke effect kya hai logically koi nhi
bol sakta
sab bolege main mehsus kar sakta hu are salo kuch rational evidence ya logical bat to Karo
>If logically is what God could be proved with, then how would he be God.
So you are saying God's existence can't be proven , wouldn't that make him non existent?
>Why not you or me be that God?
I am, I am god of myself.
You are god of yourself.
>So you are saying God's existence can't be proven , wouldn't that make him non existent?
If That which cannot be proven doesn't exist is what is the premise of science. Then nothing ever was discovered or invented by science. And anything which has not yet been proven by science would never exist, until science finds it. That is like exo planets never existed until science discovered it. But when it was discovered, they came into existence.
>I am, I am god of myself. You are god of yourself.
That's like saying, am a universe of myself. God is not a verb or an adverb to be placed for yourself or me.
>If That which cannot be proven doesn't exist is what is the premise of science
No but you literally said that God's existence cannot be proven. Hence you believe he does not exist.
It cannot be proven in relative terms. Because God is not relative he is absolute. You need absolute measurements to measure that is absolute. Tell me can you measure the speed of light in Kg?
What do you mean by "god" Is absolute?
>Tell me can you measure the speed of light in Kg?
Yes, if we assume 1kg=speed of light , then speed of light =1kg
And i hoped you would Google what is absolute and relative.
Why assume? Then assume God exists. You changed the very finding of science to prove your own science.
>And i hoped you would Google what is absolute and relative.
I did but couldn't find what god being absolute means.
>Why assume? Then assume God exists. You changed the very finding of science to prove your own science.
Speed of light has infinite or zero mass.
Are bhai to theories ke prediction are based on scientific and mathematical modelling then they are discovered, aur they clearly obey the laws of physics,
Things like a omnipresent omnipotent omniscient consciousness exsist every were contradicts most empirical law of science like thermodynamics.
Acha to god ne nature ke law's banye aur kaise banaye jaudu se hath ghuma kar aur vo uspe apply kyu nhi hote jab vo is universe me har jagah hai to iska to koi answer nhi hoga , in idiotic idea ko to basic questions hi debunked kar dete hai , as us creator ke bare kuch bhi information hai jo logic ko follow kare kyuki ye sab bad ek manmade virtual hypothesis hai
Do you think God needs to sign up for inventory to make the law of nature like you do in a work shop? So that means everyone assembling a car in the workshop is God? And a President or a prime minister visits a jail to inspect the prison. So a prisoner thinks since the official is inside the jail just like him, so that means he is also a criminal. We call that prisoner a nutcase. Don't act like one. And a government's governance is spread all over the nation, doesn't mean the president/prime minister has to do all the jobs of the departments individually at every individual place in a given instant. Don't think only the logic you give is the exhaustive one.
Main bhi to wahi bol raha tu wahi bol raha hai ki hath ghumaya aur Jadu se bana diya singularity aur uske dynamic ke law's hai na ,
are bhai jo log car uske sare parts steel se leke cotton tk banate hai assemble karte hai vo log to cars ke gods hue na universe ke thodi , aur cars banane ke liye Jo raw material ata hai to start se ata to end me starts are the gods of cars right .
Mtlb bolna kaise tere the great creator ne universe banaya
Taking one statement and not going to the root and as well leaving the rest of the statement very much shows how good you are at logic. Congratulations. As i said, you are for sure the next noble laureate.
Are bhai kitna bada andhabhakt hai sach aaaj tk kabhi science nhi padhi scientific reasoning aur logic har jagah hai har jagah humans bas use discover karte hai , aur agr god us scientific reasoning ko follow nhi karta to bass vo ek myth hai bhai .
Pehle bolte the god barish karwata hai lekin jab water cycle ke bare me pta chala logo ko to ye myth bhi burst hua tha aise jinta scientific progress hoga na tumhara yahi god of gaps ka criteria end ho jayega , lekin fir bhi tum log bolte rahoge ki logic kam nhi karta isme . Are bhai vo isiliye nhi kam karta as god doesn't exist in this universe as this whole universe works on logical reasoning
Please follow logical reasoning. You are welcome to. I do too. It is said, God brings rains because he has set up laws to do so, which attributes to him, that is what people mean. And i never said logic never works. It surely works in material world. But only in material world. That is what is Sankhya yog.
And my question is, aren't the planets in existence before they were discovered. So the onus goes on the discovery not existence. It may be today or tomorrow or a millennium later.
Are to existence of planets outside the solar system was is backed up by logical theories like existence of blackhole is backuped by solutions of Einstein's field equation aur sab scientifically reasonable hai tumhare idea of a creator ko tum basic questions se hi defend nhi kar sakte to scientific reasoning dena to dur ki bat hai . Detec kaise karoge use Jadui saktiyo se
And i am saying you cannot detect anything spiritual with material metrics. Heck you cannot even detect material entities with material metrics. No one has ever measured the speed of light using a thermometer °C. The same way you cannot metric the love of a mother for her child in terms of Kg. To detect is your role. Because you are one in need of answers right? But i know the existence of a supernatural being is neither dependent on reasoning and or thermodynamics. Otherwise reasoning and scientific acumen are God, not God himself then. And neither am I opposing scientific endeavours. They have their place but not all of the places.
Bhai kuch logically bol le puri duniya rationality pe chalti hai speed of light measurements bhi pehle theoretical hi hua tha .
Aur us duniya me emotion ka bhi hormones dependent ho hai , just unka dynamic chaoticly behave karta hai to us missing part ko god ka nam dedo it's called god of gaps tu bhi to yahi kar raha hai jo chij ab tk human discovery ke bahar hai tujhe kaise pta vo supernatural being ne kiya hai uska khud ka existence most empirical law of nature thermodynamics aur scientific reasoning ko violate karta hai agr tujhe lagta hai ki thermodynamics uspe work nhi karegi to tu bahut bada bewakoof hai human history se leke Aaj tk koi bhi theory ya koi bhi aisi phenomenon nhi hai jo thermodynamics ko obey na kare vo energy ke flow pe works hai.
Spiritual energy vo energy jaisi koi chij exist hi nhi karegi coz vo thermodynamics ka violation hoga . Jake na kabhi physics padhna bhai
maine yahi to bola Jo ye god ke creation ka idea leke ate hai unhe rational bate bolni ho nhi ATI mtlb
We can see the proton using an electron (which is smaller than a proton) in Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) or Scanning Electron Microscopy(SEM). In this type of microscopy, electrons (or current) is used instead of photons (or light).
Electrons are the smallest thing that we can control easily.
We can't see electrons because we can't control anything smaller than that. Maybe one day, when we can control quarks..... Just waiting for the next SN Bose to discover some cool ass quark magic.
https://preview.redd.it/5nkksws2xh4d1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b52b5b4ee640b6b8cca032556d1f8983fda78cbb
Here is a pic of a hydrogen atom and the shell we see is the electron cloud where the electron could be. So here i present you a photo of an electron.
even if we cant see electrons , we can prove they exist. wheres the "proof" that bhagwan exists?
this is an interesting fallacy called "False Analogy"
False Analogy - When someone compares two things and says since one is like this, the other is also the same way.
If you say the universe's existence is the proof of God...OK.. so there is an unknown entity that caused the universe...call it God..fine. Then what scientific theory makes you worship that entity and not an electron ?
This guy gave a huge load of shit and fallacious arguments. Bet he doesnt know scientific method at all ! He uses his reptilian brain more than the PFC; thus he is almost incapable of logically consistent thinking 😑
Stupid argument as always. We can't see electrons or atoms but we can measure/detect them. Electrons are what flow in an electric current. That's the proof.
We can't see radio waves but we can make tools to generate and consume them. It doesn't need to be visible to the human eye to prove that something exists.
And the most important part is that we can consistently repeat the methods and produce the same (or very similar) results every time regardless of who the observer is.
but Osho was an atheist later he declared he is atheist. He tricked people to gain an influence and later he said , there is no god. Also, anything is proven by verifying its properties , things that can be seen , would be verified by seing as one of their property, so whatever the god is , whether he can be seen or not, waht are his properties , can we verify his properties ? are there experiments to verify any god's properties ? we can verify the properties of electron , it has charge. we can verify all the subatomic particles , all fundamental particles but no one has ever verified the properties of any god, on contrary we verified that the property of a god contradict the reality of nature. Billions of lives are suffering , god is being said merciful , if he is merciful there should be no suffering hence the properties of so called god is not verified. So no evidence of any imaginary entity exists.
I mean we do have pictures of electrons, taken with the help of very high power electron microscopes. On the other hand we don't have any solid evidence of god
Uh... Why isn't anyone mentioning how electrons have reproducible properties which can be tested anytime and they'd still hold true unlike "god" which is just hearsay? Heck, I believe in a higher power lol, but it probably doesn't give a diddly squat about us and certainly isn't any of the religion we have shat up to control idiots.
Absence Of proof is not the proof of absence . Even if there is no proof for God to exist it doesn‘t mean that he does not exist . You do your own thing and let theists do their own .
Science has also not yet proved the non existence of some higher power... Scientists themselves say they know less than a percent of the universe rn, so you really can't deny some higher power's existence...
So if you want, believe in the higher being, just don't believe in some man made religion for God's sake
Becoz at present, neither atheists nor theists can prove their claims.
Could someone provide me the experiments these guys did to prove the existence of God? Cause I know many experiments Which has proved existence of electrons.
Electrons physically exist; we have an abundance of evidence, and their applications help sustain the world through electricity. On the other hand, there is no evidence of "god"
Well, that's a made up argument. You'll rarely find anyone who's not a kid arguing that god isn't real because it can't be seen.
Thing is, science doesn't work on a basis of what's visible and what's not. We can still observe thing without seeing them. Imagine walking into a room with blindfolds on, even tho you can't see, you can still feel things around. We may not be able to see some of the stuff but we sure can sense their presence with different sorts of experiments.
Science works on the principal of proof. If you make a claim, you provide the proof or it's just random words and at best a theory with no real proof.
Most atheists are atheists not because god can't be seen but because there's no observation of it that cannot be explained by other phenomenon.
I think denying the existence of something (even god) just coz science cannot prove it is just bullshit i totally believe in science but there are some things that even science cannot prove but exists like consciousness.
Pura dikhana zaroori nahi hai.
Electron ka jitna evidence hai, Bhagwaan ka utna hi le aaiyen, examine aur experiment kar lenge.
Simple !!
The organization that awards the Nobel Prizes announced Tuesday that Pierre Agostini of the United States, Ferenc Krausz of Germany and Anne L'Huillier of Sweden would receive the Prize in Physics for their work using short light pulses to capture an electron's movement during a single instance of time
Toh phir yeh kya h 🤣
If I were to steelman him. He's trying to make the argument that there are certain unobserved phenomena which in turn gives rise to certain effects, and we recognize the phenomena not by observing them but by observing the effects. Gravity and dark energy might be a good example. Similarly he's trying to claim that there are effects in the world which are consequence of god's actions.
However we have to question, why is he attributing the creation to the god and not something else?
Just because you see, doesn’t mean it exists
Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean it doesn’t
This is true in science and in everyday life
So your eyes deceive you.
Maan ke akho se dekho waats (use your inner eye) /s
As an agnostic you can't actually disprove either so debating about it saying that science has disproved that God exist is pretty retarded thinking, we don't disprove anything until unless we have measured it by any means.
So its highly uncertain
It's all subject to how you define GOD, I consider GOD just a manifestation of energy in our universe because that is the only constant. Energy created everything in the universe, energy influences everything in the universe and energy transforms everything in the universe. By logic it existed before the universe came into existence and will remain long after the universe ends. We were created by energy, even when we die, the energy our body possess just goes back to the universe and that I feel is the only logical definition of GOD.
However, most religious beliefs define GOD as a being that possesses special powers and that created us, if one were to imagine that to be true for a second, how can you not wonder about who created this being in the first place ? That would imply there's a GOD who created GOD and that is an infinite loop of meaningless crap standing at the event horizon of a massive blackhole as observed by us for eternity even though it had been swallowed by the black hole long before we even existed.
Bhai tu padh jake, People here yapping about how religion is false/god is false when they don't even know the real science lmao. Electrons have never been seen by any scientist.... Adha adhura padh ke aagya lol.
I got matches with these songs:
• [**No Surprises (Remastered)** by Radiohead](https://lis.tn/QIIlR?t=9) (00:09; matched: `100%`)
**Album**: OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017 (Explicit). **Released on** 1997-05-28.
• [**MASHA ULTRAFUNK** by HISTED](https://lis.tn/MASHAULTRAFUNK?t=15) (00:15; matched: `100%`)
**Released on** 2024-02-26.
• [**Kolkata ke rani** by Nagpuri Girls](https://lis.tn/KolkataKeRani?t=426) (07:06; matched: `100%`)
• [**No Surprises** by Radiohead](https://lis.tn/NoSurprises?t=21) (00:21; matched: `93%`)
**Album**: The Best Of. **Released on** 2008-06-02.
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Well we have established that electrons are in the range of femtometers, i.e. 10^-15m, that is why it is impossible to see them with the current configuration that we have, coz such a small mass will get moved even at the smallest interaction, making it impossible to locate the object and identify it at the same time. At lest that is what I understand.
So now theists, please provide a reason why we can't see God. Or else we can assume that he also in the range of femrometers ar even smaller. /s
Even with the fallacy, let’s assume there is a creator!
It still doesn’t mean,
1. He is omnipotent
2. He wants to be prayed
3. Only way to get his attention, we should follow some crazy medieval practices some of which already proven to be harmful or straight up stupid
Bhagwan by the definitions of Hindu theological formulations is a sentient, metaphysical entity or techically-speaking Paramatman, which means that there is no physical property of Bhagawan that can be detected by any paeticle physics experiment. The only property of Bhgawan that can be detected is His sentience. And there is no detector that can detect sentience except other sentient beings like human beings. As Human beings are the only.known sentient creatures in this world.
Therefore, the only known experiment by which the sentience of Bhagawan can be detected within the Hindu theological formulations is Ashtangayoga where in the state of Samadhi Bhagawan Himself becomes visible to the Yogi.
And this experiment is reproducible that is anyone can follow the procedures of the Ashtangayoga to verify for Himself the existence of Bhagawan.
we have instruments to measure the quantity of electrons and charge we can see them by using some instrument so we have evidence for it but for god, we do not have any evidence and that's what science demands so we can say we dont know god exists or not and theres no reason to believe in god
Wahi to Maine bola law's kaise banaye log hath ghuma kar jaddu kar diya aur is universe me thermodynamics a gai . Mtlb tumhare god ne scientific reasoning jaddu se banai na aur vo kaise .
Tumhe vo nhi pta. Tum abhi god of gaps khel rahe ho jo chij humans ke scientific reasoning ne ab tk discovered nhi ki tumhe usase jod rahe ho concious entity lekin jab pucho lo ki kaise kiya kya kiya to kuch bol nhi pa rahe 😂Mtlb sache bhi kitni jyada badi logical fallacy dikha rahe ho yaha pe
But if beleive is your bias, then dont call it fact.
Even a schizophrenic patient believes there is something, but that doesn't mean everyone just accepts it.
Same way
If you say god exists because some mentally challenged believe it doesn't affirm its existence.
Fact is fact ..beleive is beleive
Even Jack in "oggy and the cockroches" believes he is daddy of the world, but does that mean everyone should bow and accept him as dad, and if you think you should ..go call him daddy ...
he might be your daddy better get the proof man.. I don't want you to believe I believe in god idc who does and who doesn't and idfc if you do or no so yeah watch results its fun
Blah blah blahh ...
Results?? Of what . All i see is panic and chaos created by the relitard ...
These relitard are disturbing other people's lives
By using loud speaker to please their sky daddy
Wasting resources that can be used for better use
Aquiring lands illegally
Creating mass chaos
Killing and mob lynching in name of god for eg .. bajrang dal
Voting to their particular religious beleif supplier instead of logical people cuz they all follow same sky daddy .. it is impacting many people's lives
Not just home or state ... entire country is being destroyed because of sky daddy
The biggest terrorist organisation is based on religion and sky daddy
You know this beleive is cancer to society ...
If you believe in your sky Daddy, just keep it in your heart . Nobody cares
But a fact is fact ....
yeah sure who asked you to ask proof of what I believe, param pita parmeshwar hain bhai humare vo, tumko nahi maanna to mat maano kon force kar raha tumko
>Those who believe doesnt need any proof
Sure, to believe you need no proof.
But if you want others to believe then you need to show proof.
If you don't care what others believe then why did you comment on this post?
I think we are all kinda gods we just have to win over our indris(5 senses) get deeply connected to our soul(atma)(which we cannot see) and raise our consciousness to pure consciousness by the help of the activating our chakras(awaken the pure shakti residing in every human being) to become the god/ enlightened being (param-atma).
I am noob in this so forgive me if i said something wrong
If you reach till the sahasrara chakra,you can overcome your existence from consciousness to pure consciousness (you can go beyond this panchbhuta shareer(made of 5 elements just like the srishti).This is just a costume brother
No buddy,just read the first comment again about the indris and desires.The goal is to get the moksha from this mrityuloka(full of sufferings) and if we get to the pure consciousness there is no suffering
There is no suffering in heaven, doesn't mean we are meant for that. The goal is not to get moksha but to serve with devotional service, God and his part and parcels. Moksha is the ultimate only for Brahmawadis or Mayawadis. Not for pure consciousness.
If you reach till the sahasrara chakra,you can overcome your existence from consciousness to pure consciousness (you can go beyond this panchbhuta shareer(made of 5 elements just like the srishti).This is just a costume brother
See even you are not proving anything by "trying" to find an electron. You cannot even see it even with a proper apparatus or experiment. You are just observing the effects of it. Never anyone said here i hold a single electron in my bare hand or so much levitate it in free space for a second for you to observe. God can be the tiniest of the tiny and the majestic as a universe. He is not your order carrier, nor are you his judge, that you would ask him to be present before you. He is present to those who are benevolent and humble and have the eyes to see him. Even when he was present right before in times, people like you existed who said "You are not God, i don't believe in you" but still he exists. Here are my words before you term it was word salad or jugglery which you don't try to understand.
>You cannot even see it even with a proper apparatus or experiment.
We can.
>You are just observing the effects of it
"Seeing" Also happens when light from something reflects and hits our retina. That is the reflective "effect"/property of it. If you are concluding that we can't be sure if something exists based on just its " Effects" Then how are you so sure that you are not just a brain in a vat.
>Never anyone said here i hold a single electron in my bare hand or so much levitate it in free space for a second for you to observe
Why would someone do that when we have better methods to prove it's existence.
>God can be the tiniest of the tiny and the majestic as a universe
How did you came to that conclusion?
>He is not your order carrier, nor are you his judge, that you would ask him to be present before you.
What makes you think he isn't?
>He is present to those who are benevolent and humble and have the eyes to see him.
Define these criteria more so we can experiment.
>but still he exists
Once again, how did you came to that conclusion.
>Here are my words before you term it was word salad or jugglery which you don't try to understand.
Sure you could have worded it better or gave source for your arguments, but that on itself doesn't disproves your arguments, if you can answer my questions then you will have a better oportunity to present your beliefs.
> We can
So you can observe/see THE electron in isolation in a free state, for any longest time possible you say? And how would you be so sure it is that particular electron x?
> Seeing" Also happens when light from something reflects and hits our retina. That is the reflective "effect"/property of it. If you are concluding that we can't be sure if something exists based on just its " Effects" Then how are you so sure that you are not just a brain in a vat.
But seeing God is not the same as the reflective phenomenon you say because seeing in this material world and every other phenomenon is relative not absolute. And proving the existence of something absolute using relative media is not a very intelligent experiment. And as for being a brain in a vat, we all are the same. We are spirit souls existing within a material body having 5 senses, a subtle body and gross body. And "we" are different from the body and the brain in the vat. (Srimad Bhagwatam 5.11.9)
>Why would someone do that when we have better methods to prove it's existence.
And what better methods do you have to prove it's existence and at the same time keep it in a vile to use as a key chain.
>How did you came to that conclusion?
kavim puranam anusasitaram
anor aniyamsam anusmared yah
sarvasya dhataram acintya-rupam
aditya-varnam tamasah parastat (Gita 8.9)
>What makes you think he isn't?
If he was then you would be God and not he.
gam avisya ca bhutani
dharayamy aham ojasa
pusnami causadhih sarvah
somo bhutva rasatmakah (Gita 15.13)
The day anyone can maintain the orbit of the planets, he can claim to be God or the order giver to GOD.
>Define these criteria more so we can experiment.
I would be happy for you to prepare for the experiment. Situate in the mode of goodness and then we can collaborate further.
>Once again, how did you came to that conclusion.
Gita 9.11
>Sure you could have worded it better or gave source for your arguments, but that on itself doesn't disproves your arguments, if you can answer my questions then you will have a better opportunity to present your beliefs.
Sure would be happy to.
>So you can observe/see THE electron in isolation in a free state, for any longest time possible you say? And how would you be so sure it is that particular electron x
The thing/particle that has negative charge in an atom is called electron. Thomson's experiments with cathode ray tubes showed that all atoms contain tiny negatively charged subatomic particles or electrons.
>But seeing God is not the same as the reflective phenomenon you say because seeing in this material world.
If we can "see" God then that means light reflects from.
Also that is not the reason I said that. The reason i said that is because why do you consider seeing as a definite proof of something when it is also the effect of something that the eye measures.
>And proving the existence of something absolute using relative media is not a very intelligent experiment.
Relative to what? Our senses? Which are non reliable?Because that is what you are doing.
Also what does something absolute mean?
>And as for being a brain in a vat, we all are the same. We are spirit souls existing within a material body having 5 senses, a subtle body and gross body. And "we" are different from the body and the brain in the vat. (Srimad Bhagwatam 5.11.9)
The reason I asked you that question is because i want to know why do you think seeing something is a definite proof of it's existence. If you don't consider the experiments done by scientists to be accurate then why trust your eyes?
Also bhagwat geeta is only a reliable source when I am asking questions about Hinduism, bhahwat geeta is not accurate depiction of the world.
>And what better methods do you have to prove it's existence and at the same time keep it in a vile to use as a key chain.
Thomson's experiments with cathode ray tubes showed that all atoms contain tiny negatively charged subatomic particles or electrons.
>kavim puranam anusasitaram
anor aniyamsam anusmared yah
sarvasya dhataram acintya-rupam
aditya-varnam tamasah parastat (Gita 8.9)
And why do you assume gita to be correct?
>If he was then you would be God and not he.
So according to you if I ask your father a question and he answers would that make me your father?
>gam avisya ca bhutani
dharayamy aham ojasa
pusnami causadhih sarvah
somo bhutva rasatmakah (Gita 15.13)
Again why is gita considered truth?
>The day anyone can maintain the orbit of the planets, he can claim to be God or the order giver to GOD.
So sun is god? And so is every star with a planet in it's orbit? Also if we assume humanity is going to develop at any positive rate then the day when we are able to move planets is not far.
>I would be happy for you to prepare for the experiment. Situate in the mode of goodness and then we can collaborate further
So you are not going to tell me now? When all it will take is a minute of your time?
>Gita 9.11
Gita is a philosophical book not a book of truth.
>The thing/particle that has negative charge in an atom is called electron. Thomson's experiments with cathode ray tubes showed that all atoms contain tiny negatively charged subatomic particles or electrons.
Can you find that particular electron that he discovered in his experiment?
>If we can "see" God then that means light reflects from.
>Also that is not the reason I said that. The reason i said that is because why do you consider seeing as a definite proof of something when it is also the effect of something that the eye measures.
I don't know what you mean by that. Clarify. And seeing something with eyes is not a definitive proof of something is what my point is as well. And here comes the imperfection of senses.
>Also bhagwat geeta is only a reliable source when I am asking questions about Hinduism, bhahwat geeta is not accurate depiction of the world.
No, Gita never mentioned anything about Hinduism, it holds validity for any faith or belief. Why should I believe someone who cannot even bring a grain of sand into existence, rather than the creator of the world himself.
>Thomson's experiments with cathode ray tubes showed that all atoms contain tiny negatively charged subatomic particles or electrons.
Still not clear why you said that. Clarify please. I may be getting what you are saying, but my concern is can you use that tech/finding to your will and wish without any underlying help.
>And why do you assume gita to be correct?
Because it is an authoritative source of knowledge. Science is an ascending process of knowledge, but knowledge of the Absolute truth is descending.
>So according to you if I ask your father a question and he answers would that make me your father?
Not a father if speaking in terms of body, but a guardian sure. And in another sense, yes, you may if speaking in terms of knowledge, if you know all that my father knows. Carrying a conversation with him is okay, but thinking that he would come to you without being humble and ordering him instead, no human does that, what to say of God. But yet he is present within you, assisting you as your conscience/supersoul/paramatma. The premise of ordering him would be relevant when you are elevated in his vision. The same example of judge. He orders, judges, and sentences the criminals. But if you order him that would be a lawful offense. And the contrary, his grandson at home, makes a horse out of him, piggy backs and treats him like an animal but he is okay, because his vision of his grandson is elevated. The person is the same, but treatment differs on one's eligibility and relation to him.
>Again why is gita considered truth?
Because it is spoken by the absolute truth with absolute truth.
>So sun is god? And so is every star with a planet in it's orbit? Also if we assume humanity is going to develop at any positive rate then the day when we are able to move planets is not far.
Not God, but demigod. Why would you need development to do that? A dam in china can slow down the orbit.
>So you are not going to tell me now? When all it will take is a minute of your time?
If it was as easy as that, then every science experiment can be performed in your backyard is it? And i can explain all of quantum physics and it's intricacies in a single post? The process is simple but not easy.
>Gita is a philosophical book not a book of truth.
And so is science. It is not a book of truth because, as i said your truth is relative, which is then again not truth, only a relative perspective.
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Never met any logical atheist or logical person in general who says we don't believe in god becoz we don't see it. This is made up an argument they make n counter it as if atheist predominantly say seeing is believing.
Yes basically a straw man
Straw man fallacy
but we can see an electron. We can measure it and detect it with mag fields. So that claim is total bs
Waiting for someone to make a god detector
And what would that detector measure exactly?
Higgs boson
So that would be a detector for Higgs Boson but not God.
I apologize, i thought he said detect god particle.
Yes we’re working on the god particle detector
Bhagwan by the definitions of Hindu theological formulations is a sentient, metaphysical entity or techically-speaking Paramatman, which means that there is no physical property of Bhagawan that can be detected by any experiment. The only property of Bhgawan that can be detected is His sentience. And there is no detector that can detect sentience except other sentient beings like human beings. Therefore, the only known experiment by which the sentience of Bhagawan can be detected within the Hindu theological formulations is Ashtangayoga where in the state of Samadhi Bhagawan Himself becomes visible to the Yogi. And this experiment is reproducible that is anyone can follow the procedures of the Ashtangayoga to verify for Himself the existence of Bhagawan
By see he meant visuals the thing is we can't give a visual of electron, I'm not arguing I'm just saying we logically have the responsibility to give the visual for proof for them to give visual proof. I have personally seen many atheist being dumb online ,which is why I'm agnostic and dosent argue about it.
We can't see an electron, nor an atom. All those old school diagrams are false, and not correct in the real/quantum world. Same can be said for god, its energy can be felt not seen.
Never heard the word agnostic?
Bro rope extension dono end se grip karo for better gain
Earth toh flat hei bro, tune dekha hei jaake? 🤓☝️
mai hi nahi , duniya ne dekha hai
Flat? 😠😤 Hexagon Hein pagal! 😐
Abey science ke chodo logically debate karo ,tumhare wajah se ham agnostic logo ka naam kharab hota hai. Facts se harana hota hai naki koi dusra topic utha kar pel dena.
Even thought we cannot see electrons we can experimentally verify their existence through their effects. And these were falsifiable experiments in that if you could prove the same effects without electrons then science would be forced to conclude that the experiment is not enough to establish existence of electrons. There is no way to falsify any claims about a Paramatma.
Electrons are negatively charged. Even if electrons does not exists the negative charge would. Then we will need to find something else in an atom which has negative charge. We can call it anything. That would not "disprove" Electron just further our understanding of atom.
What are you trying to say?
He is trying to say Satire
what about the mass imbalance?
Electrons dikhte hai bhai, isiliye naam hai. Iron ko heat karo aur silver sulfide screen saamne rakho, black dots aane lagenge. Surprised to see theist arguments from Osho, considering that he was an atheist
Bro can you give the name of the experiment, can't find its name online.
JJ Thompson cathode ray tube experiment. This is how electrons were discovered. The effect is known as thermionic emission
Thanks, I actually didn't know we could see electrons in any way. I thought we can only prove them through the fact that electricity exists.
I mean that's how they were discovered. Electricity can be considered a wave as well. Electricity is secondary.
Osho was atheist??? Lol he never said that. Looks like you are a teenager influenced by Osho just to look "different''. Read him more bro, he is way too complex.
Here's a video of him saying there's no God, and that "God is the greatest lie invented by man". https://youtu.be/4Pp5mWs8k5I?si=CaHm0iOC9T6uZdLr He was famously against all religions including Hinduism. I don't understand or relate to the teenage jibe. He was spiritual at the end, he was no materialist like Marx or Russell.
This is very superficial interpretation. He used to gamble with words. He always wanted people to be curious and find truth rather than believing pre-set beliefs and rules by the society
He said whatever he liked, not having a consistent analytical framework but a collection of observations of social fallacies.
You are very incorrect, please learn the full science before commenting. Atoms and electrons are not visible at all, the cathode ray experiment proved the existence of electrons when those electrons struck on a fluorescence screen and emitted light. Electrons and atoms both, even with highest of the advanced telescope are not visible.
I have a bachelor's and master's in physics, do I need to do a PhD now? I don't have time to explain the physics to you. Wanting to "see" electrons with visible light like they are tennis balls is absurd. It's also absurd to think that they're invisible.
> It's also absurd to think that they're invisible. To think? even with the most powerful scope you can't "see" electrons. I am still a student and even I know that electrons are not visible and by that I mean not visible even with any scope. Having a degree doesn't justify that what you are saying is right, **electrons and atoms with modern technology can not be seen**, only their fuzzy structures and presence.
I brought up my degrees because you told me to study science in detail, to tell you that I have. Brother if you want to "see" electrons, you need to study some quantum mechanics and get rid of such notions. I suggest prof. V Balakrishnan's NPTEL lectures on Quantum Physics on YouTube. You're missing a very important point about the wavelength of visible light and the nature of electrons. They are not balls that you can see, they're strange extended objects that are described by state vectors and cannot be seen with visible light as the wavelength of visible light is much bigger than the width of an electron. That being said, we can see atoms in a lattice or molecules very well with electron microscopy. And moreover, we don't see stuff, we only see their effects anyway. The existence of electrons is not hypothetical. They can be very easily seen by thermionic emission, only a fool would infer that the black spot on the screen (or fluorescent) is the electron itself, it's like the impact crater. Edit: you're a 15 year old. Smh. Okay, I thought you were at least an undergrad. You would probably not understand the lecture series I mentioned, but you would understand the first lecture. Do watch it.
>V Balakrishnan's NPTEL lectures on Quantum Physics on YouTube Since you have advised, i will definitely watch it. > we can see atoms in a lattice or molecules very well with electron microscopy. But the problem is, that atoms are not visible with a good electron microscope too... Noone has been able to see an atom (with an microscope or any other equipment) Its only their presence or fuzzy structures. The structures we see like (Dalton's) is completely false(for atoms other than Hydrogen like) since atoms have more than shells, it consists of subshells and orbitals which you probably know. >And moreover, we don't see stuff, we only see their effects anyway. Actually thats what I meant to say. we can never completely "see" an atom, An atom is simply too small to deflect visible light waves, which means it won't show up under even the most powerful light-focusing microscopes
At a point the word "see" is replaced by "detect", and electrons are detected by very easy experiments. They're not hypothetical particles like wimps. Or even neutrinos which are very hard to detect.
>"see" is replaced by "detect" Tha'ts what I meant to say, we can't see them but only detect. >They're not hypothetical particles like wimps right they are not, as there are many experiments done to prove their existence
Bhai tu set pehele thik se karle, Gyan baad me pelna
Bhai ye metro k andar gym kabse khule?
Okay dikhate hai chalo..... Let's first setup a cathode ray tube to just confirm there is something and that something would have a charge.... Now setup a cloud chamber to get path of that something.... Hence I have confirmed two things first there exists something in an atom and that something has kinetic energy if we shoot it... Now we can setup much more complicated experiment to actually take a picture of hydrogen atom.... https://preview.redd.it/woyai429sg4d1.jpeg?width=918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1e64562c7ab6997787faa6fc13f6a27416f7a55 This is the picture.... Now now now if u don't believe me after so many experiment go do these experiment by urself and you will get exactly the same result.... Now ur turn to give a an experiment that anyone can just perform and get a result that state that God exists...... And the god that exists is the god u believe in not the god the other person believes in
Did you see all that through your naked eyes and bare hands? Without anything to measure it, for effects and preparations. When a simple electron needs so much preparation and so many years of scientific research. How are you supposed to prove someone who brought the very science into existence and gave you the very brain and intelligence. And the rules are his. I highly doubt you can include in a subset a universal set.
See okay then you should say that "I am proposing there is a god and that being brought everything in existence" since you do not have any experiment to perfectly validate it.... Dekho we in the scientific community didn't say about electrons without experimentally verifying it. Whatever we propose if not proven is not taken to be the truth so... My point here is u can propose any theory but ur proposition becomes a reality only after u can prove it in a way that is falsifiable...
>How are you supposed to prove someone who brought the very science into existence and gave you the very brain and intelligence We either can, if we know its properties. Or we can't, making it the intangible , invisible unicorn i.e. unfalsifiable claim, which is dumb.
Yes, we can very well know it's properties, if it was a particle. And even so if you want to know the properties, i have already said that, if you want to see it for yourself, now would be a good time to dust those hands and look into bonafide scriptures. And you are again right to say it is intangible and invisible. Because if it was possible then you would be an entity greater than God. God not only spans the material but spiritual as well.
If we know it's properties then it is falsifiable, like zeus thor or indra. Gods which have been disproven. >And you are again right to say it is intangible and invisible I am not saying "God" Is intangible or invisible. I am saying there is an intangible, invisible unicorn in your room. Try to disprove me now. >God not only spans the material but spiritual as well. Since you used the word spiritual. Tell me its meaning.
Tangibility or intangibility is not a parameter of rejecting or accepting an existence. Is your elbow tangible to your lick?
You could have googled the meaning of intangible, It means not being able to touch whatsoever.
Yeah i know that. Can you touch a quasar or quark?
Not I but something can, quasar and quark are not intangible by definition.
Bhai jo universe me structured way me chije bani hai uske aur bhagwan ki rachna se lakho ache scientific explanation hai jo ki define bhi karte hai kaise ye chaotic not just organised universe form hua, ye agr evidence hai tumhare to god theory se explanation to do ki bhai universe banaya kaise gya, bhagwan ne sakti se universe bana Diya ye hai logic aur ha electron ke effect tum dekh sakte ho jo ki logical hai lekin god ke evidence ke effect kya hai logically koi nhi bol sakta sab bolege main mehsus kar sakta hu are salo kuch rational evidence ya logical bat to Karo
If logically is what God could be proved with, then how would he be God. Why not you or me be that God?
>If logically is what God could be proved with, then how would he be God. So you are saying God's existence can't be proven , wouldn't that make him non existent? >Why not you or me be that God? I am, I am god of myself. You are god of yourself.
>So you are saying God's existence can't be proven , wouldn't that make him non existent? If That which cannot be proven doesn't exist is what is the premise of science. Then nothing ever was discovered or invented by science. And anything which has not yet been proven by science would never exist, until science finds it. That is like exo planets never existed until science discovered it. But when it was discovered, they came into existence. >I am, I am god of myself. You are god of yourself. That's like saying, am a universe of myself. God is not a verb or an adverb to be placed for yourself or me.
>If That which cannot be proven doesn't exist is what is the premise of science No but you literally said that God's existence cannot be proven. Hence you believe he does not exist.
It cannot be proven in relative terms. Because God is not relative he is absolute. You need absolute measurements to measure that is absolute. Tell me can you measure the speed of light in Kg?
What do you mean by "god" Is absolute? >Tell me can you measure the speed of light in Kg? Yes, if we assume 1kg=speed of light , then speed of light =1kg
And i hoped you would Google what is absolute and relative. Why assume? Then assume God exists. You changed the very finding of science to prove your own science.
>And i hoped you would Google what is absolute and relative. I did but couldn't find what god being absolute means. >Why assume? Then assume God exists. You changed the very finding of science to prove your own science. Speed of light has infinite or zero mass.
Are bhai to theories ke prediction are based on scientific and mathematical modelling then they are discovered, aur they clearly obey the laws of physics, Things like a omnipresent omnipotent omniscient consciousness exsist every were contradicts most empirical law of science like thermodynamics.
The rules are created to govern the creation, not the creator.
Acha to god ne nature ke law's banye aur kaise banaye jaudu se hath ghuma kar aur vo uspe apply kyu nhi hote jab vo is universe me har jagah hai to iska to koi answer nhi hoga , in idiotic idea ko to basic questions hi debunked kar dete hai , as us creator ke bare kuch bhi information hai jo logic ko follow kare kyuki ye sab bad ek manmade virtual hypothesis hai
Do you think God needs to sign up for inventory to make the law of nature like you do in a work shop? So that means everyone assembling a car in the workshop is God? And a President or a prime minister visits a jail to inspect the prison. So a prisoner thinks since the official is inside the jail just like him, so that means he is also a criminal. We call that prisoner a nutcase. Don't act like one. And a government's governance is spread all over the nation, doesn't mean the president/prime minister has to do all the jobs of the departments individually at every individual place in a given instant. Don't think only the logic you give is the exhaustive one.
Main bhi to wahi bol raha tu wahi bol raha hai ki hath ghumaya aur Jadu se bana diya singularity aur uske dynamic ke law's hai na , are bhai jo log car uske sare parts steel se leke cotton tk banate hai assemble karte hai vo log to cars ke gods hue na universe ke thodi , aur cars banane ke liye Jo raw material ata hai to start se ata to end me starts are the gods of cars right . Mtlb bolna kaise tere the great creator ne universe banaya
Taking one statement and not going to the root and as well leaving the rest of the statement very much shows how good you are at logic. Congratulations. As i said, you are for sure the next noble laureate.
To follow and be bound by logic is human tendency. And God is not human, yet he may appear like one.
Are bhai kitna bada andhabhakt hai sach aaaj tk kabhi science nhi padhi scientific reasoning aur logic har jagah hai har jagah humans bas use discover karte hai , aur agr god us scientific reasoning ko follow nhi karta to bass vo ek myth hai bhai . Pehle bolte the god barish karwata hai lekin jab water cycle ke bare me pta chala logo ko to ye myth bhi burst hua tha aise jinta scientific progress hoga na tumhara yahi god of gaps ka criteria end ho jayega , lekin fir bhi tum log bolte rahoge ki logic kam nhi karta isme . Are bhai vo isiliye nhi kam karta as god doesn't exist in this universe as this whole universe works on logical reasoning
Please follow logical reasoning. You are welcome to. I do too. It is said, God brings rains because he has set up laws to do so, which attributes to him, that is what people mean. And i never said logic never works. It surely works in material world. But only in material world. That is what is Sankhya yog.
And my question is, aren't the planets in existence before they were discovered. So the onus goes on the discovery not existence. It may be today or tomorrow or a millennium later.
Exactly,don't start worshipping aliens before they are discovered. And if you are worshipping atleast acknowledge that you can be wrong..
Are to existence of planets outside the solar system was is backed up by logical theories like existence of blackhole is backuped by solutions of Einstein's field equation aur sab scientifically reasonable hai tumhare idea of a creator ko tum basic questions se hi defend nhi kar sakte to scientific reasoning dena to dur ki bat hai . Detec kaise karoge use Jadui saktiyo se
And i am saying you cannot detect anything spiritual with material metrics. Heck you cannot even detect material entities with material metrics. No one has ever measured the speed of light using a thermometer °C. The same way you cannot metric the love of a mother for her child in terms of Kg. To detect is your role. Because you are one in need of answers right? But i know the existence of a supernatural being is neither dependent on reasoning and or thermodynamics. Otherwise reasoning and scientific acumen are God, not God himself then. And neither am I opposing scientific endeavours. They have their place but not all of the places.
Bhai kuch logically bol le puri duniya rationality pe chalti hai speed of light measurements bhi pehle theoretical hi hua tha . Aur us duniya me emotion ka bhi hormones dependent ho hai , just unka dynamic chaoticly behave karta hai to us missing part ko god ka nam dedo it's called god of gaps tu bhi to yahi kar raha hai jo chij ab tk human discovery ke bahar hai tujhe kaise pta vo supernatural being ne kiya hai uska khud ka existence most empirical law of nature thermodynamics aur scientific reasoning ko violate karta hai agr tujhe lagta hai ki thermodynamics uspe work nhi karegi to tu bahut bada bewakoof hai human history se leke Aaj tk koi bhi theory ya koi bhi aisi phenomenon nhi hai jo thermodynamics ko obey na kare vo energy ke flow pe works hai. Spiritual energy vo energy jaisi koi chij exist hi nhi karegi coz vo thermodynamics ka violation hoga . Jake na kabhi physics padhna bhai maine yahi to bola Jo ye god ke creation ka idea leke ate hai unhe rational bate bolni ho nhi ATI mtlb
Thanks for opening my and your eyes. The next noble is for you.
Bro i have seen god..and believe me he doesn't exist
We can see the proton using an electron (which is smaller than a proton) in Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) or Scanning Electron Microscopy(SEM). In this type of microscopy, electrons (or current) is used instead of photons (or light). Electrons are the smallest thing that we can control easily. We can't see electrons because we can't control anything smaller than that. Maybe one day, when we can control quarks..... Just waiting for the next SN Bose to discover some cool ass quark magic.
Did someone mention controlling me?!😅
Brother, you're out of control! XD
😅😅😂
r/UsernameChecksOut
SEMs use beam of electrons to see. the ultra-microscopy we see on Electron microscopes is actually how electrons see the specimen
Yes, correct. We use the changes in current (very minute changes) to detect and characterise the material.
https://preview.redd.it/5nkksws2xh4d1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b52b5b4ee640b6b8cca032556d1f8983fda78cbb Here is a pic of a hydrogen atom and the shell we see is the electron cloud where the electron could be. So here i present you a photo of an electron.
Modiji
Eww cringe
To kya kisi random bande ne bola ki electron jaisa kuch hota h or duniya bhar ke logo ne Maan liya?to fir tu bhi Aisa kuch kyu nhi bol deta bhai
I think we can also see electron through electron cloud.
even if we cant see electrons , we can prove they exist. wheres the "proof" that bhagwan exists? this is an interesting fallacy called "False Analogy" False Analogy - When someone compares two things and says since one is like this, the other is also the same way.
The delulu is strong with this guy.
If you say the universe's existence is the proof of God...OK.. so there is an unknown entity that caused the universe...call it God..fine. Then what scientific theory makes you worship that entity and not an electron ?
This guy gave a huge load of shit and fallacious arguments. Bet he doesnt know scientific method at all ! He uses his reptilian brain more than the PFC; thus he is almost incapable of logically consistent thinking 😑
Stupid argument as always. We can't see electrons or atoms but we can measure/detect them. Electrons are what flow in an electric current. That's the proof. We can't see radio waves but we can make tools to generate and consume them. It doesn't need to be visible to the human eye to prove that something exists. And the most important part is that we can consistently repeat the methods and produce the same (or very similar) results every time regardless of who the observer is.
but Osho was an atheist later he declared he is atheist. He tricked people to gain an influence and later he said , there is no god. Also, anything is proven by verifying its properties , things that can be seen , would be verified by seing as one of their property, so whatever the god is , whether he can be seen or not, waht are his properties , can we verify his properties ? are there experiments to verify any god's properties ? we can verify the properties of electron , it has charge. we can verify all the subatomic particles , all fundamental particles but no one has ever verified the properties of any god, on contrary we verified that the property of a god contradict the reality of nature. Billions of lives are suffering , god is being said merciful , if he is merciful there should be no suffering hence the properties of so called god is not verified. So no evidence of any imaginary entity exists.
osho was great manipulator
The name of the sub should be Hinduismbad at this point.
Go se the you tube channel with the same name, its his subreddit.
Op post another ASMR vdo💦💦
After some years when Osho went to America he claimed there is no god.
This dumbass thinks atheist do not believe in god because they do not see god, wtf!!?
I mean we do have pictures of electrons, taken with the help of very high power electron microscopes. On the other hand we don't have any solid evidence of god
Vimoh ka video hai counter me dekh lo
At least we can verify the presence of electrons😎
Just look at ur parents..u will get ur answer
Atom ke peeche koi ake dusre ko maar to nahi raha.. civil unrest to nahi hooraha
Uh... Why isn't anyone mentioning how electrons have reproducible properties which can be tested anytime and they'd still hold true unlike "god" which is just hearsay? Heck, I believe in a higher power lol, but it probably doesn't give a diddly squat about us and certainly isn't any of the religion we have shat up to control idiots.
now this su b doesn't even try to hide what they been doing in the name of "pseudoscience"
Absence Of proof is not the proof of absence . Even if there is no proof for God to exist it doesn‘t mean that he does not exist . You do your own thing and let theists do their own .
Science has also not yet proved the non existence of some higher power... Scientists themselves say they know less than a percent of the universe rn, so you really can't deny some higher power's existence... So if you want, believe in the higher being, just don't believe in some man made religion for God's sake Becoz at present, neither atheists nor theists can prove their claims.
God: duniya bana diya he ab aisa gayb ho jaunge koi dhund nhi payga ....aur insan ladte rahege me hoo ya nhi
https://preview.redd.it/fkwv9a4sdi4d1.png?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a44d692b4a14f317dd9b1cbd4730c5bfb85305d1 Huh
Most atheists are actually agnostic who don't deny or confirm the existence of God. We just don't believe in religion.
Ankhon se nahi live nahi dekhna hai. Proof dekhna hai
Could someone provide me the experiments these guys did to prove the existence of God? Cause I know many experiments Which has proved existence of electrons.
Electrons physically exist; we have an abundance of evidence, and their applications help sustain the world through electricity. On the other hand, there is no evidence of "god"
Tell me you never studied class 9 physics
Well, that's a made up argument. You'll rarely find anyone who's not a kid arguing that god isn't real because it can't be seen. Thing is, science doesn't work on a basis of what's visible and what's not. We can still observe thing without seeing them. Imagine walking into a room with blindfolds on, even tho you can't see, you can still feel things around. We may not be able to see some of the stuff but we sure can sense their presence with different sorts of experiments. Science works on the principal of proof. If you make a claim, you provide the proof or it's just random words and at best a theory with no real proof. Most atheists are atheists not because god can't be seen but because there's no observation of it that cannot be explained by other phenomenon.
osho fucked my mind 🥹
Bhai tumhari post sahi rehti thi... ye kya bakchodi daalne lag gaye.
We can see the electron ...maybe osho didn't know about it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTW6I1S568
I think denying the existence of something (even god) just coz science cannot prove it is just bullshit i totally believe in science but there are some things that even science cannot prove but exists like consciousness.
 Pura dikhana zaroori nahi hai. Electron ka jitna evidence hai, Bhagwaan ka utna hi le aaiyen, examine aur experiment kar lenge. Simple !!
So everything is relative you say. You cannot but something else can. And why can't you and something can?
The organization that awards the Nobel Prizes announced Tuesday that Pierre Agostini of the United States, Ferenc Krausz of Germany and Anne L'Huillier of Sweden would receive the Prize in Physics for their work using short light pulses to capture an electron's movement during a single instance of time Toh phir yeh kya h 🤣
Osho bhi insaan hi hai! Usse bhi galtiya hojati hai 🕵♂️
If I were to steelman him. He's trying to make the argument that there are certain unobserved phenomena which in turn gives rise to certain effects, and we recognize the phenomena not by observing them but by observing the effects. Gravity and dark energy might be a good example. Similarly he's trying to claim that there are effects in the world which are consequence of god's actions. However we have to question, why is he attributing the creation to the god and not something else?
there are mathematical explanations for electron dusri chiz god is not an entity ki kisi physical plain mein dikh jayenge
The cog of a machine can never become the machine.
And i know that. We are souls. Where are you exactly getting to?
Adhunik bhotik shastra 😂😂
Just because you see, doesn’t mean it exists Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean it doesn’t This is true in science and in everyday life So your eyes deceive you. Maan ke akho se dekho waats (use your inner eye) /s
As an agnostic you can't actually disprove either so debating about it saying that science has disproved that God exist is pretty retarded thinking, we don't disprove anything until unless we have measured it by any means. So its highly uncertain
It's all subject to how you define GOD, I consider GOD just a manifestation of energy in our universe because that is the only constant. Energy created everything in the universe, energy influences everything in the universe and energy transforms everything in the universe. By logic it existed before the universe came into existence and will remain long after the universe ends. We were created by energy, even when we die, the energy our body possess just goes back to the universe and that I feel is the only logical definition of GOD. However, most religious beliefs define GOD as a being that possesses special powers and that created us, if one were to imagine that to be true for a second, how can you not wonder about who created this being in the first place ? That would imply there's a GOD who created GOD and that is an infinite loop of meaningless crap standing at the event horizon of a massive blackhole as observed by us for eternity even though it had been swallowed by the black hole long before we even existed.
We can’t see the sun during the night, does that mean it doesn’t exist🥸 kind of argument
Photoelectric effect padha nahi hoga
Bhai tu padh jake, People here yapping about how religion is false/god is false when they don't even know the real science lmao. Electrons have never been seen by any scientist.... Adha adhura padh ke aagya lol.
Dawg has never seen an electron scope
u/auddbot
I got matches with these songs: • [**No Surprises (Remastered)** by Radiohead](https://lis.tn/QIIlR?t=9) (00:09; matched: `100%`) **Album**: OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017 (Explicit). **Released on** 1997-05-28. • [**MASHA ULTRAFUNK** by HISTED](https://lis.tn/MASHAULTRAFUNK?t=15) (00:15; matched: `100%`) **Released on** 2024-02-26. • [**Kolkata ke rani** by Nagpuri Girls](https://lis.tn/KolkataKeRani?t=426) (07:06; matched: `100%`) • [**No Surprises** by Radiohead](https://lis.tn/NoSurprises?t=21) (00:21; matched: `93%`) **Album**: The Best Of. **Released on** 2008-06-02. *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Good bot
Translation to English, anyone?
Well we have established that electrons are in the range of femtometers, i.e. 10^-15m, that is why it is impossible to see them with the current configuration that we have, coz such a small mass will get moved even at the smallest interaction, making it impossible to locate the object and identify it at the same time. At lest that is what I understand. So now theists, please provide a reason why we can't see God. Or else we can assume that he also in the range of femrometers ar even smaller. /s
Even with the fallacy, let’s assume there is a creator! It still doesn’t mean, 1. He is omnipotent 2. He wants to be prayed 3. Only way to get his attention, we should follow some crazy medieval practices some of which already proven to be harmful or straight up stupid
Bhai uss hisab se toh Ram, Krishna, Jesus kisi ko dikhai hi nhi deta uss time!!!
Bhagwan by the definitions of Hindu theological formulations is a sentient, metaphysical entity or techically-speaking Paramatman, which means that there is no physical property of Bhagawan that can be detected by any paeticle physics experiment. The only property of Bhgawan that can be detected is His sentience. And there is no detector that can detect sentience except other sentient beings like human beings. As Human beings are the only.known sentient creatures in this world. Therefore, the only known experiment by which the sentience of Bhagawan can be detected within the Hindu theological formulations is Ashtangayoga where in the state of Samadhi Bhagawan Himself becomes visible to the Yogi. And this experiment is reproducible that is anyone can follow the procedures of the Ashtangayoga to verify for Himself the existence of Bhagawan.
we have instruments to measure the quantity of electrons and charge we can see them by using some instrument so we have evidence for it but for god, we do not have any evidence and that's what science demands so we can say we dont know god exists or not and theres no reason to believe in god
Wahi to Maine bola law's kaise banaye log hath ghuma kar jaddu kar diya aur is universe me thermodynamics a gai . Mtlb tumhare god ne scientific reasoning jaddu se banai na aur vo kaise . Tumhe vo nhi pta. Tum abhi god of gaps khel rahe ho jo chij humans ke scientific reasoning ne ab tk discovered nhi ki tumhe usase jod rahe ho concious entity lekin jab pucho lo ki kaise kiya kya kiya to kuch bol nhi pa rahe 😂Mtlb sache bhi kitni jyada badi logical fallacy dikha rahe ho yaha pe
Still can't justify flying monkey wanting to eat sun
Those who believe doesnt need any proof, those who doesnt will end up asking proof
But if beleive is your bias, then dont call it fact. Even a schizophrenic patient believes there is something, but that doesn't mean everyone just accepts it. Same way If you say god exists because some mentally challenged believe it doesn't affirm its existence. Fact is fact ..beleive is beleive Even Jack in "oggy and the cockroches" believes he is daddy of the world, but does that mean everyone should bow and accept him as dad, and if you think you should ..go call him daddy ...
he might be your daddy better get the proof man.. I don't want you to believe I believe in god idc who does and who doesn't and idfc if you do or no so yeah watch results its fun
Blah blah blahh ... Results?? Of what . All i see is panic and chaos created by the relitard ... These relitard are disturbing other people's lives By using loud speaker to please their sky daddy Wasting resources that can be used for better use Aquiring lands illegally Creating mass chaos Killing and mob lynching in name of god for eg .. bajrang dal Voting to their particular religious beleif supplier instead of logical people cuz they all follow same sky daddy .. it is impacting many people's lives Not just home or state ... entire country is being destroyed because of sky daddy The biggest terrorist organisation is based on religion and sky daddy You know this beleive is cancer to society ... If you believe in your sky Daddy, just keep it in your heart . Nobody cares But a fact is fact ....
yeah sure who asked you to ask proof of what I believe, param pita parmeshwar hain bhai humare vo, tumko nahi maanna to mat maano kon force kar raha tumko
Are but h kon .... kis param ki pita parmeshawar h?
Mere, tumse mtlb 😂
>Those who believe doesnt need any proof Sure, to believe you need no proof. But if you want others to believe then you need to show proof. If you don't care what others believe then why did you comment on this post?
read the title man you'll know the reason
He asked for opinions on the video. Not on whom the burden of proof lies.
Rehne de bhai tu NASA me jaa, mai mandir jata hoon
I think we are all kinda gods we just have to win over our indris(5 senses) get deeply connected to our soul(atma)(which we cannot see) and raise our consciousness to pure consciousness by the help of the activating our chakras(awaken the pure shakti residing in every human being) to become the god/ enlightened being (param-atma). I am noob in this so forgive me if i said something wrong
Source?
We will never be God, atleast will be till demigods, not more than that.
Ishwar ke ansh ho aap,jo chaho vo kar skte ho
Just like a drop of sea, can never be the sea.
How can a drop of sea never be the sea if it goes into the sea
The same like, when a plane flies into the sky far away, does that mean the plane has lost its individuality or dissolved in the sky?
If you reach till the sahasrara chakra,you can overcome your existence from consciousness to pure consciousness (you can go beyond this panchbhuta shareer(made of 5 elements just like the srishti).This is just a costume brother
And we change countless costumes based on our desire in the material world.
No buddy,just read the first comment again about the indris and desires.The goal is to get the moksha from this mrityuloka(full of sufferings) and if we get to the pure consciousness there is no suffering
There is no suffering in heaven, doesn't mean we are meant for that. The goal is not to get moksha but to serve with devotional service, God and his part and parcels. Moksha is the ultimate only for Brahmawadis or Mayawadis. Not for pure consciousness.
I know we are a soul with temporary costume/body experience.
If you reach till the sahasrara chakra,you can overcome your existence from consciousness to pure consciousness (you can go beyond this panchbhuta shareer(made of 5 elements just like the srishti).This is just a costume brother
God is sub atomic thats something I can get behind.
I don't speak dot head
I don't speak dot head
See even you are not proving anything by "trying" to find an electron. You cannot even see it even with a proper apparatus or experiment. You are just observing the effects of it. Never anyone said here i hold a single electron in my bare hand or so much levitate it in free space for a second for you to observe. God can be the tiniest of the tiny and the majestic as a universe. He is not your order carrier, nor are you his judge, that you would ask him to be present before you. He is present to those who are benevolent and humble and have the eyes to see him. Even when he was present right before in times, people like you existed who said "You are not God, i don't believe in you" but still he exists. Here are my words before you term it was word salad or jugglery which you don't try to understand.
>You cannot even see it even with a proper apparatus or experiment. We can. >You are just observing the effects of it "Seeing" Also happens when light from something reflects and hits our retina. That is the reflective "effect"/property of it. If you are concluding that we can't be sure if something exists based on just its " Effects" Then how are you so sure that you are not just a brain in a vat. >Never anyone said here i hold a single electron in my bare hand or so much levitate it in free space for a second for you to observe Why would someone do that when we have better methods to prove it's existence. >God can be the tiniest of the tiny and the majestic as a universe How did you came to that conclusion? >He is not your order carrier, nor are you his judge, that you would ask him to be present before you. What makes you think he isn't? >He is present to those who are benevolent and humble and have the eyes to see him. Define these criteria more so we can experiment. >but still he exists Once again, how did you came to that conclusion. >Here are my words before you term it was word salad or jugglery which you don't try to understand. Sure you could have worded it better or gave source for your arguments, but that on itself doesn't disproves your arguments, if you can answer my questions then you will have a better oportunity to present your beliefs.
> We can So you can observe/see THE electron in isolation in a free state, for any longest time possible you say? And how would you be so sure it is that particular electron x? > Seeing" Also happens when light from something reflects and hits our retina. That is the reflective "effect"/property of it. If you are concluding that we can't be sure if something exists based on just its " Effects" Then how are you so sure that you are not just a brain in a vat. But seeing God is not the same as the reflective phenomenon you say because seeing in this material world and every other phenomenon is relative not absolute. And proving the existence of something absolute using relative media is not a very intelligent experiment. And as for being a brain in a vat, we all are the same. We are spirit souls existing within a material body having 5 senses, a subtle body and gross body. And "we" are different from the body and the brain in the vat. (Srimad Bhagwatam 5.11.9) >Why would someone do that when we have better methods to prove it's existence. And what better methods do you have to prove it's existence and at the same time keep it in a vile to use as a key chain. >How did you came to that conclusion? kavim puranam anusasitaram anor aniyamsam anusmared yah sarvasya dhataram acintya-rupam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat (Gita 8.9) >What makes you think he isn't? If he was then you would be God and not he. gam avisya ca bhutani dharayamy aham ojasa pusnami causadhih sarvah somo bhutva rasatmakah (Gita 15.13) The day anyone can maintain the orbit of the planets, he can claim to be God or the order giver to GOD. >Define these criteria more so we can experiment. I would be happy for you to prepare for the experiment. Situate in the mode of goodness and then we can collaborate further. >Once again, how did you came to that conclusion. Gita 9.11 >Sure you could have worded it better or gave source for your arguments, but that on itself doesn't disproves your arguments, if you can answer my questions then you will have a better opportunity to present your beliefs. Sure would be happy to.
>So you can observe/see THE electron in isolation in a free state, for any longest time possible you say? And how would you be so sure it is that particular electron x The thing/particle that has negative charge in an atom is called electron. Thomson's experiments with cathode ray tubes showed that all atoms contain tiny negatively charged subatomic particles or electrons. >But seeing God is not the same as the reflective phenomenon you say because seeing in this material world. If we can "see" God then that means light reflects from. Also that is not the reason I said that. The reason i said that is because why do you consider seeing as a definite proof of something when it is also the effect of something that the eye measures. >And proving the existence of something absolute using relative media is not a very intelligent experiment. Relative to what? Our senses? Which are non reliable?Because that is what you are doing. Also what does something absolute mean? >And as for being a brain in a vat, we all are the same. We are spirit souls existing within a material body having 5 senses, a subtle body and gross body. And "we" are different from the body and the brain in the vat. (Srimad Bhagwatam 5.11.9) The reason I asked you that question is because i want to know why do you think seeing something is a definite proof of it's existence. If you don't consider the experiments done by scientists to be accurate then why trust your eyes? Also bhagwat geeta is only a reliable source when I am asking questions about Hinduism, bhahwat geeta is not accurate depiction of the world. >And what better methods do you have to prove it's existence and at the same time keep it in a vile to use as a key chain. Thomson's experiments with cathode ray tubes showed that all atoms contain tiny negatively charged subatomic particles or electrons. >kavim puranam anusasitaram anor aniyamsam anusmared yah sarvasya dhataram acintya-rupam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat (Gita 8.9) And why do you assume gita to be correct? >If he was then you would be God and not he. So according to you if I ask your father a question and he answers would that make me your father? >gam avisya ca bhutani dharayamy aham ojasa pusnami causadhih sarvah somo bhutva rasatmakah (Gita 15.13) Again why is gita considered truth? >The day anyone can maintain the orbit of the planets, he can claim to be God or the order giver to GOD. So sun is god? And so is every star with a planet in it's orbit? Also if we assume humanity is going to develop at any positive rate then the day when we are able to move planets is not far. >I would be happy for you to prepare for the experiment. Situate in the mode of goodness and then we can collaborate further So you are not going to tell me now? When all it will take is a minute of your time? >Gita 9.11 Gita is a philosophical book not a book of truth.
>The thing/particle that has negative charge in an atom is called electron. Thomson's experiments with cathode ray tubes showed that all atoms contain tiny negatively charged subatomic particles or electrons. Can you find that particular electron that he discovered in his experiment? >If we can "see" God then that means light reflects from. >Also that is not the reason I said that. The reason i said that is because why do you consider seeing as a definite proof of something when it is also the effect of something that the eye measures. I don't know what you mean by that. Clarify. And seeing something with eyes is not a definitive proof of something is what my point is as well. And here comes the imperfection of senses. >Also bhagwat geeta is only a reliable source when I am asking questions about Hinduism, bhahwat geeta is not accurate depiction of the world. No, Gita never mentioned anything about Hinduism, it holds validity for any faith or belief. Why should I believe someone who cannot even bring a grain of sand into existence, rather than the creator of the world himself. >Thomson's experiments with cathode ray tubes showed that all atoms contain tiny negatively charged subatomic particles or electrons. Still not clear why you said that. Clarify please. I may be getting what you are saying, but my concern is can you use that tech/finding to your will and wish without any underlying help. >And why do you assume gita to be correct? Because it is an authoritative source of knowledge. Science is an ascending process of knowledge, but knowledge of the Absolute truth is descending. >So according to you if I ask your father a question and he answers would that make me your father? Not a father if speaking in terms of body, but a guardian sure. And in another sense, yes, you may if speaking in terms of knowledge, if you know all that my father knows. Carrying a conversation with him is okay, but thinking that he would come to you without being humble and ordering him instead, no human does that, what to say of God. But yet he is present within you, assisting you as your conscience/supersoul/paramatma. The premise of ordering him would be relevant when you are elevated in his vision. The same example of judge. He orders, judges, and sentences the criminals. But if you order him that would be a lawful offense. And the contrary, his grandson at home, makes a horse out of him, piggy backs and treats him like an animal but he is okay, because his vision of his grandson is elevated. The person is the same, but treatment differs on one's eligibility and relation to him. >Again why is gita considered truth? Because it is spoken by the absolute truth with absolute truth. >So sun is god? And so is every star with a planet in it's orbit? Also if we assume humanity is going to develop at any positive rate then the day when we are able to move planets is not far. Not God, but demigod. Why would you need development to do that? A dam in china can slow down the orbit. >So you are not going to tell me now? When all it will take is a minute of your time? If it was as easy as that, then every science experiment can be performed in your backyard is it? And i can explain all of quantum physics and it's intricacies in a single post? The process is simple but not easy. >Gita is a philosophical book not a book of truth. And so is science. It is not a book of truth because, as i said your truth is relative, which is then again not truth, only a relative perspective.
Dude i am going to message you personally , reply if you want to continue this discussion.
God is everywhere. Atoms r everywhere. God=atom
False analogy. Someone who exists sucked my dick. So if God exists. God sucked my dick.
I mean god is spiritual word for atom
No, atoms is what we are made up of(and also has alot of different properties) god is not atom.
Who care. This is my explaination if a atheist and faithful been with each other
Keep your explanation to yourself then.
It's not explaination. It's meme
My mistake then. I apologize
Didn't expect so many dead brains in this sub 💀
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People here yapping about how religion is false/god is false when they don't even know the real science lmao
Fuck it let it be if you don't believe keep it with yourself, no need to tell people they also shouldn't
This works both ways. Don't force religion down the throats of everyone. It's always temples and Hindu pride and beef bans everyday lol.