Best Theistic Arguments

[Angrboda]

Wrong again yog.  


You can have something but you may not be aware of.
That is what matter have.
Being made of the same factors that are in all other form of life matter got to have consciousness that however doesn't mean that she is aware of.
Awareness come after evolution take place and because matter hasn't yet gone through the evolution process is obvious that she does not have any awareness of what she is.  

By definition, you cannot have consciousness and not be aware of it.  If you are talking about something other than consciousness as such, you're talking about something that on the surface of it, is not consciousness.  Your claim in the evolution thread is that whatever it is that is in vibrations is the same stuff that is in the human mind, but is simply in a different form.  This is about evidence, remember, not simply about what you believe.  You're welcome to believe whatever you want about matter and its relationship to other things such as evolved beings, as long as you lack evidence for your belief, it is just dogma. What you have presented is nothing more than an assertion that the two are the same quantity.

Motion by itself is not evidence that vibrations are alive, both as the motion may be caused by something independent of the vibration, such as a God, or motion may simply be an intrinsic feature of these vibrations without need for any life.  You of course realize that vibration simply refers to a periodic aspect in the mathematical modeling of field interactions and not actual physical motion of course?  Of course you don't.  Regardless, my consciousness doesn't jiggle in my head.  Does yours?  If so, perhaps we have discovered the problem.....  Life is defined variously but no definition I have read simply says, "motion."  Motion is a property both of things known to be alive and not.  If you simply define everything as being alive, you've suspended the role of motion in your argument and have simply done an end run around the meaning of words.  See above about your use of language.

Suppose for a sec. that motion is not enough to say that vibrations are alive or not.
Now let us add something to this motion.
Let us add the fact that the bodies in which these vibrations exist are capable of giving new life.
So this plus motion is a clear evidence that vibrations are alive.

The fact that a composite thing, such as an alive body, possesses a capacity does not show that its parts contain this property.  I am or was capable of getting pregnant and bearing a child.  That by itself doesn't mean that my fingers or my foot is capable of getting pregnant and giving birth.  That's the fallacy of division and renders your conclusion invalid.

Promises of future discovery is not evidence.  This consciousness and energy being two sides of the same sheet is taken straight from the writings of Sarkar without any justification on its own.  From Sarkar's lips to your lips, without any thought or reason intervening.  That is what is called dogma, and is not justification for belief.  If you'd care to explain why Sarkar believes it, by all means do so.  Otherwise you're just repeating dogma.

It doesn't really need Sarkar to prove that consciousness and energy are the two sides of the same sheet.  
You can easily see in everyday life.
Take your car.
In it there is a lot of energy but this energy is unable to do anything unless you direct it to act or to express her potential.
Or take your computer.
Until you direct it to do something nothing happen so it is clear that energy plus consciousness must go hand in hand in order to do something.

Although low form of lives act according mother nature instinct the rule is the same which is that consciousness and energy always go hand in hand.  

In the first place, the latter doesn't follow from the former.  Regardless, we have plenty of examples of the contrary.  Two planets placed near each other will move toward each other by gravitational attraction.  Steel ball bearings placed near a magnet will move toward the magnet.  So, your generalization simply doesn't hold.  Like your other beliefs, you have no valid justification for your belief.  Moreover, if Sarkar did not give reasons for his claim, and you believed it simply on the basis of his say so, that is the very essence of dogma.  Your attempt to provide ad hoc rationalizations for your prior belief is simply irrelevant.

Much as everything else here, this point has been discussed more fully in the evolution thread, and has already been more than adequately answered.  You have no justification for your belief that life comes only from life, and therefore it's just dogma.  Science for its part has neither concluded that life comes from non-life nor that it doesn't, so your claiming that it is science is just a lie which you keep repeating.

Fail for the hundred times yog.  

Science has established that everything is made of vibrations.  
Bodies in which these vibrations exist are capable of giving life therefore is quite clear that to give life a body full of vibration is essential.

Without vibrations there would not be a body.
No matter, no veg. life, no animal life, no human life, nothing, not even the universe because even the universe is made of vibrations.
Nothing at all, so life wouldn't be there without vibrations.

From here is obvious that vibrations must be alive.  

Besides being answered above, it simply doesn't follow that because life is necessarily dependent on the existence of vibrations that therefore the vibrations themselves are alive.

Yes, we've been through all this in the evolution thread.  Life in matter is both obvious and known, but at the same time hidden and incapable of being observed.   No, your arguments, such as they are, either include falsehoods, fallacies, errors of reasoning, or simple misstatements of fact.  This is because your explanations are nothing more than tissue thin rationalizations for your justification of believing these things which is really based primarily on the fact that your guru had asserted them.  They are religious dogma, nothing more.

If you really think that there is something void of life please show to the world such an interesting theory.  
Didn't I tell you that you may even go for a Nobel prize?  

The question here is not what I believe, nor why.  So any observations you might care to make about me do not clear you of the charge of having a worldview that is based on dogma.  I could have no theory whatsoever, and it wouldn't matter one whit.