Best Theistic Arguments

[surreptitious57]

You cannot be dead if you have only had a near death experience because nearly being dead and actually being dead are not the same

No NDE can be scientifically investigated as it is only a single person interpretation so there is no objective means of determining its claim

And all of science is physical because it is the study of observable phenomena and nothing else

There are a lot of fools that really believe that physical science is the panacea for all real knowledge
Unfortunately for these fools that is not the case

Everything in this universe move and change all the time
Physical science try his best to follow these changes and that is ok but that is not enough because not everything can be understood by this science

In the meantime please note that as the consciousness leave the body that is death so people who saw their body from above saw their dead body
You cant be alive without your consciousness

For atheists must be very very hard to digest the fact that life can come back in a lifeless body and life pop up once again
It would wreck a life time of beliefs

Science is not a panacea for anything but simply a methodology for understanding observable phenomena. Not everything can be
understood by it as that would be an absolute knowledge claim. Science is inductive not deductive so it cannot make such a claim

There is no absolutely no evidence that consciousness leaves the body after death. And anyone
who experiences an NDE is still alive and what they are apparently seeing is imaginary not real

You can be alive without consciousness and it happens all of the time and it is known as sleep

I have no problem accepting anything as long as there is evidence for it but I will not believe in anything
I used to have beliefs but no longer do. Only things that I either know or think are true and nothing else

[snowtracks]

The Universe had a beginning, therefore God.

Yes, we can put the center at any point and physics works the same.
I don't understand what you mean by "where the information is"... which information? Why is information not elsewhere, too?
I wouldn't be surprised if life had originated elsewhere in the Universe... and, with it, other intelligent life forms, capable of dealing with information.

*He has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.

Why do you guys always trot out this "saved" business?
Saved from what?

Boy oh boy, your guy wrote a literary triumph* (as far as it goes) about the information, so what don't you understand?


*Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan - That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

[pocaracas]

Yes, we can put the center at any point and physics works the same.
I don't understand what you mean by "where the information is"... which information? Why is information not elsewhere, too?
I wouldn't be surprised if life had originated elsewhere in the Universe... and, with it, other intelligent life forms, capable of dealing with information.


Why do you guys always trot out this "saved" business?
Saved from what?

Boy oh boy, your guy wrote a literary triumph* (as far as it goes) about the information, so what don't you understand?


*Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan - That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

Ah... Your concept of information is somewhat different from mine...

[The Grand Nudger]

WB Snow.....still grasping at any straw to perpetuate your silly belief?

[Little Rik]

There are a lot of fools that really believe that physical science is the panacea for all real knowledge
Unfortunately for these fools that is not the case

Everything in this universe move and change all the time
Physical science try his best to follow these changes and that is ok but that is not enough because not everything can be understood by this science

In the meantime please note that as the consciousness leave the body that is death so people who saw their body from above saw their dead body
You cant be alive without your consciousness

For atheists must be very very hard to digest the fact that life can come back in a lifeless body and life pop up once again
It would wreck a life time of beliefs

Science is not a panacea for anything but simply a methodology for understanding observable phenomena. Not everything can be
understood by it as that would be an absolute knowledge claim. Science is inductive not deductive so it cannot make such a claim

There is no absolutely no evidence that consciousness leaves the body after death. And anyone
who experiences an NDE is still alive and what they are apparently seeing is imaginary not real

Still alive despite that doctors declare the cheap dead?
Are you more knowledgeable than a doctor?
Cut the trifle-nonsense son.  

You can be alive without consciousness and it happens all of the time and it is known as sleep

Wrong again Surr.

That is a load of BS.
Once the driver has left the vehicle the vehicle can not do anything.  
When you sleep the body keep on carrying on with life.
The blood keep on moving in the body, the cells are alive so in this case the consciousness is still inside the body-brain but when you have an NDE the blood stop flowing and the cell slowly die.  

I have no problem accepting anything as long as there is evidence for it but I will not believe in anything
I used to have beliefs but no longer do. Only things that I either know or think are true and nothing else

Don't you worry Surr.
Maybe one day you may become a doctor or an expert surgeon so you will better understand how the body-brain works.  
Is never too late to learn.  

[Little Rik]

My previous answer to Surr cover all your mad drivel.

No, it actually doesn't, if for no other reason than among said 'drivel' was the point that you had not presented any actual evidence for the four dogmas I listed earlier, chief among them being that vibrations are alive.  So, no, you didn't answer everything.  But let's deal with what you did answer (below).

If you really think that vibrations are not alive then please tell me where they get the strength - motivation to move and be active or better say.....why they move at all?

What it is?
Entropy?

In the meantime please note that as the consciousness leave the body that is death so people who saw their body from above saw their dead body.
You can't be alive without your consciousness.
It would be a vehicle without the driver.
It would be just a piece of metal.
With the driver gone the vehicle has no life in it.

This is unsatisfactory for several reasons:
1) It's not clear that consciousness "leaves the body" in an OBE, both for reasons discussed and some not (see quote below for example);
2) Even if consciousness is displaced during an OBE, it's not clear that the relationship between consciousness and the body has in any significant sense been disrupted or ended by that displacement.  In particular, you claim both that consciousness is not physical and that it resides in the pineal gland.  What it means for something that is not physical to have a location I'll leave up to you, but regardless, from the putative position in the pineal gland, consciousness is not directly in contact with sufficient nerves to control the body, so according to your view, we are constantly "remotely controlling" the body/brain anyhow, so what does the actual distance matter?
3) It's not clear in what sense consciousness does constitute the "you," nor is it true that an absence of consciousness equals death.  We go to sleep each night without "dying";
4) As you can determine by looking up the relevant definitions, death is a permanent condition, not merely a transitory change in the relationship of one or more of a living organism's systems.  In particular, death entails the continuous loss of homeostasis, which is of particular note as the cells in the brain and the brain itself maintains relative homeostasis even in the absence of blood and oxygen for a considerable time.  At the very least, irretrievable loss of functional homeostasis does not occur.

So for these and undoubtedly other reasons, you are wrong in claiming that an OBE during an NDE is evidence that the person has died and is at that time "dead."

1) How on earth can you see your body from above like during an NDE and think that you are alive inside your body?
That is pure madness-insanity.  
2) Your consciousness is you because this you stay with your consciousness not with your dead body.  
3) Death is irreversible once the brain cells are dead.
That however doesn't mean that death can occur once the consciousness has left the body.  
4) The consciousness sit in the pineal gland in the same way as you sit in the seat of your car.
Your body is the vehicle and YOU are the driver.
In order to progress you need a vehicle that take you from point A to point Z.
That is all natural.
Nothing strange with that.
Even if the consciousness is not directly in contact with sufficient nerves to control the body in one way or another it will.
Also the supreme commander is not in contact with simple soldiers yet the soldier get the message.
In this case through other officers.

OBErs who do not lose consciousness before their experiences often report watching their bodies continue to perform coordinated actions—as if they were still in control of their bodies—while nevertheless apparently viewing them from above. Recalling an OBE while on patrol for the first time, chasing an armed suspect, a police officer reported:

I promptly went out of my body and up into the air maybe 20 feet above the scene. I remained there, extremely calm, while I watched the entire procedure—including watching myself do exactly what I had been trained to do (Alvarado 183).

After the suspect had been restrained and the danger was over, the officer returned to normal consciousness. Another OBEr, who had been running for over 12 miles training for a marathon, reported:

I felt as if something was leaving my body, and although I was still running along looking at the scenery, I was looking at myself running as well (184).

This ability to simultaneously 'hover' above the scene and continue to function as if 'in' the body strongly suggests the hallucinatory nature of these experiences. In some sleep disorders, for instance, subjects are able to exhibit "directed" behavior—e.g., sleepwalking and sleep eating—even though they are evidently not normally conscious. Taking on an extraordinary new perspective while functioning normally otherwise makes much more sense if such experiences are occurring 'in' the body all along, rather than in some remote discarnate entity detached from the physical body.

Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

Regardless of whether one accepts the author's interpretation of hallucination or not, it's evident that merely experiencing oneself as being conscious and viewing things from a perspective outside the body does not necessarily entail that consciousness is not still in contact with the body, still in control, and that life continues on more or less as normal, ignoring the specific weirdness of the perspective.

You still don't get it yog, do you?





In your case the body was still alive while in a real NDE the cheap body is dead as declared by a doctor.

In the meantime can you please reply to my questions such as why the consciousness should be a product of the brain and why the death of the body should mean our death?

No, I don't believe that I will be doing that, and I'll tell you why.  I have presented the reasons multiple times in the past and with each time, you simply dismissed the evidence without providing specific logical reasons for doing so.  If you are not going to actually engage with the material, I see no point in having the discussion.  Beyond that, it's really irrelevant, as I have never maintained that the evidence for the brain based nature of consciousness is conclusive, so that would make the discussion even more pointless given your ostensible goals.  What is worth noting, however, is that you have repeatedly maintained that you have conclusive reasons for believing that consciousness transcends the body.  Your dogmatic adherence to certain beliefs has been the main point or points of contention, and that is the main matter before us.

Beyond that, it's clear from arguing with you these many months that it is a favorite tactic of yours to deflect from scrutiny of your beliefs and worldview by changing the subject and making the subject about the other person's beliefs and worldview.  Since we have an important question at issue here, I'd just as soon we finish with that before we turn our attention to other matters (if at all).  In this thread and the evolution thread, you have continued to maintain that your beliefs are not dogma, and moreover that they have the backing of science.  You've utterly failed at the latter claim, and your reasons for the former have so far been shown to be without basis.  Instead, what has become apparent is that your worldview in general, and specifically the evolution of consciousness, are beliefs that are built upon dogma and articles of faith conscerning the value and efficacy of intuitional science.  If you're willing to concede that "how the system works" according to you and yoga is a matter of dogma and faith, rather than reasons and evidence, then we can rest on that and perhaps turn to other matters.  Otherwise I suggest you get busy and start providing some actual reasons and evidence for the four propositions discussed earlier. (Repeated here for your convenience.)

It doesn't really matter whether you have never maintained that the evidence for the brain based nature of consciousness is conclusive or not.
As far as you give kudos to those who say these things you are part of the problem therefore if you do not back up with evidence these statements I have to deduce that you are full of BS.
Amen.  

[surreptitious57]

Science is not a panacea for anything but simply a methodology for understanding observable phenomena. Not everything can be
understood by it as that would be an absolute knowledge claim. Science is inductive not deductive so it cannot make such a claim

There is no absolutely no evidence that consciousness leaves the body after death. And anyone
who experiences an NDE is still alive and what they are apparently seeing is imaginary not real

Still alive despite that doctors declare the chap dead?
Are you more knowledgeable than a doctor?

I have no problem accepting anything as long as there is evidence for it but I will not believe in anything
I used to have beliefs but no longer do. Only things that I either know or think are true and nothing else

Maybe one day you may become a doctor or an expert surgeon so you will better understand how the body - brain works

An NDE is not death even if it has been declared so by a doctor
Physicians are prone to error just the same as everyone else is

Understanding how the body - brain works does not require any belief but knowledge
That is because the acquisition of such knowledge is how science actually progresses

[Angrboda]

Since  the following dogmas are foundational to your "system," it is obvious that you practice a religion.

1. Vibrations are alive/conscious.
2. Energy is alive/conscious.
3. Inanimate matter is conscious.
4. Life cannot come from non-life.

Let us deal a bit at the time as the page is getting full so let us now deal with these last points.

As usual you vandalize my words and that is rather evil if done on purpose or stupid if done without understanding what i said.

Whatever.

1) I didn't say that inanimate matter is conscious.
I rather say that matter has got consciousness or it is made of consciousness and this consciousness is in a latent form which means that matter can not be aware of who she is.

To say ............Inanimate matter is conscious.......is like to say that matter can express herself which is not the case.

The stupidity lies in the original ideas, not my representation of them. There is no difference between saying that matter "has got consciousness" and that matter "is conscious." Moreover, since you yourself have said that consciousness is an abstract, and therefore non-physical, you are saying that the physical is made up of the non-physical, a contradiction. It's more a problem that your ideas are filled with metaphysical inconsistency and error. Wittgenstein has said that most philosophical problems are not problems of philosophy but problems of language. Your moronic dogmas are a case in point. You'd do well to heed Wittgenstein's words and pull your head out of your ass before you drown in your own shit.

2) The same goes for vibrations.

Also vibrations like everything in this universe has life in it.
Unlike matter which can not express herself because she reach the very bottom of creation vibrations express themselves with the movement and movement means life.
If on the other hand you may believe that this movement is cused by the creator then you can well kiss goodby to all atheistic ideas.
In any case you fail badly.

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.

3) Energy - consciousness are the two sides of the same sheet.
One can not exist without the other.
Also energy move so like vibrations must have life in it.
The atheist idea that some sort of energy within the universe keep the system going and going is void of any evidence while the idea that energy has life in it make 100% sense.
Physical science sooner or later will come to this conclusion.

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.

4) Life in this universe always come from life.
This is science yog.

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.

There is no such a thing as anything void of life.
Even matter has life in it even if it is in a latent form.  

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.

No, it actually doesn't, if for no other reason than among said 'drivel' was the point that you had not presented any actual evidence for the four dogmas I listed earlier, chief among them being that vibrations are alive.  So, no, you didn't answer everything.  But let's deal with what you did answer (below).

If you really think that vibrations are not alive then please tell me where they get the strength - motivation to move and be active or better say.....why they move at all?

What it is?
Entropy?

Again, these 'vibrations' are metaphorical, being periodic aspects of the interaction of fields. They require no 'motivation', and indeed if you could demonstrate that they had or needed motivation, you would have more of a point than you do. You assume that they need motivation because that is an aspect of your religious beliefs about what makes them behave as they do. There is no reason to believe that they need any such thing, or that such could not be supplied by an external force (like a God, or a field). And again, you tie yourself up in absurd juxtapositions of language. In our world of large scale objects, live things can sometimes differentiate themselves from things that aren't alive by moving. However, this is an illusion caused by the nature of our perception -- all things are 'alive' with motion, so your analogy between large scale objects and these subatomic vibrations is drawing on an analogy that isn't actually there. All things are 'alive' in that sense. In that sense, vibrating and alive simply become synonyms with no greater significance. It says nothing about whether they are 'alive' in the sense of being like things to which we normally attribute life and consciousness, like animals. You're using alive in the first sense, to conclude that things are alive in the second sense. That's an equivocation, it's fallacious, and your conclusion is therefore invalid. Remember Wittgenstein!

In the meantime please note that as the consciousness leave the body that is death so people who saw their body from above saw their dead body.
You can't be alive without your consciousness.
It would be a vehicle without the driver.
It would be just a piece of metal.
With the driver gone the vehicle has no life in it.

This is unsatisfactory for several reasons:
1) It's not clear that consciousness "leaves the body" in an OBE, both for reasons discussed and some not (see quote below for example);
2) Even if consciousness is displaced during an OBE, it's not clear that the relationship between consciousness and the body has in any significant sense been disrupted or ended by that displacement.  In particular, you claim both that consciousness is not physical and that it resides in the pineal gland.  What it means for something that is not physical to have a location I'll leave up to you, but regardless, from the putative position in the pineal gland, consciousness is not directly in contact with sufficient nerves to control the body, so according to your view, we are constantly "remotely controlling" the body/brain anyhow, so what does the actual distance matter?
3) It's not clear in what sense consciousness does constitute the "you," nor is it true that an absence of consciousness equals death.  We go to sleep each night without "dying";
4) As you can determine by looking up the relevant definitions, death is a permanent condition, not merely a transitory change in the relationship of one or more of a living organism's systems.  In particular, death entails the continuous loss of homeostasis, which is of particular note as the cells in the brain and the brain itself maintains relative homeostasis even in the absence of blood and oxygen for a considerable time.  At the very least, irretrievable loss of functional homeostasis does not occur.

So for these and undoubtedly other reasons, you are wrong in claiming that an OBE during an NDE is evidence that the person has died and is at that time "dead."

1) How on earth can you see your body from above like during an NDE and think that you are alive inside your body?
That is pure madness-insanity.

And yet you were given examples where that clearly was the case. Your incredulity is not an argument.

 

2) Your consciousness is you because this you stay with your consciousness not with your dead body.  

Your consciousness is you because it is your consciousness? Not only does that not make sense as a reason, at best, it's begging the question, and so your conclusion is nothing more than an assertion.

3) Death is irreversible once the brain cells are dead.
That however doesn't mean that death can occur once the consciousness has left the body.  

I can only assume you meant "that death cannot occur once consciousness has left the body." First, nobody is disputing that it can occur once consciousness has left the body, what is in dispute is whether death is necessarily the case if consciousness has left the body. Not only have you not given us reason for believing that, you haven't even shown that OBEs mean that consciousness has indeed left the body, even if you had given a meaningful definition of what that means (which you haven't). You're putting the cart before the horse and then doing nothing helpful to your case.

4) The consciousness sit in the pineal gland in the same way as you sit in the seat of your car.
Your body is the vehicle and YOU are the driver.
In order to progress you need a vehicle that take you from point A to point Z.
That is all natural.
Nothing strange with that.
Even if the consciousness is not directly in contact with sufficient nerves to control the body in one way or another it will.
Also the supreme commander is not in contact with simple soldiers yet the soldier get the message.
In this case through other officers.

Aside from the fact that this is just dogma, the normal officers in this case are the nerves, which in this case don't exist. If you are postulating some other intermediary than nerves, you need to explain yourself and justify the belief in them, otherwise, as noted, the consciousness is still remotely controlling the body, whether from the pineal gland or down the hall.

In addition, because you didn't refute all of the various strands of my counter-arguments, even if the attempts you had made were successful, the counter-argument as a whole would still hold and your argument that people are dead because consciousness, supposedly, has left the body, would, as an argument, fail.

OBErs who do not lose consciousness before their experiences often report watching their bodies continue to perform coordinated actions—as if they were still in control of their bodies—while nevertheless apparently viewing them from above. Recalling an OBE while on patrol for the first time, chasing an armed suspect, a police officer reported:

I promptly went out of my body and up into the air maybe 20 feet above the scene. I remained there, extremely calm, while I watched the entire procedure—including watching myself do exactly what I had been trained to do (Alvarado 183).

After the suspect had been restrained and the danger was over, the officer returned to normal consciousness. Another OBEr, who had been running for over 12 miles training for a marathon, reported:

I felt as if something was leaving my body, and although I was still running along looking at the scenery, I was looking at myself running as well (184).

This ability to simultaneously 'hover' above the scene and continue to function as if 'in' the body strongly suggests the hallucinatory nature of these experiences. In some sleep disorders, for instance, subjects are able to exhibit "directed" behavior—e.g., sleepwalking and sleep eating—even though they are evidently not normally conscious. Taking on an extraordinary new perspective while functioning normally otherwise makes much more sense if such experiences are occurring 'in' the body all along, rather than in some remote discarnate entity detached from the physical body.

Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

Regardless of whether one accepts the author's interpretation of hallucination or not, it's evident that merely experiencing oneself as being conscious and viewing things from a perspective outside the body does not necessarily entail that consciousness is not still in contact with the body, still in control, and that life continues on more or less as normal, ignoring the specific weirdness of the perspective.

You still don't get it yog, do you?

In your case the body was still alive while in a real NDE the cheap body is dead as declared by a doctor.

When doctors declare a patient dead because of a lack of heartbeat, lung, or brain function, first of all, they are not doing so on the basis that consciousness has "left the body" so this argument of yours stands alone, independent of that one. When a doctor declares such a patient dead, they are making a 'prognosis', which is defined as, "a forecast of the likely course of a disease or ailment." In other words, the doctor is making a prediction, not declaring a specific fact. Doctors, like anyone else, are not infallible in their predictions, so all a doctor declaring somebody dead who later turns out not to be dead proves is that the doctor got it wrong. That you don't seem to "get it" is likely caused by the fact that you're an idiot.

It doesn't really matter whether you have never maintained that the evidence for the brain based nature of consciousness is conclusive or not.
As far as you give kudos to those who say these things you are part of the problem therefore if you do not back up with evidence these statements I have to deduce that you are full of BS.

"Tough titties for you, fish face!"

[Little Rik]

1) I didn't say that inanimate matter is conscious.
I rather say that matter has got consciousness or it is made of consciousness and this consciousness is in a latent form which means that matter can not be aware of who she is.

To say ............Inanimate matter is conscious.......is like to say that matter can express herself which is not the case.

The stupidity lies in the original ideas, not my representation of them.  There is no difference between saying that matter "has got consciousness" and that matter "is conscious."  Moreover, since you yourself have said that consciousness is an abstract, and therefore non-physical, you are saying that the physical is made up of the non-physical, a contradiction.  It's more a problem that your ideas are filled with metaphysical inconsistency and error.  Wittgenstein has said that most philosophical problems are not problems of philosophy but problems of language.  Your moronic dogmas are a case in point.  You'd do well to heed Wittgenstein's words and pull your head out of your ass before you drown in your own shit.

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.  

(more replies as the time allow)

[Little Rik]

Also vibrations like everything in this universe has life in it.
Unlike matter which can not express herself because she reach the very bottom of creation vibrations express themselves with the movement and movement means life.
If on the other hand you may believe that this movement is caused by the creator then you can well kiss goodby to all atheistic ideas.
In any case you fail badly.

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.

FAIL ONCE AGAIN DARL.
 

---

3) Energy - consciousness are the two sides of the same sheet.
One can not exist without the other.
Also energy move so like vibrations must have life in it.
The atheist idea that some sort of energy within the universe keep the system going and going is void of any evidence while the idea that energy has life in it make 100% sense.
Physical science sooner or later will come to this conclusion.

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.  


Aren't you tired of failing again and again?  

---

4) Life in this universe always come from life.
This is science yog.

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.  

---

There is no such a thing as anything void of life.
Even matter has life in it even if it is in a latent form.  

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?