A nuts job

I had promised to leave this fellow alone, but seeing the nonsense he has written I am compelled to comment.

We should know the difference between foundational concepts and fundamental laws in physics and the concepts (ideas) in our mind.

This "wiseman" does not know that a concept is always conceived. All concepts are from mind only.

Energy, motion etc are foundational concepts. Foundational concepts and fundamental laws are already there. We find it out. Issac Newton identified gravity which is already present in nature.It is different from concepts ( ideas) conceive in our mind.

We describe laws, we observe how objects behave and we formulate laws based on that observation. When we see a particular behavior of objects consistently, we call it a law. Isaac Newton described gravity mathematically, Newton never "identified" gravity, the physical mechanism behind gravity, he simply observed how things fall to the ground and planetary motion and described it, called law, but now we know that even that law is not a "law", as Pioneer anomaly shows.

Energy and motion are all concepts, what objects do. Without memory to remember the previous location how can anything conceive motion? Does a hydrogen think that it's location has changed (motion) in relation to the surrounding atoms? For an atom, it's always static, it is us who sees its relationto others and say it moved. At the least he should know that we can find/identify only things, not concepts. Concepts are defined.

 Foundational concepts are as real as an object.For e.g. Movement of electrons; without it matter doesn't exist.

 Though he does not know what ‘exist’ means he still uses the term! Just see how he tries to obscure the meaning of exist, how he tries to say it is not physical presence but some other meaning (which interestingly he cannot articulate) and see how he tries to deceive by using the synonyms of exist like real, present, is.... Well we should not expect honesty from someone who deceives himself. 

We already know that this moron doesn't know what he is talking about. Real and exist are synonyms, they have the same meaning, so what does he mean by 'real as an object', does he mean "motion" got shape? Does he intend to send his "run"? Is he as idiotic as not able to differentiate between a verb and a noun? Read carefully, "movement of electrons", it is electron that move, without electron there is no movement and electron exist whether it moves or not. Well it is to stop making a fool of yourself  I asked you to try whether you can understand at least the meaning of 'exist', but you insist on being counted as a fool.

Do not confuse it with concepts or ideas in our mind. Matter can exist without ideas in our mind

Matter can exist without ideas, matter has shape that separate it from nothingness. Matter doesn't need "foundational" idea either.

Here again is the meaning of 'concept', concept always means idea, conceived by sentient beings whether you think it as foundational or on roof.

Full Definition of concept
1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

Examples of concept
She is familiar with basic concepts of psychology.
a concept borrowed from computer programming

"Near Antonyms": actuality, fact, REALITY

Synonym Discussion of concept
idea, concept, conception, thought, notion, impression mean what exists in the mind as a representation (as of something comprehended) or as a formulation (as of a plan). idea may apply to a mental image or formulation of something seen or known or imagined, to a pure abstraction, or to something assumed or vaguely sensed /innovative ideas/ /my idea of paradise/. concept may apply to the idea formed by consideration of instances of a species or genus or, more broadly, to any idea of what a thing ought to be /a society with no concept of private property/. conception is often interchangeable with concept ; it may stress the process of imagining or formulating rather than the result /our changing conception of what constitutes art/. thought is likely to suggest the result of reflecting, reasoning, or meditating rather than of imagining /commit your thoughts to paper/. notion suggests an idea not much resolved by analysis or reflection and may suggest the capricious or accidental /you have the oddest notions/. impression applies to an idea or notion resulting immediately from some stimulation of the senses /the first impression is of soaring height/
Merriam Webster.

So either he is a charlatan who helps to put all malware which corrupt your mind, steal the truth from your soul and destroy your freedom and joy or is a moron who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Foundational concepts and fundamental laws are required for the existence of matter and living beings

No concepts are required for existence, matter exists. Living beings are objects made of matter that CONCEIVE concepts. Only after they are born, they can conceive and only living things conceive, non living things have no concepts. Even before you or your god (if he is living), there was things and things existed without any concepts. They didn't make a society with surrounding things nor observed and conceived motion which is a "relation" with other objects.  If there is only one object in this universe, there is no motion.

"Life is a foundatonal concept. "

Now that you understood life is a concept, define it.

It is not originated in our mind. Just like we see an object, we understand the  life which already working in the living. Foundational concept of life is not seen in the non-living.

A sentient being has to exist before it can conceive concepts. If we use his analogy, it's a child that gives birth to its mother. ‘Life working in living’? Life doesn't work, living things do. Life is what a thing do that we call the thing 'living'. Concepts are not "seen", if a thing fits the definition of "living" it is a living thing. It might be living but still a thing, a specific assembly. It never becomes a concept. 

Living beings have 3 aspects in their life. 

1)Physical: matter and the fundamental laws and foundational concepts for the existence of matter. 

2)Spiritual : foundational concept of life seen only in the living. So it is not related to matter. 

3)Soulish or mental :it is seen only in the living. It requires both 1)physical 2)spiritual ( life )

He said three aspects, his third aspect is simply 1+2. He also states that foundational concept is physical (that it has shape!), and states that it is called spiritual and is seen in living things which makes his 1 and 2 identical. Then he says 'it is not related to matter'. How can it be when it IS matter? Another sign that shows he is a moron. Or as he himself says, he is 'mental'!

Let us take him on his own words. He says
1) objects (objects present are that which exist for exist is physical (shape -object) presence.
2) Foundational concept - which objects do, like motion. 
3) Concepts - idea.
He vehemently denies that god is an object. So he might be saying that god is a 'foundational concept'. (Let us forget that whether foundation or roof, a concept is conceived). According to him foundational concept is what an object/matter does (or always does). So god is what some matter does. So he is again agreeing that matter is eternal. So again god doesn't exist for god is the one who created matter (according to him).

We have seen that without foundational concepts and laws matter can't exist.

A lie. We have seen that" foundational concept" is what an object does. 'Foundational concept is NOT real like an object', for real means exist and concepts don't exist. Concepts are not 'real' to be objects, concepts are conceived. But see how he try to use equivocation fallacy! 

 E.g. Movement of electrons are essential for the existence of matter. 

Even if electron doesn't move matter exists. If we can manage to join an electron and proton it simply becomes a neutron which,  if outside an atom, within fifteen minutes becomes a hydrogen atom. Probably he didn't know that and as usual is falsely claiming expertise in a subject he is totally ignorant. He might have thought that a hydrogen atom becomes nothing if 'electron' stops moving. What is moving inside an electron, for as per him something should be moving inside an electron too, otherwise it won't exist? An electron doesn't become ‘nothing’ because it stopped moving unless you are stating that electron is the motion of something, in which case electron was nothing to start with. You’re writing more and more nonsense just to keep your delusion. 

It is also interesting to note that he still thinks planetary model is the standard. 

So existence of matter is depending on foundational concepts and laws. 

Nonsense, exist doesn't depend on any concepts. Something has to exist before concepts can be conceived. Don't say child is before mother.

"So existence of matter is a relative existence and it is not a permanent existence. "

Another nonsense. 

Living beings are having both matter and life in them. But life in them is not a permanent life.

Living beings doesn't have life "in" them moron, living beings or living things are a group of object that has a particular behavior. If your god is a living thing he has no permanent life in him or he is not a living thing, take your pick.

 So their existence also is a relative existence.

Relative to what? Existence is not relative.

Then who is having an independent existence? who exist forever unchanging? 

We already assumed that, god exists. What you should do is state your theory.  OK, god is unchanging, like a rock, never talk or think but what is the theory? Is god just a new type of rock in some distant galaxy? Probably, so you agree that your god is a non living thing, for living things have no permanent existence?

Who or what have independent existence? The answer is objects; all that have shape have existence.  

In whom the life is. He is the source of life. 

Sorry fellow, god is unchanging so he is not living. You cannot claim he is living and non living at the same time. Motion is part of the definition of life. Water is the source of life, so is your god water?

He can only have an existence independent and incorruptible. 

God of the bible is not one and the chief one is a jealous emotional thug who always changes. So come up with something better.

He is the God of bible. 

In Him is life, He always exist

I am again agreeing with you fellow, if there is a god he should exist, should be an object and not a concept. Now god is matter, matter always exists so what is the use of your god? We know, as matter and space is eternal, he didn't create the 'heaven and earth'. So which is your god, a stale (unchanging) rock or a concept hallucinated by Moses?

Now we know why he says all these foolishness, he is deluded (He doesn't even care that life and unchanging are contradictory, he even ignore the fact that bible says about many gods). He wants to make his god exist somehow otherwise he won't be able to sleep. He is afraid. His well being depends on him being not able to comprehend the terms he uses. He is simply addicted and he will do anything and say any nonsense to establish his god. This is the first step in fanaticism.  I hope he doesn't join the ISIS.

A Pathetic Update

This fellow is simply repeating nonsense, now it is pathetic.

Blog: “God is not a thing not a concept”. 

If god is not a thing, god is nothing. This great defender of religion does not know that ‘not a thing’ means nothing. May be that is why he is not defining ‘thing’. Read carefully fellow, not a thing means 'nothing', 'emptiness', 'nonexistence'. 

“One individual (human being) is not a concept not a thing.human being is a person. Human person can be male or female. But both are in the category of person.” 

Great, now he is saying that humans are nothing. 

All humans belong to the category of Homo sapiens, all Homo sapiens belong to the category of animals, all animals belong to the category of living things.

All buildings, crystals, stars and planets belong to the category of non-living (inanimate) things.

All living things and nonliving things belong to the category of “things/objects”. Thing is a synonym for object. They all have one property; they all have three dimensional shape that separate themselves from their surroundings and they all have a location. They all exist, all objects exist, in fact only objects exist.

“Human person is made up of matter. 

But human person can think , have a free will and can make choices. . He Can't  be fully controlled by external factors. So he is not matter alone.” 

He is coming with new terms that he does not understand. May be he is hoping that because he doesn’t understand nobody else will. If he thinks humans are not matter alone, it is his job to explain what else is there. He can’t simply say because I am blah,blah…. I am not matter alone.

“Matter

Change with time”

First define matter, so that we will know what you are speaking about.

“God as a person

Exist Exist -always present(same yesterday,today and tomorrow).  

(Not change with time.)

Not made up of matter

God made matter.” 

Persons are made of matter, they cannot be made of 'nothing’. If god is a person he has no choice but to be made of matter. If he claims that his god is not made of matter, then he is claiming that his god is nothing. If god is nothing, then how did nothing made matter?

And nothing penetrates his thick skull. He was informed that ‘present’ means exist and his definition always present means always exist. He was told that exist and eternal are NOT synonyms. Yet he is repeating the same nonsense. Now this fellow is saying exist also means ‘not change with time’. He doesn't understand that definition restrict meaning. He is stating that exist is a synonym of stale or stagnant or calcified,  which is an obvious skulduggery. This fellow either doesn’t understand or is using subterfuge when he says that all the three terms have the same meaning. Add to that an unchanging god cannot make matter, for if he does, he changes and by his definition he ceases to be god.

"God made matter", but you have not told us about matter fellow. Matter is another synonym of object. What is the rational behind the great assertion? How did nothing, 'emptiness', made things? Nothing doesn't take part in any action, can't he see the obvious ontological contradiction? If god is a thing, he has to admit that matter doesn't need creation. His chicanery will be exposed, hence this word juggling. 
If your god is not a (no) thing, it's ok fellow,  but then don't say nothing made matter, you will only be making a fool of yourself. 

So fellow, if you are not a brain dead looser or a charlatan, define ‘exist’ unambiguously. If you want to use ‘present’, define that. Also define ‘thing’.

"present(same yesterday,today and tomorrow)"

Present doesn't mean same as yesterday,  today and tomorrow, present means exist. If you think differently define 'present'.

“Some people can't distinguish between person and an impersonal thing. They call  their father it (because they think their father is matter). Ignorance and arrogance will lead them to foolishness.”

An emotional ploy, the last refuge of the scoundrel! This worthless 'soul' does not know what ‘thing’ means, he does not even dare to properly define his terms. He confuses his lay talk with literal discussion. Because people say humans are animals and rats are animals, does he mean that people can't differentiate between rats and humans? Does he find it difficult to distinguish between his mother and a worm because both are living things. Is he claiming that his mother is a living nothing not knowing that living is what a group of things called 'organisms' do?

May be he thinks his father is not an animal. He might be thinking that his father is god or some other concept, for he says his father is nothing. All kings and bastards claim that. Poor fellow, may be really doesn’t know his father and might be thinking that he is divine birth. It is only fortunate that he is of low intelligence that he doesn't understand the meanings of most words.
Or maybe he is a trickster hoping to use this as a red herring.  He might be hoping that the discussion will turn away from his contradictions and tomfoolery. 

May be he is a retard or has birth asphyxia and his mommy is trying to train him, réhabilitate him, that is why all this nonsense.  Then I should not criticize him. I will leave him alone, let him continue with his childish ramblings, after all, one should show pity.

A new post, it is getting more hiolarious.

Blogg: "Exist in its core meaning is about something or someone having an independent existence,so not change with time."
This fellow do not know what exist means, but he 'knows' "exist" means independent existence.". Talk about circularity. He is using the same word he is defining. He says exist means exist, we should all bow in front of his wisdom. 

.

 "Existence of objects related with time. "

Though he do know what exist means,he know it is related to time. I bet he doesn't know what 'time' means either.

"Tomorrow 

We will say table(a) doesn't exist

What we understand from this?"

We understand that this fellow is drunk. Does he point towards the table and say that table doesn't exist? Or is he going to say that 'the table will not exist tomorrow'? 

"Existence of objects related to time. "

First define exist fella, don't go on with your drunken ramblings.
"When we say someone or something exist they shouldn't depend on anything else for their existence."
Oh my god!! He is having some sense. Finally he says that existence is independent. If we say something exist, it should only be based on one criteria, whether the 'thing' fulfill the criteria to say exist, that is whether it fits the definition of exist.
Well fella, why don't you define exist then without circularity so that we can understand what you are speaking?

I have one question fella, if I say just like your god, alah, krisna, El, universe or saint Germaine are 'unchanging' and hence exist, what do you say?
Where is your god, this unchanging "thing" located? What is the use of this thing, what theory can you form with this hypothesis? 

You say about something or someone that exists.  Something means a thing. Someone is a living 'thing'. So what is a 'thing'? Thing and object are synonyms.  Then how can you say your god is not a thing/object. You continously ramble that your god is 'someone unchanging', not knowing what 'someone' means nor 'unchanging' means.
What made you decide to make a fool of yourself in public?

A religious nonsense

I found this blog whoexist.blogspot.in
This is one of the tricks of the religious to show there is god. This blog is different because of the low quality of the blog and the level of ignorance he displays. So let us take it as a comedy, I have added my comments in case any religious one is reading.

Blog: “Someone exist means

He is unchanging with time.”

Looks like this fellow has no idea what he is speaking, maybe he is drunk. Here he is equating exist to unchanging, that is he is saying that the definition of exist is unchanging.

A definition is a statement of the precise meaning of a term that limits the meaning. A word can have many meaning, but each meaning differ. A definition is used to remove any ambiguities and limit it to a single meaning so that we can avoid using it consistently in a discussion and avoid the fallacy of equivocation.

Let us take the word “exist”, the meanings given in dictionary are,

a :  to have real being whether material or spiritual 

b :  to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions 

:  to continue to be 

a :  to have life or the functions of vitality 

b :  to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances

           

We can see that three different meanings are given. Let us analyze each

“1” has to parts ‘a’ says real and ‘b’ says location. Real is defined as ‘being a physical entity’. What does that means? So together it means physical presence (material presence), that is it has a shape (an object) with location (place). So what it says is that exist means physical presence that is being an object with location.

It also means exist, ‘is’ and real are synonyms.

“2” says ’continue to be’, means it is existing at the time we are referring to it. That means when we say something exist, the time we refer to the object is taken as present, or when we say ‘a exists’ it is as if we are in the time when ‘a exists’, exist is always present tense.

“3” is synonymous with living.

So it turns out that exist means 1) Physical presence and 2) living. So it is the job of the presenter to specify which meaning he is using before presenting his case.  For example when we say ‘chair exists’ we obviously doesn’t mean the chair is living.

But our blogger instead chose to bring an entirely unrelated word “unchanging” as the definition of exist. May be he has some agenda or maybe he is an ignoramus.

Now unchanging means ‘without change’. Even if we move our little finger it means change. If I move my little finger, your location in relation to my finger changes. That means you will not be able to use unchanging with anything. As god is something rather than nothing, we can’t use exist even with god. He has defeated his purpose with his new terminology.

This is what he says
Also unchanging is an adverb, so where is the verb that 'unchanging' qualifies? Without the verb the statement is incomplete. 

“If someone or something change with time we can't say that being or thing exist.”

If god opens his mouth, if he thinks he changes and by his definition doesn’t exist. “Someone” refer to a person, a living thing. A living thing by definition moves, changes. So by his definition god is not a living thing, or god doesn’t exist if it is a living thing.

 “Eternal is without beginning or end. 

Someone always present or exist should be eternal. 

But someone who exist

 is not only eternal he should be unchanging ,same yesterday today and tomorrow”

First part is ok, someone who is ‘always present’ should be eternal. Second part is ridiculous. There is no “unchanging” in the definition of ‘exist’. This fellow didn’t state the definition  of exist, doesn’t know the definition of ‘exist’ but wants “unchanging” to be in the definition, only because he is ignorant of the meaning of “unchanging”. He thinks with a slight of hand trick he can fool the audience.

“Material objects don't exist always.”

 Material, made of matter and object are synonyms, this fellow didn’t know that either! Now let as use the implicit definition he gave here and see, ‘material objects are “unchanging” always, can any other statement be more ridiculous? What the heck is “exist”, fella?

“Exist means always present”

Finally a definition, only problem, he does not know what ‘present’ mean either. Presence signifies location. Location is always for an object, so when we simply say presence, it means an object (implicit) with location, yup ‘exist’. So according to his definition ‘exist’ means “always existing”. He is nuts. This is what happens when one take too much whisky.

“Root meaning of exist is stand forth. If something or someone doesn't  remain always,according to core word meaning we can't say that thing or being  exist. “

So what does “remain” means here, if not exist. He is surreptitiously trying to use the word exist here hoping no one will see the circularity. Again he is saying that if someone doesn’t exist always he doesn’t exist. So much for a definition!!

“Concepts doesn't present always so don't really exist 

Material objects doesn't present always so don't really exist."

Another brainer!! A concept is conceived by a sentient being, a thought. No concepts exist.

We saw that ‘exist’ has nothing to do with ‘always’, we also know that objects exist. Time is not included in the definition of exist.

“Who exists?”

Please define ‘exist’ then we will know ‘who’ or ‘what’ exists!

“It is about a person. We know a person is made up of matter. But person is not matter alone”

He said god is someone earlier, so god is a person. Here he says a person is made of matter. By deduction, god is made of matter which means god is an object. Yet he explicitly denies that god is not an object. Did he take rum too?

“Matter present for a long time. But it may also undergo disintegration."

A great assertion but he forgot to state why. It also means god, as he is made of matter, also undergo disintegration. After this he contradicts himself stating that god is always “existing”.

“25 years before he existed as a person.”

This fellow do not know that exist has to be used in present tense. When he say his grandpa, he obviously is visualizing a shape with a location to point to, that is when he does for a moment he is treating it as present. The he say “Then we have to say my grandpa existed, now not existing,in the future he may exist again. But better term will be he was present,now not present and in the future he may resurrect or reconfigured.”, Why this fellow don’t use “lived”? has he never heard such a term?

A classical blog to teach children how not to write English. For adults, unless they are brainwashed morons, this will be comedy. I should thank the author for giving us a comedy.