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.