Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life,

[C C]

Practical Explanation ( For Example ) :- `1st of all can you tell me every single seconds detail from that time when you born ?? ( i need every seconds detail ?? that what- what you have thought and done on every single second ) can you tell me every single detail of your `1 cheapest Minute Or your whole hour, day, week, month, year or your whole life ?? if you are not able to tell me about this life then what proof do you have that you didn't forget your past ? and that you will not forget this present life in the future ? that is Fact that Supreme Lord Krishna exists but we posses no such intelligence to understand him. there is also next life. and i already proved you that no scientist, no politician, no so-called intelligent man in this world is able to understand this Truth. cuz they are imagining. and you cannot imagine what is god, who is god, what is after life etc.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: "[Bertrand] Russell said that remembering cannot prove that what is remembered actually occurred, because the world might have sprung into existence five minutes ago, with acts of remembering intact. We could go on to say that it might have been created one minute ago, and finally, that it might have been created in the present moment. [...] By examining Russell's hypothesis that the world was created five minutes ago I shall try to explain what I mean in saying that it is meaningless. Russell's hypothesis was so arranged that nothing could bear it out or refute it. Whatever our experience might be, it would be in agreement with it. [...] such sentences seem to mean something. But they are otiose, like wheels in a watch which have no function although they do not look to be useless."

Lots of thought experiments or claims can be made like the one above, which cannot be tested. This doesn't actually eliminate their possibility, but merely points-out that all we've got to work with is the maintained coherence of the moment-by-moment "grand story" that we find ourselves embedded in.

Instead of fixating over whether that story is true or false by comparing it to some other existential context than the immediate evidence of the world and the effects of a past stored in personal and environmental memory... The practical goal should be to stay in tune with the "grand story" and to dig out and apprehend more regularities about it, to work with it in order to get things done. Nothing is going to be accomplished by going against the story -- like willing one's body to walk through walls or something on the grounds that these experiences we abide in are just an illusion at some higher level.

Going blatantly against the rules of the story isn't going to work while we're still alive or embedded in it. And having the power to defy its restrictive conditions in some stage between lives (as we do in dreams) becomes moot if our personal memories slash information don't survive death. (Which is to say, _X_ might follow or be adjoined to "me", but it's no longer "me" if minus the internal feeling of continuity which the memories would provide; and if without any surrounding world that retains such records for coercing that former identity upon _X_ as it would in cases of my suffering amnesia in this life).

To hypothetically assert that "I will be Olga Kurokov" (or etc) in the next life would be pretty much the same as asserting that I'm also somebody else alive right now named Olga Kurokov. In both cases the latter doesn't have my memories and share my experiences, I don't have her memories and share her experiences... Ta-Da, what purpose does it really serve?

Should there be an underlying, more fundamental identity that unifies us and everyone else, then by virtue of its non-biological nature I could reasonably construe that it lacks human understanding and sensations of its be-ing as anything. To dissolve back into becoming that primal identity in between lives would just mean an absence of empirical and intellectual evidence of anything / everything. Or if it did at least feature a God's eye view or "manifestation of the whole of be-ing" then it could be like one of Leibniz's primitive, self-less type monads: Constantly dizzy because it lacks a conceptual intellect for disentangling and discerning particular objects, locations, and times in its maelstrom of "universal showing".

[Secular Sanity]

and what is meaning of such D.N.A test if you do it with other women then your real mother ? cuz right now you already dont know your real father. but if you also dont know your real mother then what is meaning of such an bogus or so called D.N.A test ? ( what is your answer ? )
________
and dont **impose** ( or shift burdon of proof ) other authorities like christianity, islamic, and other 3500 religious authorities on us ( The Hare Krishnas ) and tell us that what kind of verifiable and tangible explanation is there in christianity and islam ?

and what authority your scientists has got ? and what kind of verifaible and tangible explanation your evolution has got ?

The mother’s DNA is not necessary.

Science is not based on authority, or intuition, but on evidence.    

There is no evidence supporting Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion.  

Why Evolution is true and Why Many People Still Don't Believe It

[⚗ sile]

and what is meaning of such D.N.A test if you do it with other women then your real mother ? cuz right now you already dont know your real father. but if you also dont know your real mother then what is meaning of such an bogus or so called D.N.A test ? ( what is your answer ? )
________
and dont **impose** ( or shift burdon of proof ) other authorities like christianity, islamic, and other 3500 religious authorities on us ( The Hare Krishnas ) and tell us that what kind of verifiable and tangible explanation is there in christianity and islam ?

and what authority your scientists has got ? and what kind of verifaible and tangible explanation your evolution has got ?

The mother’s DNA is not necessary.

Science is not based on authority, or intuition, but on evidence.    

There is no evidence supporting Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion.  

Why Evolution is true and Why Many People Still Don't Believe It

No here is the Practical explanation which supports our ( The Hare Krishnas ) authority. and there is no explanation in any other religion.
_____________
and keep `1 thing in your ( dull ) brain that bogus links and dry talking will not support your evolution.

and now give me some verifiable and tangible explanation right now which supports your evolution right now.
____________

Special Note : The scientific method means first observation, then hypothesis, and then demonstration. But you cannot demonstrate you hypothesis. you simply observe and then speak nonsense.

---

Practical Explanation ( For Example ) :- `1st of all can you tell me every single seconds detail from that time when you born ?? ( i need every seconds detail ?? that what- what you have thought and done on every single second ) can you tell me every single detail of your `1 cheapest Minute Or your whole hour, day, week, month, year or your whole life ?? if you are not able to tell me about this life then what proof do you have that you didn't forget your past ? and that you will not forget this present life in the future ? that is Fact that Supreme Lord Krishna exists but we posses no such intelligence to understand him. there is also next life. and i already proved you that no scientist, no politician, no so-called intelligent man in this world is able to understand this Truth. cuz they are imagining. and you cannot imagine what is god, who is god, what is after life etc.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: "[Bertrand] Russell said that remembering cannot prove **Skip**universal showing".

And who is Ludwig ( or russell ) ?? who is he ? is that he is another authority ? alright give me another verifialbe and tangible explanation so that i can start following him. and tell me why shall i follow any street dog without any explanation ??

and keep `1 thing in your ( dull ) brain that you cant **impose** ( or shift burdon of proof ) your authority on us ( The Hare Krishnas ) without explaining anything at all.

[Secular Sanity]

No here is the Practical explanation which supports our ( The Hare Krishnas ) authority. and there is no explanation in any other religion.
_____________
and keep `1 thing in your ( dull ) brain that bogus links and dry talking will not support your evolution.

and now give me some verifiable and tangible explanation right now which supports your evolution right now.
____________

Special Note : The scientific method means first observation, then hypothesis, and then demonstration. But you cannot demonstrate you hypothesis. you simply observe and then speak nonsense.

---

You're not a critical or independent thinker. We can talk more when you learn to think for yourself.

Until then, good day to you, sile.

[⚗ sile]

No here is the Practical explanation which supports our ( The Hare Krishnas ) authority. and there is no explanation in any other religion.
_____________
and keep `1 thing in your ( dull ) brain that bogus links and dry talking will not support your evolution.

and now give me some verifiable and tangible explanation right now which supports your evolution right now.
____________

Special Note : The scientific method means first observation, then hypothesis, and then demonstration. But you cannot demonstrate you hypothesis. you simply observe and then speak nonsense.

---

You're not a critical or independent thinker. We can talk more when you learn to think for yourself.

Until then, good day to you, sile.

and now You can avoid the creator, but you cannot say He doesn't exist. Whether or not you accept the creator's authority is your business; but you cannot say there is no creator.

For example :- there are so many outlaws who say, "We don't want to obey the government." If you don't like the government, that is your business. But there is a government -- you can't deny that.

[C C]

And who is Ludwig ( or russell ) ?? who is he ? is that he is another authority ?

Yah, I gather from Stryder's post that you originally posted this topic in the Geophysics [...] sub-forum rather than Philosophy. But your possibly being more familiar with Earth Scientists didn't seem very useful to the thread itself.

alright give me another verifialbe and tangible explanation so that i can start following him. and tell me why shall i follow any street dog without any explanation ??

Yah, no need to elaborate that you experienced a sonic boom overhead in regard to the quote being an example or introduction into what "un-testable" hypotheses / beliefs are. And that your arrogant, militant preconceptions of what's going on when people reply to your topic, and the interpretative fixation over that quote as being an "explanation", apparently obscured apprehension of the rest of the post.

and keep `1 thing in your (dull ) brain that you cant **impose** (or shift burdon of proof) your authority on us (The Hare Krishnas) without explaining anything at all.

Yah, conspiratorial paranoia of "everybody is out to get us Hare Krishnas" noted. I gave you 3 points for providing a surprising break from the phobias of Abrahamic fundamentalism and strawman complaints / battles. Welcome to SciVillage.

[⚗ sile]

And who is Ludwig ( or russell ) ?? who is he ? is that he is another authority ?

Yah, I gather from Stryder's post that you originally posted this topic in the Geophysics [...] sub-forum rather than Philosophy. But your possibly being more familiar with Earth Scientists didn't seem very useful to the thread itself.

alright give me another verifialbe and tangible explanation so that i can start following him. and tell me why shall i follow any street dog without any explanation ??

Yah, no need to elaborate that you experienced a sonic boom overhead in regard to the quote being an example or introduction into what "un-testable" hypotheses / beliefs are. And that your arrogant, militant preconceptions of what's going on when people reply to your topic, and the interpretative fixation over that quote as being an "explanation", apparently obscured apprehension of the rest.

and keep `1 thing in your (dull ) brain that you cant **impose** (or shift burdon of proof) your authority on us (The Hare Krishnas) without explaining anything at all.

Yah, conspiratorial paranoia over "everybody is out to get us Hare Krishnas" noted. I gave you 3 points for providing a surprising break from the phobias of Abrahamic fundamentalism and strawman complaints / battles. Welcome to SciVillage.

no [b]word jugglery is wanted simply come to point and explain that why shall i follow any street dog like you ? who are you ? who are you `1st of all ?? are you another authority ? alright give me another explanation so that i can start following you.

and if you have no verifiable and tangible explanation then keep your garbage to yourself and to your fellow blind sheeps.

and keep`1 thing in your ( dull ) brain that you cant **impose** ( or shift burdon of proof ) your authority on us ( The Hare Krishnas ) without explaining anything at all.
[/b]

[C C]

Oh, just calm down and stop robotically repeating the same thing over and over, sile. You're overdoing the act. There's not necessarily a rule against going over the top with an incoherent personality in online performance art, so that it becomes self-evident to all readers / viewers that it's really a comedy routine. But you still serve a more functional purpose to forums on the web if there is enough doubt remaining that people can still marginally take you seriously.