วีดีโอ

Puchna nahi tha, dhoke se le leni thi

Kya baat hai bhaijaan

Kindness compassion love

900 dollars of GST would still mean 9000 dollars of purchase, right? That's still a lot. Thanks. Thanks for the very detailed video.

If I buy a camera, and use it while in Australia. Can I claim GST refund? Or do I need to keep it in packed condition only? Do I need to keep its packaging?

Promo-SM

Can i get a refund for online iphone purchase with a printout of the invoice???

hey again one more question can I have my Australian address on invoice?

Hey so i just bought this iphone for 2549aud in which the gst amount is 232aud. So does that mean i need gst worth 300 aud to make a claim?

Thanks

Thank you so much for such a comprehensive explanation of the process. Just to confirm one thing, if I don't plan to bring the electronics that I purchased. Is there any upper threshold of the amount of gst I can claim?

8:07, One question here- For anyone on a work visa who is going to return to Australia, is the A$900 capping the GST amount or the total amount of the item bought? For eg- If one buys a Mac for A$3000, then does that mean 10% of only 900( i.e., 90 dollars) can be claimed or does that mean the GST claim amount itself is max 900?

Great. Nicely explained. So, can I claim refund on iPhone 14 as well? If it is purchased within 30days from my departure and has ABN?

is this Australia wide? or just Sydney

So, the one car I have on full time has made (net) 2023 Financial Year $5,684 from 46 bookings driven 9,229 k's as of today. I think your car or your location or charges are not working for the local market. I have mine near a railway station, high density apartments and a University to best serve my chosen market. I can't meet the need. I am just buying another car for Uber this weekend. That will make three. insurance recommendations

Excellent content! Look into using promo sm!!!

There's no such thing as a dalit varna, much less a dalit caste. The word dalit means the unfortunate one. Christians placed their race based caste system into the varna Jati occupation and said that it's Hinduism. There's no such thing as a dalit varna and NO concept of untouchability in Hinduism. Your civilization imposed it on Hinduism.

What he's right there's never been any physical evidence to prove any gods existence.religious books are nothing more than fiction.

Hi Mr. Penguin. I don't know if I understand your question correctly, but "How do atheists explain super consciousness?" is answered, not strictly by atheists but, by neuroscience. Any psychological state has a corresponding neural pathway in the brain. This can be observed by FMRI scans of people having such experiences and those say in a comatose state. Likewise one's consciousness can be altered by psychoactive drugs, or food or sleep deprivation. There is no reason to attribute consciousness to any supernatural force so there is no need to invoke a religion to explain it.

Atheism is not believing in gods. It's not a belief. It's the absence of belief. Superconscious sounds very much like the state of being unconscious.

I don't think dalits would agree with you. You're a funny dude. Through your civilization, Those people been considered impure and you talking about animals and environment. funny

Yes, something must exist to be experienced to be determined to be true. Atheists acknowledge that there is a possibility of gods existing. Nobody denies that. Atheists just point out that there is no evidence for it, and therefore we don't believe it. Some atheists (like me) also believe god does not exist. But most just do not believe that it exists. What you claim is the fault of science is in fact the strength of science. It's trying to get close to the truth, and therefore it can only deal with reality. There doesn't seem to be a question in the video, though. 🙂

𝓅𝓇o𝓂o𝓈𝓂

You don't think that science can go beyond personal experience? Why not, because you say so? because you redefine science to suit you? That's not how this works. You can't just redefine a term to make it say what you want it to without completely altering the question/claims/statement you are trying to address. Science isn't defined as "The discovery of physical law"... its "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." The emphasis is on "systematic study". That systematic study is specifically used to eliminate personal bias and overcome our preconceptions. It goes far beyond what any rational, honest person would describe as personal experience, especially in the context of the comment you are replying to. That you rely on dishonesty and word play to support your beliefs says a lot about your beliefs.

Three minutes into this nonsense, no fewer than 4 logical fallacies. The video cited with the gorilla, (blind to your blindness) is explained by a well known phenomenon called saccadic blindness. Illusionists, magicians and street hustlers take advantage of people with this trick the same way this huckster is trying to use it to sway viewers from rational thought. Didn't bother watching the rest of the video, heard it all before.

I'm not sure I understand the question correctly. The concept of "oneness" you're describing does exist in Christianity, usually described as God's grace. Similar concept also exists in materialism. Under materialism, the apparent duality between subjective mind and external reality is nothing more than an abstraction over what is essentially just an interconnected web of information transfer. Some clusters/nodes in that web are of bigger significance to us, so we distinguish them as minds, but they are not truly metaphysically distinct from the rest of reality.

who cares if its possible? if you don't have any good evidence a god exists, why should we believe one does?

Scientists spend billions of dollars building detectors to detect things that can't be detected by out senses. Science is the study of anything that affects anything. If something doesn't affect anything, it's indistinguishable from nothing. Personal experience should never be enough. Personal experience is often unreliable, and there must be a way to reliably distinguish true events from false events. Most atheists reject the claims theists make about theistic deities because the evidence provided for specific theistic deities is too weak. That's it. Effectively leaving the atheist without any theistic deity to believe in. That's it.

few problems 1. atheism is just the rejection of the god claim there is no dogma at all it is not a positive statement that there is no god it is literally just the rejection of your claim there is a god. atheism has no faith, religions have faith atheism does not atheism is not a world view, it makes no statements about anything.

Atheism - The lack of belief in the existence of gods. That's it. I am an expert on what I believe. That statement is 100% true, I do not believe in the existence of gods, any of them. My basis for this belief is that the foundation of theistic religions appear to be purely in the imagination of the writers of the stories in the bible and other works used for this purpose. So to me the gods are fictional characters in old stories, nothing more. If you want me to change this viewpoint I need to see some evidence that the supernatural exists. That gods, any gods, exist. Gods in this case being thinking agents with supernatural abilities that we associate with 'gods'. To date, no such evidence has been presented that survives even superficial honest scrutiny.

Most atheists will say there is not enough evidence to believe in a god. His gorilla story says just that, untill you can prove a gorilla there is no reason to believe in a gorilla especially when you have to pretend the gorilla is there and make rules for your life.

To point towards the "gorilla in the video" example, to make it more accurate, we do not watch that video once, but keep watching it. Imagine watching that video with the teams passing on balls and you are indeed so concentrated that you haven't seen a gorilla. Afterwards somebody claims there was a gorilla in the background. You watch the video again, focussed on a gorilla, but can't see one. So you watch it again and look from another angle, or again with different resolution, or with different light settings, etc. yet every time you watch that video, there doesn't seem to be any trace of a gorilla. Yet the person keeps claiming it is there. Now, is it possible it actually is there, but you keep missing it? Sure. But wouldn't it also be reasonable that, as long as you haven't seen any actual evidence of there being a gorilla, that, untill you see evidence otherwise, you assume there isn't a gorilla in the video? To me that is atheism. I personally have been talking to theists for well over 20 years now, asking for their best arguments and most convincing evidences that (a)God(s) actually exist. But in all this time I haven't come across any (for me) convincing argument or proof that could pursuade me it is indeed more likely (a) God(s) really exist.

You can't use a concept without reliable evidence, like super consciousness, as evidence of another concept without reliable evidence, like a god. *A conviction that god does not exist shuts down the possibility* No. If a god has some kind of effect on reality, that effect should be noticeable. If a god has no noticeable effect on reality that god is both irrelevant and indistinguishable from no god at all. *Can reason and evidence go beyond five senses?* Of course. That's why we build all these sensors to detect things humans can't. Most scientists get excited when they find something unknown interfering with their sensors that might be something supernatural. But if you claim that there is such a thing as super consciousness you need to show that it's at least as reliable as the other five senses. *Can we all be living a dream?* This is just an argument to solipsism. If we are living in a dream, that dream is indistinguishable from no dream. Until you have reliable evidence for a specific higher reality, any alternative reality is equally plausible, and way way less plausible than the reality we experience.

First, atheism is the lack of belief OR disbelief in the existence of any gods. There’s a significant number of atheists who do not believe in the existence of any gods AND do not believe that no gods exist. . Second, since a statement of what one believes in distinct from stating that the contents of what one believes must be true, there is no burden of proof for a simple belief, including a belief in the existence of any god. There are a significant number of atheists who believe that no gods exist AND do not conflate their beliefs with their knowledge. Thirdly, our bodies DO have more than just 5 physical senses. For example, most of us have a sense of balance, provided by sensory receptors in the ear canals, if I’m not mistaken. This is just nitpicking on how people are stuck on the idea of just 5 senses. If you think that there is sufficient objective, reliable evidence to demonstrate a “super-consciousness” which can be perceived without use of the physical organs of our bodies, by all means, direct us to it… and tell us why such a thing must constitute the existence of a god. Those of us who are critical thinkers might change our minds if exposed to objectively reliable evidence. As it stands, the number of people who CLAIM to have such perceptions most often fail to demonstrate it and/or blatantly contradict others who make the same claims of perception. These people are in the vast minority, and it stands to reason that the pattern-seeking and confirmation bias functions of their physical brains is a better explanation for their notions that they have superhuman abilities. EDIT: Oh, I forgot to answer your question, Of the tens of thousands of proposed gods and versions of gods, there is currently a 100% failure rate for any of them being demonstrated to be the explanation for anything we can demonstrate an explanation for. “Not a god” has a 100% success rate for being demonstrated to be the explanation for EVERYTHING we can demonstrate an explanation for. Keep in mind that this includes all the gods which have been demonstrated to be nonexistent, as they are claimed to have influence over phenomena which we can demonstrate front to back beyond all reasonable doubt… to be free of any supernatural influence. I might be wrong, but I believe that no gods exist and it seems like a really safe bet based on the real-world performance of all gods claims.

I will gladly defend my position of atheism.

The notion of "oneness" or whatever you want to call it is pure nonsense. It is proven fact that some parts of existence can never even have any relevance on other parts of existence. Just the sheer size and emptiness of the universe should be enough proof that there are no gods as per human definitions.

3:20 - But that's not what an atheist asserts. They don't claim there is no god, they simply claim that the evidence for god isn't strong enough to merit belief. Atheists don't know for certain whether gods exist -- nobody can know for certain! Likewise we don't know for certain that fairies don't exist, or that Spider-Man doesn't exist (as a real person.) But what we can say is that the evidence for the reality of fairies, and Spider-Man is either weak or non-existent, and on that basis we assume they don't exist. For atheists, it isn't about feelings or opinions. It is about evidence, gathered using methods outside of personal experience and opinion. When one steps outside of one's own biases, and attempts to see the world in as unfiltered a way of possible by using experiments and methodologies that seek to remove or minimise the possibility of personal bias, does one see credible evidence for gods? The answer is no. As such, until such evidence is demonstrated, the atheist therefore assumes gods are fictional. All it takes to change their mind is evidence. 6:10 - The problem here is that we have evidence for the conscious and the subconscious. We don't have evidence for the super-conscious. 7:40 - "Can reason and evidence and proof and reality exist beyond [the] five senses?" This question could mean one of two things. Let me take them both... Firstly, let's assume the question is asking: "can reality exist without conscious minds to observe it?" Okay, so how do we address this? Well, if things like reality are dependent on the five senses, then we can ask the simple question "Have there always been entities in the universe with five senses?" The answer is no -- our universe is 13.8b years old, and our Earth is 4.5b years old, and life on Earth is even younger. Even if we doubt those figures, it is obvious that the universe had to come before life. So did reality exist before life (with five senses) emerged? Clearly it did. Therefore is reality dependent upon minds to observe it? Clearly not, because it existed prior to creatures with minds. Let's take a different interpretation of the question: "can humans know the objective truth of reality, despite having subjective senses?" Well the way to do this is not to trust your subjectivity, but to use experiments that do not rely on any one person's subjectivity. For example, if I want to know whether objects of different weights fall at the same speed, I can drop objects of different weights from the same height and measure whether they hit the ground at the same time. In order to check that my eyes didn't deceive me, and also that my test was a fair one, I can ask other people to double check my methodology and my findings. If lots and lots of people agree that the test was fair, and that they too got identical results, then we can be pretty sure this is highly unlikely to be subjectivity. The more people check the methodology and the results, and agree, the less likely it is that what we found was a delusion. And at some point we reach the stage when the experiment has been conducted by so many people, and there's so much agreement in the results, that we can say that it is statistically vastly unlikely to be a subjective delusion. The same cannot be said for answers arrived at using higher states of consciousness. If you ask multiple people to use higher states of consciousness to decide whether objects of different weights fall at the same speed, you'll get multiple answers. And that's how we know answers reached using higher states of consciousness are just yet another type of subjectivity.

I don't think the blindness towards the gorilla was an issue, since he didn't interfered with the task at hand of counting ball related things, the same is true for atheist and deities. Sure, there might be some deities that are real, but they obviously do not interact with the universe and thus their possible existence is of no concern. The strong atheist position is very rare, most atheists are also agnostic, they make no claims about the universe, they only refer to their own state of mind. That they see no gorilla/deity since it simply makes no difference if it is there or not. You are wrong, there are plenty of religions that go beyond the physical world. The Abrahamic religions have the soul for that, Buddhism is very similar to Hinduism in that regard, and animistic religions like Shintoism also have plenty of things going on beyond our five sense. So, that assumption that only Hinduism does there something that no other religion is doing is simply false. And my atheism is not shutting down anything, it is just a statement of my mind, that there are no deities in it, it says nothing else. Being behold to just the five sense is empiricism, but I as atheist I don't have to hold such a position. There are plenty of atheists who hold all kinds other supernatural believes, since atheism is just about deities, nothing else. Also, technically people have more than five senses, since our inner ear contains also a sense for gravity that lets us find the balance to walk upright. Anyway, no atheist is denying completely mental constructed things, like fiction of all kind, that is obviously not something we can interact with our senses, but still has impact on our thinking. One could call that Plato's idealism, and that kind of thinking has influenced Christianity a lot, but it is not bound to it and thus atheists can of course also perceive the world in such manner.

"...when an atheist is asserting the position that there is no possibility of God..." We don't have to. We just have to note that there's no good reason to think there _is_ one and wait for sufficient evidence. After all, you've gone and made your god idea untestable, undemonstrable, and undetectable. Meaning there can _never_ be sufficient reason to think your god thing exists. "...my thinkings could be wrong..." Yep. Always an issue. We can only do the best we can with what we have. "...is there a possibility that we're all living a dream..." Epistemic possibility or logical possibility? It's not known to be _impossible,_ but that doesn't tell us if it is possible or not. Could a dreaming mind dream so many beings simultaneously? Unknown. So until we have sufficient evidence, we should reject this. Not to mention it doesn't matter. We seem to be unable to escape this reality, whatever it's nature, so we may as well treat it as it presents itself since we can't do anything to change it. "...you see everything as different from you is because you're veild by maya..." Prove it. "...there is another level, superconsciousness..." Is there? How would we tell if it's there or not? At least with the _subconscious_ we can test it and demonstrate it. "...can reason and evidence and proof go beyond five senses..." Unknown. If you want to establish that it can, you would need a _lot_ of predictive models showing that it can.

Please tell me. How is superconsiousness linked to the existence of god?

Where is your evidence that proves shiva is real?

Where is your evidence to support your claims about reincarnation?.

Earth to Mr. Dawkins, evolution is not science, it is SPECULATION, guessing, hearsay, posing as science. You, nor anyone else, ever observed that cell at the bottom of the fabled evolution tree assemble over TIME(the hero of the plot) into a human.

How does the seed grows? Your ignorance of how nature works is not the proof your cosmic magic man or deity. Just because you are ignorance of something does not mean your Deity did it. That is called argument from ignorance, also god-of-the-gap. It sounds like you have not heard that before.

Nice day for walking my friend, great video!

Bullllllllssssshhiiiiiiiittttttt!!!!

Part 1 of 2 "...is there a non-physical phenomena which we are referring to as God..." Well, you need to establish that something non-physical can be causative. After all, a 'non-physical phenomena that cannot cause anything to happen' can't be a god. "...state does not change by itself..." It... actually does, to an extent. Sort of. The 'state' of something is the arrangement of matter and energy of a thing. But because that 'thing' is not a single particle in the case of a brain or computer (or most other things) it affects _itself,_ one part of it affecting another part, and vice versa. For instance, all of the Earth pulls gravitationally on Mount Everest, and Mount Everest pulls on the whole of the Earth. Because it's multiple bits all together, the Earth has effects that are entirely about changing itself _by_ itself. So when I discuss a 'change of state' of a brain or computer, that can be _entirely_ based on internal things, but _is not limited to_ such things. I didn't specify because it's 'both'. Stimuli causes some reactions, which lead to still other reactions that are mostly _incidentally_ related to the stimuli, the effect we call 'thinking' where chemical and quantum changes happen in the brain that correspond, for that particular brain, to a particular thought. "...you are giving the same stimuli, the seed, you are giving this water, sunlight, shade, whatever it is, fertilizer, but still that tree will die..." It's not the same stimuli. The content of the soil, the temperature, the humidity. All _those_ are 'stimuli', too. So the actual thing here is 'different stimuli, different response'. When I discuss the 'stimuli/response' sort of idea, I'm taking into account _all_ of the stimuli. The ripple in the pond, for instance, from a rock hitting it _is_ still subject to temperature, humidity, air contents, water constituents, and so on, it's just that the _effect_ of 'a ripple' is not _changed_ by those. There's _lots_ of stimuli that don't matter to that seed/tree, either. For instance, the color of the pot it is being grown in, or how close it is to Darwin in the Northern Territory (assuming the soil in the pot is the same, of course), or _who_ planted it, or what time of day it was planted, or time of year (if this is in a greenhouse, for instance). It wouldn't matter if a cat passes by or not. All these things _are_ stimuli, and they _do_ cause slight variations, but _overall_ those differences don't matter to the large-scale outcome of 'a tree grows and reproduces'. This is the 'complex' model, but I don't call this complexity 'knowledge'. If you want to refer to that as 'knowledge', then the particular arrangement of grains of sand in a sand dune is the same as the _idea_ of 1+1=2 or the General Theory of Relativity, which I think is insulting to either of those things. Heck, I think it's insulting to say the arrangement of sand is the equivalent of a children's story. "...thoughts are matters, now you have internet..." Thoughts are reactions in a brain that can lead to the body it is in moving in ways that cause other matter to be arranged in new ways. The thought, itself, isn't the internet. It is something that _can_ lead to a different arrangement of things. A pink elephant riding a tricycle across the rings of Saturn is a thought, too, and so far the only 'matter' it has led to are these lines in computers representing the words to describe it. So _to an extent_ one can say 'all thoughts are matters', in that they all seem to refer to brain states that may be causative in some way, it is _not true_ that 'all matters are thoughts'. Thoughts will be a _subset_ of matters, of states of things, one _sort_ of arrangement of matter and energy that can be causative, but not _all_ arrangements are thoughts. We can tell this by the way they behave. Thoughts _do not behave_ in the same way that piles of sand do, even though both can be causative. "...you are becoming aware of the knowledge that is within you..." This is a terrible description of what 'knowledge' is. You are discussing 'states of affairs' and referring to any 'state of affairs' as 'knowledge'. If that's what you _mean_ by 'knowledge', then you _cannot_ claim 'knowledge requires a mind', because it's clearly the case that it doesn't. While some mind may lead to some state of affairs, a state of affairs does not require a mind to come about, because a state of affairs is simply the arrangement of matter and energy. "...how much of [Albert Einstein's] brain he actually used..." All of it. We _all_ use _all_ of our brain at all times. The idea that we use some small percentage of our brain is effectively an urban legend, likely coming from around the 1950's when someone said that we knew what about 10% of the brain _did._ "The notion that a person uses only 10 percent of their brain is a myth. fMRI scans show that even simple activities require almost all of the brain to be active." - www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321060#takeaway "...they accessed that part of the brain..." Nope. Hinduism and other ideas are not already in the brain as far as we can tell. Consider a bunch of blocks. In one arrangement they aren't really anything. Arrange them another way and they form a box, or the word 'Yo' in English. Does that mean that the box was 'inside' that group of block? No. Those blocks _weren't_ arranged into a block, and then later on they were. This is thought. Ideas are not already _there,_ they are things that come about by reactions and changes. If this were not the case, you would need a brain of infinite size to hold an infinite number of particles to reference an infinite number of ideas. Our brains are not infinite in size. Your notion of ideas and knowledge comes from people who think 'spirit' is a thing, or that the brain is infinitely divisible. The _problem_ with both of those notions is how we _so clearly_ are chemically driven. When you introduce chemicals into the brain, you _alter_ the way that brain works, and thus the sorts of thoughts it has. Try getting drunk sometime. And _even if_ you argue that such chemicals are somehow infinitely divisible, it doesn't _matter_ that they are. Like the humidity on that ripple in the pond, or the color of the pot on the growth of the plant, none of that infinite divisibility affects the outcome. There's a _very_ few ways in which alcohol affects the brain, affects the thinking, not an infinite set. The same errors, the same processes, keep happening. But more than that, it really looks like they are _functionally_ not infinitely divisible in any case. This came to light with the discovery of the Planck length and Planck time. There are no _meaningful_ distances or times shorter than that, and so no way to contain an infinity in a finite space. These are things early philosophers didn't know about. "...humans are the most evolved creatures that have ever existed on planet Earth..." This is false. If anything, 'the most evolved' thing on Earth will be some sort of bacteria. To be 'more evolved', you need more generations. Evolution is the process of changes (or not) in _populations_ from generation to generation. 'Evolved' doesn't mean 'stronger' or 'smarter' or even, in a way, 'better'. This is a common misconception about evolution. Evolution just makes things 'better adapted' to their situation, and it's all coming from the same starting point. The best way to look at it is this: _everything_ that is alive is _just as evolved_ as everything else, having had the _same amount of time_ to grow and diversify. "...you are born with [the impressions of past lives]..." What test could you perform to show this is true? That is, what should be the case if, and _only_ if, this is true, and what should _not_ be the case if this is false? "...you have the potential to be very, very exceptional at something..." Some people being exceptional at some things does not mean _all_ people are exceptional at something. That's a Hasty Generalization fallacy. "...there are some people who have never been trained, and yet they are doing it. How..." Well, _most_ of the things that they are doing in this way they are either not doing _well_ or _else_ they have trained _themselves_ via practice. Doing things over and over due to interest is all that's needed to 'train'. There _are_ some ways in which we have 'talents', but we can't state that applies to _everyone._ "...thought comes first, creation second..." You were reading my bit about computer stuff. ... The RAM exists _before_ the program. The _thing_ is first, the _thought_ is secondary. _Exactly_ the opposite of what you are saying. You _cannot have_ the _program_ (which contains 'should' and 'should not') _without_ having RAM for that program to operate.

Here is the main problem with this video. - He starts with changing the definition of god to his own definition (knowledge). Of course he does not demonstrate this, it’s just an assertion. - But why do that? This is my take on that: - He changes the definition from the supernatural (god) to the natural (knowledge). - Of course it is easier to argue for knowledge than for god. - But it just means that he makes his whole argument about the natural (knowledge) instead of the supernatural (god) so he did not make any case for god in this video. - Referring to this knowledge as ‘god’ (without any justification) is just lazy apologetics.

Wow, I appreciate your effort but this video is, again, so filled with straw man and baseless assertions that none of it makes sense. - How do you know god is knowledge. You can’t just assert that without demonstrating it. Without a demonstration that god is knowledge the rest of your video is pointless because it is based on a baseless assertion. - How do you know stimuli / respons is too simple for creation? And when did you demonstrate that creation was a deliberate process? - Your analogy about ‘somebody had to think about video’ is completely faulty. There is evidence of video equipment or the internet and there is evidence of people making those things. There is zero evidence for god. You are just smuggling in your assertions to demonstrate your assertions. That is not how this works. - One thing that is true is that all religions most probably came from the fear of dying. All the different religions activated their part of the brain to make up their own stories to deal with this fear. What all those religions lack of course is actual evidence that their ‘solution’ is real. - With all these fallacious arguments you are actually making the case FOR atheism. Your whole story is dependent on your presuppositional assertion that a god is knowledge. Assertions are not evidence. - “god comes first, creation second” You still have to demonstrate that god exists before you can attribute creation to him. This is all circular reasoning. - “how 10.000 years ago…?” 🤣🤣 Did you ever encounter a Muslim? They make the same claim. - “how they knew about planets?” Astronomy was one of the first natural sciences so why should they not know. I could not find any source describing the seven circles as the 7 planets. And let’s just forget that there are 8 planets 😳 - And of course you had to straw man atheism. Atheism IS NOT THE DENIAL OF GOD. STOP WITH THE STRAW MAN PLEASE.