Was not supporting anyone. If you don't like my proof that existence is eternal thats fine - but how does your claim that existing again has the odds of winning the lottery find support ? The reason I say 50/50 .. is because at the end of the day we don't know . perhaps my assumtion that Time is infinite does not hold. . Flip a coin 50/50 By the evidence we have however, existence is eternal.
Would that be the "real world" according to you? Or the "real world" according to me? Or the "real world" according to Joe Biden? Or the "real world" according to Mike Pence? Write me a post and use Empiricism to demonstrate logically why I ought to take heed to YOUR assertions regarding what is, or is not, the "real world." JAG
RE: I Can NOT Be Killed. SUBTOPIC: What is it? ⁜→ et al, BLUF: There is exsistance and no-exsistance. (QUESTION) If it is "galactic energy" then it is detectable. What is it? Most Respectfully, R
Only an ideologue could stand behind, before the arrival of Jesus no one on the planet had been happy and after arrival, those of other faiths are not happy.
Where did I say that existing again has the odds of winning the lottery? I think this the third time I'm writing it out. The lottery example shows that wanting something to be true is not sufficient for it to be believable. I have made no claims that the odds are comparable. "We don't know" is not the same as "50/50". "We don't know" is we don't know. Imagine I hand you a weighted coin, it falls on one side 80% of the time, but I haven't told you which side it is weighted against. It would be true to say that "you don't know" which way it will land, but it would not be true to say that it is 50/50, the coin doesn't lose its weight just because you don't know about it. It seems to me "we don't know" is a perfectly good conclusion, but 50/50 suggests that we actually know something about the relation between the two. I disagree with that too, but my main concern is asserting to know something (like 50/50) about something which is in fact unknown.
I haven't suggested any galactic energy, I have only referred to it as others have brought it up. I have no idea where they draw the line around it.
Actually, we do know simple facts and reality. And that is, we don't know. Multiple cultures believe in life after death, reincarnation so to speak. Let's simplify. Do you have a soul, yes or no? If you say no, I disagree. Now prove me wrong with "facts".
What significance does "multiple cultures" believing something have? I say we don't know. You seem to be arguing against points I have not made. I disagree with statements like "I would like to win a billion dollars, but I don't think it is likely. Should I believe it?" "Of course you should believe it." (source)
I think most things dealing with spirituality are not proveable. But when you have a “spiritual awakening” or whatever you want to call it in your religion/culture, you simply know. And that is the only way to describe it. It is different than simply going to church because that is what society tells you you should do. It is a very profound knowing, that is completely unprovable, and to those who have not been through it, it may well seem totally unbelievable. In time, everyone will have a spiritual awakening, in this life or in a later life. So, if you feel left out, don’t worry. In the end, we will all get there.
OK, so you are stuck and can't disprove my statement of opinion. I'd say we are now wasting time since you can't disprove my opinion or prove yours. Thanks for the circle.
RE: I Can NOT Be Killed. SUBTOPIC: Understanding? ⁜→ Giftedone, Swensson, Het Now, et al, BLUF: Open Apology (COMMENT) "A related concept is knowledge de se. This is self-knowledge, of the sort expressed by ‘I am —— ’. Knowledge de se is not simply de re knowledge about oneself. A person might see a group of people in a mirror and notice that one of the people has a red spot on his nose. He then has de dicto knowledge that someone in the group has a red spot on his nose. On most accounts, he also has de re knowledge with respect to that individual that he has a spot. But if he has failed to recognize that he himself is the one with the spot, then he lacks de se knowledge. He doesn’t know (or believe) what he would express by saying “I have a red spot.” So, according to this view, knowledge de se is not merely knowledge de re about oneself. SOURCE: Dictionary of Philosophy • Cambridge University Press © Cambridge University Press 1995, 1999 pp 473 (COMMENT) What kind of agency, a proponent Agency (ex The Supreme Being) pro-po-nent /pra'ponant/ n. a person who advocates a theory pronosal, or project. SOURCE: Dictionary of legal terms : a simplified guide to the language of law / by Steven H. Gifis.3rd ed. pp 711 AGENCY a relationship in which one person (agent) acts on behalf of another (principal) with the authority of the latter. Compare partnership. SOURCE: Dictionary of legal terms : a simplified guide to the language of law / by Steven H. Gifis.3rd ed. pp 16 Energy Greek en- in, at, onto -ergon work The capacity to do work; source of usable power; vigorous exertion of effort. SOURCE: Elias, Joseph S., 1948–Science terms made easy : a lexicon of scientific words and their root language origins / Joseph S. Elias. p. 73. Includes bibliographical references and index. My (failed) intent was to help contribute to the conversation. I'll leave you to your discussion. Again, my apologies. Most Respectfully, R
You did EXACTLY what I knew you would do, which was: Totally IGNORE this: ______________ JAG Wrote: Would that be the "real world" according to you? Or the "real world" according to me? Or the "real world" according to Joe Biden? Or the "real world" according to Mike Pence? Write me a post and use Empiricism to demonstrate logically why I ought to take heed to YOUR assertions regarding what is, or is not, the "real world." ____________ Let me tell you WHY you totally ignored that up there. It is because you have zero answers for the questions. . . .and . . . because you can NOT produce Empirical evidence demonstrating why I ought take heed to your assertions regarding what is, or is not, "real world." JAG `
That seems like a narrow view of where this can go. I have been asking things like why you think I should believe that I will win a billion dollars, and what significance the beliefs of multiple cultures have. I think answers to those would be informative or interesting even if you're going to pull a solipsist retreat.
Do you agree that people with these awakenings will often/sometimes disagree on what the "profound knowing" entails? I.e. even if we can't put our finger on what the truth is, we at the very least know that people who base their understanding on those awakenings can be wrong (i.e. having this spiritual awakening is not a reliable path to truth)? Does a "profound" knowing mean it is any closer to truth? Or does it just mean that people are less likely to check whether it actually is truth, and therefore just more likely not to fix any ideas that aren't true?
What a childish post. Lacks an understanding of knowledge or thought. You simply can't back up whatever point you thought you were making.
An ideologue is a blindly partisan adherent to an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic. Saying only Christians can be happy is an example of that.
You're doing it again. I don't blame you. Your ideologue thingy is your ploy to ignore that which you have zero answers for, which is still this: JAG Wrote: Would that be the "real world" according to you? Or the "real world" according to me? Or the "real world" according to Joe Biden? Or the "real world" according to Mike Pence? Write me a post and use Empiricism to demonstrate logically why I ought to take heed to YOUR assertions regarding what is, or is not, the "real world." Let me tell you again WHY you totally ignored that up there. It is because you have zero answers for the questions. . . .and . . . because you can NOT produce Empirical evidence demonstrating why I ought take heed to your assertions regarding what is, or is not, "real world." JAG
An ideologue denies evidence that is contrary to her ideology and therefore is not in touch with the real world.
Would that be the "real world" according to you? Or the "real world" according to me? Or the "real world" according to Joe Biden? Or the "real world" according to Mike Pence? Write me a post and use Empiricism to demonstrate logically why I ought to take heed to YOUR assertions regarding what is, or is not, the "real world." JAG
Based on near death experience accounts.... and on The Gospels of the Christian Bible... I now think that you are correct. From 1972 or 1973 until 1990 I did believe in the Soul Sleep doctrine that I now am sure was a serious error. I think that the near death experience accounts of Atheists is powerful evidence in favour of your belief. https://near-death.com/an-analysis-of-the-ndes-of-atheists/ An Analysis of the Near-Death Experiences of Atheists BY KEVIN WILLIAMSPOSTED ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2019
RE: I Can NOT Be Killed. SUBTOPIC: Near Death Experiences (NDE) ⁜→ Dennis Tate, et al, BLUF: Back in the Day, Dr Rick Strassman, MD wrote a book (DMT: The Spirit Molecule) about the chemical inducement of NDE as well as other types of experiences. (COMMENT) The Soul Sleep doctrine is not a sound theory (examined under the scientific process). However, there is a reason for NDE. DMT (Dimethyl terephthalate) : DMT: The Spirit Molecule (2010) [multi subs] Most Respectfully, R
