The Big Religion/God Debate

[Free]

What I said in that quote was true though.  Are you actually disagreeing with it?

Either there is telepathy or there isn't.  Can we agree on that?

Isn't it quite obvious I'm disagreeing.

[Cueshark]

Ok.  I don't think we're gonna get anywhere Free lol.

[Aerox]

So have we concluded yet that Free's only viable argument that we don't know anything therefore anything might be?

[DarkOne]

Don't you realise Free just coined semi-existence?

[Free]

So have we concluded yet that Free's only viable argument that we don't know anything therefore anything might be?

My viable argument to what? You haven't added anything valuable to this thread except your trolling and twisting of my words.

I've already said multiple times that if one is interested on reading scientific approach to topics we're talking about, read My Big TOE since you guys claim there has been no scientific field-work done considering topics like these.

Edit: scientific field-work that backs up some of my wacky and psychotic claims*

[style]

Ohh, I got something wrong here.. right?

[Cueshark]

So have we concluded yet that Free's only viable argument that we don't know anything therefore anything might be?

My viable argument to what? You haven't added anything valuable to this thread except your trolling and twisting of my words.

I've already said multiple times that if one is interested on reading scientific approach to topics we're talking about, read My Big TOE since you guys claim there has been no scientific field-work done considering topics like these.

Edit: scientific field-work that backs up some of my wacky and psychotic claims*

Ok.  Now I never claimed that there was no science being done on the paranormal.  In fact I argue that I know more about parapsychological research than you.  I was a listener to the Skeptiko podcast for many months which talked about all the latest scientific research being done in the world of the paranormal.  Yes....my critical views do come from having looked into both sides of the arguments.

All I claimed was that there haven't been any conclusive results from parapsychological research.  And I stand by that.

Although science has been done regarding the paranormal, how good is the science?  How well controlled were the experiments?  Could the experiments be replicated and the same results obtained?

Gary Schwartz...you heard of him?  Very famous psychic researcher.  Reckons he's got results that prove almost conclusively that supernatural powers are at work.  His critics?  They disagree.  Why?  Look into it.  It's interesting.

Rupert Sheldrake is another 'scientist' doing paranormal work.  Some people love him, stand by his findings and conclude he has done good science.  Other people claim he is nothing more than a lunatic who runs around doing crappy studies on supposedly psychic dogs.

Free, you've read this Big TOE book and from what I gather, this guy Thomas Campbell has his theory of everything.  Like other paranormal researchers I'm sure there are some people who think it's incredible and exciting.  I'm sure there are some who think it's new age mumbo jumbo.  No doubt there are some extremely intelligent people who have studied the sciences for all their lives who would pick holes in this theory and spot the problems with it.

I unfortunately can't do that but I will watch his lectures and keep an open mind.  I will also try and gain an insight into what experts are saying about this theory.

After all, there so far isn't an accepted theory of everything, science is striving for one but so far there isn't one.  Yet this guy Campbell claims to have developed one.  Something definitely ain't right here!

[Ramone]

I think that this discussion got stuck on misunderstandings of what we're talking about. Are we trying to reach the truth about the subject and conclude "this is a truth, and this is not" or we're trying to explain that everything is possible?

I already tried to explain and I think it's quite simple and that we could all agree on that at least: There is no "your truth" and "his truth", truth is one and universal. Although, there is "your belief" and "his belief", beliefs are individual.

What is universal truth? It's that 1+1=2, it's that Earth is round and not flat, etc.. It's anything that has been scientifically proved with conventional scientific methods. Therefore, can we agree that we can call "truth" only those things and "beliefs" everything else that has not been proven? Are we that sane?

Free, if you want a backup and support on your opinion that "remote viewing" or telepathy is possible, then fine, we agree that it's possible. But then again you have to agree with Cueshark that it is not the truth, because it has never been scientifically proven.

Inside our brains/mind everything is possible. It's possible that 1+1 is not equal 2 but 3, it's possible that Earth is not round but banana shaped. It's possible, but not true.

[DarkOne]

Been watching the TOE lecture (through part 3 of 18 so far) and will watch more. Already I have a couple of problems - the first one being his claim that he only makes 2 assumptions. I've counted at least 10 so far. The major one being of course the assumption that the physical universe is a minor speck of everything that exists - no description of what this other universe is or anything of the sort.
I'll keep watching to see if there's more to it than that, but to me, that assumption is no less outrageous than if I were to make an assumption that whatever I say is by law true

[Anubis]

I already tried to explain and I think it's quite simple and that we could all agree on that at least: There is no "your truth" and "his truth", truth is one and universal. Although, there is "your belief" and "his belief", beliefs are individual.

By that definition every being has it's own "truth" depending on which level of dimension it lives. Since we are beings of the 3rd Dimension we have a different "truth" than for example a 4D being.

[Ramone]

4D my ass.  ;x

[Aerox]

I like how the kid first admits we can't even imagine a 4th dimension then goes a whole part of the video trying to explain it

[DarkOne]

Free, were you talking about Thomas Campbell's TOE? I certainly hope not.
I'm halfway through his speech now (so about 80 minutes in) and it's such a mess! He sounds like he doesn't even know what he's on about half the time, keeps repeating the same assumption and doesn't do anything with it. He gets his facts wrong about the reception of special relativity and he seems to be struggling with the concept of entropy, which is quite a basic thing in physics.
Really, all he's been doing all this time is repeating his own assumptions and claiming that's basically his whole theory. That's just silly!
Maybe he'll eventually get somewhere in the remaining 9 parts, but somehow, I don't see how he will.

[Cueshark]

D1, are you suggesting that if Stephen Hawking read that Big TOE book he'd probably giggle his way out of his wheelchair?

[HHC]

I do miss one thing though, northern countries seem to be more balanced when it comes to being open-minded, religion or equality amongst other cultures, as Crazy said about Norway above.

Not sure if that's really a good sign.
Northern europeans don't believe in anything anymore, neither in God nor in any other big scheme. They have become lazy, spoiled hedonists who care only about their personal pursuit of happiness.
It's OK living in societies like that, but I don't consider them 'healthy'. On the contrary, they are likely to self-pwn into non-existence.

In that respect the countries of eastern & southern Europe and the USA are much healthier. They also lack a religion, but they still got a vivid national cultus to keep people united, proud and hard-working.

It has a lot to do with the Auschwitz experience, but that doesn't explain all. As the UK and Australia are equally drifting in messed up and self-destructive political correctness, even though they have absolutely no reason to feel inner guilt about things that happened in the past.
Perhaps it's just a matter of old glory lost.