On Aug 30, 10:07Â am, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:> Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/30/2008 9:52 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Aug 30, 12:42 am, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:>>> Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/29/2008 5:40 PM:
>
>>>> On Aug 29, 3:29 pm, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:>>>>> That there is more to reality than the limits of what our new technology
>>>>> can, or is able to tell us? No. We do not have enough information to
>>>>> completely deny that possibility.
>>>> It's not a question of denying such a possibility. Of course the
>>>> possibility exists that there are things we don't know yet - it's a
>>>> 100%% probability, in fact.
>>>> The problem is that you are arbitrarily picking one of those infinite
>>>> number of possibilities -
>>> My choice is not arbitrary.
>
>> Yes, it is. If you think otherwise, present some evidence for it. If
>> you can't, then you're lying.
>
> What kind of evidence is acceptable?
The verifiable kind - that consists of something other than you
asserting a bunch of crap because you felt all warm and fuzzy once -
that has a coherent and testable theory purporting to explain it.
> I had two major metaphysical experiences:
> An external one on December 12th, 1987,
> An internal one on June 12th, 1988.
Yes, neither of these would qualify. "Metaphysical experiences" have
no explanatory power of any kind and are evidence of nothing except
for the fact that you had an experience that you thought was quite
nice once.
No wonder you come out with such crap if you're extrapolating your
ideas from "metaphysical experiences".
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
