Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:
Clearly you have not been on a DMT trip.

Clearly? Don't assume too much.

This coming from the person who incessantly, blindly, accuses his interlocutors of all manner of deficiencies.

Wilbur wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Here's an account by a guy who had an NDE, then experienced a trip on ketamine, and found they were pretty well identical:

http://www.near-death.com/science/hallu ... -ndes.html

So I guess we're done with this topic.

That's the quality of the logic around here anyway.

Complete and unsurprising failure to address the point and evidence, has been noted.

Wilbur wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:Blah blah blah. You've posted no evidence and no reasoning to back anything up.

I haven't assailed invincible ignorance with any reason and evidence, I guess I lose.

FIFY.

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote: What would it tell us about god?

What would a life altering flatlined dead OBE encounter with god tell us about the existence of God? I suspect nothing really

Hmm. Can you give an example of the nothing to which you refer?

Well there are reports and of assertions of the long term effects have been documented as well, so what do you got?

Still desperately trying to shift the burden of proof I see.

Wilbur wrote: We don't know know if anybody's really encountered god or not, but just the accounts alone merit consideration.

We don't know whether someone's the reincarnation of Napoleon, but just the accounts alone merit consideration.
We don't know whether we're all part of a matrix like simulation, but just the accounts alone merit consideration.
We don't know whether people have been abducted by aliens, but just the accounts alone merit consideration.
We don't know whether the pyramis we're build by rainbow shitting unicorns, but the accounts alone merit consideration.

Penny drop yet?

Wilbur wrote: I can't help it if you're unscientific, you guys read the reports like a teabagger reading the commie manifesto.

Marvelous feat of projection.

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:That does seem like a silly question. I mean, it seems like a silly question even before science.

What's silly about it? And what does science have to do with it?

The question was "why is there something rather than nothing?"

I forget which of the subvariants of the anthropic principle it is that points out that if there was nothing we wouldn't be able to ask the question. And, my point was that science has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how the process began or didn't begin for the question to be silly.

You do understand that your thinking here has been openly ridiculed by neil turok AND david albert? You're talking ignorant shite.

You do realise that your blind assertions and accusations never carried any weight and certainly won't after your consistent failure to back them up?

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:
The question was "why is there something rather than nothing?"

I forget which of the subvariants of the anthropic principle it is that points out that if there was nothing we wouldn't be able to ask the question. And, my point was that science has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how the process began or didn't begin for the question to be silly.

You do understand that your thinking here has been openly ridiculed by neil turok AND david albert? You're talking ignorant shite.

Oh, well, if two such important authorities have ridiculed my thinking here, it only stands to reason that I must be wrong.

Can you explain though, what it is about my reasoning that is so clearly wrong?

It's a weak criticism of an age old question, you're just playing dumb. The attempted dismissal is obviously all about inconvenience for the new would be priesthood. It's a fucking joke, everybody knows that it's a legit question.

I can still count the pimples on the Emperor's arse Wilbur.

I'm pretty sure William Lane Craig also thinks my idea there is ridiculous.

BWE wrote:There's a data point.

That's funny.

I'm a funny guy.

BWE wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:That there is no alternative to there being something. Why is that dumb?

Something means something to explain, nothing needs no explanation. I don't know what to tell you, people have it on the brain, it's legit, it's not going away. If you want to proselytize scientism you better do better than 'that's a silly question'.

who said i want to proselytize scientism?

ETA: It seems that you agree with me that there is no alternative. Nothing needs no explanation. I get it. So your question should be, "why is the something we encounter the something we encounter?" Right?

Alright, well you were kind of a dick about my turok AND albert joke, folks here are sort of dense so you could of been a mensch and played along, but what the hell.

No, "why is the something we encounter the something we encounter" is not the question. It is a question, it's not the question up for discussion. I don't know if you're playing dumb or maybe it just doesn't compute for you, but the primordial is a meaningful question in the sense that it's probing beyond the obvious explanatory chain. You can refuse to engage with it for whatever reason, but it is a philosophically interesting question and it is a fixture in the human psyche and it isn't so easily dismissed.

BWE wrote:I'm a funny guy.

That's funny too.

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:That there is no alternative to there being something. Why is that dumb?

Something means something to explain, nothing needs no explanation. I don't know what to tell you, people have it on the brain, it's legit, it's not going away. If you want to proselytize scientism you better do better than 'that's a silly question'.

who said i want to proselytize scientism?

ETA: It seems that you agree with me that there is no alternative. Nothing needs no explanation. I get it. So your question should be, "why is the something we encounter the something we encounter?" Right?

Alright, well you were kind of a dick about my turok AND albert joke, folks here are sort of dense so you could of been a mensch and played along, but what the hell.

No, "why is the something we encounter the something we encounter" is not the question. It is a question, it's not the question up for discussion. I don't know if you're playing dumb or maybe it just doesn't compute for you, but the primordial is a meaningful question in the sense that it's probing beyond the obvious explanatory chain. You can refuse to engage with it for whatever reason, but it is a philosophically interesting question and it is a fixture in the human psyche and it isn't so easily dismissed.

Oh look more personal attacks in lieu of actual arguments...

Wilbur wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:Explain how one knows they've met God in an NDE.

Well, that's easy. Everyone knows he's an old bloke with white hair and a beard.

You should continue, I could really use more of your stuff. Just c'mon, say whatever's on your mind.

I wasn't talking to you. The clue is in my post. I dunno, maybe you think every post is addressed to you even if it obviously isn't.

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:That there is no alternative to there being something. Why is that dumb?

Something means something to explain, nothing needs no explanation. I don't know what to tell you, people have it on the brain, it's legit, it's not going away. If you want to proselytize scientism you better do better than 'that's a silly question'.

who said i want to proselytize scientism?

ETA: It seems that you agree with me that there is no alternative. Nothing needs no explanation. I get it. So your question should be, "why is the something we encounter the something we encounter?" Right?

Alright, well you were kind of a dick about my turok AND albert joke, folks here are sort of dense so you could of been a mensch and played along, but what the hell.

No, "why is the something we encounter the something we encounter" is not the question. It is a question, it's not the question up for discussion. I don't know if you're playing dumb or maybe it just doesn't compute for you, but the primordial is a meaningful question in the sense that it's probing beyond the obvious explanatory chain. You can refuse to engage with it for whatever reason, but it is a philosophically interesting question and it is a fixture in the human psyche and it isn't so easily dismissed.

It's an interesting philosophical question, but it's begging the question. Why must there be a reason that there is something rather than nothing?

Bernoulli wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

Something means something to explain, nothing needs no explanation. I don't know what to tell you, people have it on the brain, it's legit, it's not going away. If you want to proselytize scientism you better do better than 'that's a silly question'.

who said i want to proselytize scientism?

ETA: It seems that you agree with me that there is no alternative. Nothing needs no explanation. I get it. So your question should be, "why is the something we encounter the something we encounter?" Right?

Alright, well you were kind of a dick about my turok AND albert joke, folks here are sort of dense so you could of been a mensch and played along, but what the hell.

No, "why is the something we encounter the something we encounter" is not the question. It is a question, it's not the question up for discussion. I don't know if you're playing dumb or maybe it just doesn't compute for you, but the primordial is a meaningful question in the sense that it's probing beyond the obvious explanatory chain. You can refuse to engage with it for whatever reason, but it is a philosophically interesting question and it is a fixture in the human psyche and it isn't so easily dismissed.

It's an interesting philosophical question, but it's begging the question. Why must there be a reason that there is something rather than nothing?

Because otherwise, a certain segment of philosophers would be out of a job.

Wilbur wrote:I don't know if you're playing dumb or maybe it just doesn't compute for you, but the primordial is a meaningful question in the sense that it's probing beyond the obvious explanatory chain.

Well, no, not really probing, except in the sense of diddling your own navel. So far you've identified "the primordial" with "beyond the explanatory chain". That doesn't tell me what either string of characters denotes, besides the other member of the pair. So far, it's no more than an entry in a hash table, and you really have yet to decide which one is the key and which one is the value. If you don't know what a hash table refers to, you can fucking look it up. I can look up 'primordial' and find an armload of opposite numbers, but your hash table (if you mean to be precise instead of just wibbling some more) can only have one value for every key, so "beyond the explanatory chain" just tags the rest of your long trail of fucking nonsense. There's nowhere to go beyond the 'explanatory chain' except for incoherent grunting and wheezing. The probing, even if it just presents another question, isn't really going anywhere until you put it to work, bending a fucking spoon or something. You have to ask the question, Wilbur, instead of calling people names. The lesson for you here is not to publish any sentences that someone can parse, because it will parse as foolishness unless you engage your brain before activating your keyboard.

Wilbur wrote:it is a philosophically interesting question and it is a fixture in the human psyche and it isn't so easily dismissed.

So you say. But now you've located 'the primordial' as 'a question' in 'the human psyche', whatever the fuck that is. Watch me dismiss it.

Wow.That was easy.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Well, no, not really probing, except in the sense of diddling your own navel. So far you've identified "the primordial" with "beyond the explanatory chain". That doesn't tell me what either string of characters denotes, besides the other member of the pair.

Oh, I'm sure it doesn't, but how is your disability relevant? There's plenty of profound conceptions\insights\encounters within the human experience to legitimize the discussion. The analogy here would be psychopaths and empathy, they've come across the string of characters but they just can't relate.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Wilbur wrote:it is a philosophically interesting question and it is a fixture in the human psyche and it isn't so easily dismissed.

So you say. But now you've located 'the primordial' as 'a question' in 'the human psyche', whatever the fuck that is. Watch me dismiss it.

Wow.That was easy.

I'm not saying you can't do it, just that you can't do it rationally. I'm sure you see the difference.

Ah, the old "If you don't accept my unevidenced nonsense, there's something wrong with you" gambit. It's just as effective when creationists use it

Fallible wrote:

Wilbur wrote:

BWE wrote: What would it tell us about god?

What would a life altering flatlined dead OBE encounter with god tell us about the existence of God? I suspect nothing really

Assuming the conclusion? Really? And you profess to be in a position to make judgements around other people's lack of understanding? Take a seat.

Who's assuming the conclusion? There's no assumption that the experience are veridical, the idea here is that the experience is evidence in itself. You guys don't even know what evidence is, I'm just wasting my time. I want to say that it's like talking to fundamentalists but I have to keep remembering that I am talking to fundamentalist.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Ah, the old "If you don't accept my unevidenced nonsense, there's something wrong with you" gambit. It's just as effective when creationists use it

Yeah, that's not it, it's more of the 'if you don't know what the hell you're talking about to begin with just stay the fuck out of it' wisdom. That's good advice for creationists and incompetent atheists.