Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or, as he has admitted upthread, he has no scientific validation or support, so he feels justified in making stuff up.
As long as you believe reductionist materialism is an accurate representation of our Reality, you will be prevented from seeing any supporting evidence underlying my extrapolations and hypotheses.
As long as you believe reductionist materialism is an accurate representation of our Reality, you will be prevented from seeing any supporting evidence underlying my extrapolations and hypotheses.
Perhaps you should have started by making a case that there is a better paradigm for investigating and understanding reality aside from the scientific method.
Although I note that you don't shy away from misusing the trappings of the scientific method when you think it will confuse somebody and get them to agree with you.
Perhaps you should have started by making a case that there is a better paradigm for investigating and understanding reality aside from the scientific method.
Although I note that you don't shy away from misusing the trappings of the scientific method when you think it will confuse somebody and get them to agree with you.
The scientific method is the best way to investigate our Reality, but the reductionist materialist philosophy that is an outgrowth of it ignores the current findings. That is what results in a flawed understanding of the actual composition of our Reality.
The scientific method is the best way to investigate our Reality, but the reductionist materialist philosophy that is an outgrowth of it ignores the current findings. That is what results in a flawed understanding of the actual composition of our Reality.
The scientific method is the best way to investigate our Reality, but the reductionist materialist philosophy that is an outgrowth of it ignores the current findings. That is what results in a flawed understanding of the actual composition of our Reality.
The scientific method WITH peer review. You refuse the latter and still want to call it science.
I had to go back 5 pages to find a post about death (you know, the topic of this thread). Let's get back on topic and leave the nonsense for some other discussion form.
Take people in comas for instance. Their bodies are stationary, being kept alive by machines. But when they regain conscious, their bodies are fully operational without the use of machines, because their conscious has regained full control.
Go get that second year med school book off your shelf and restudy the parts about Neurology and metabolism
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
