[Serious Discussion] Religion

[0Target0]

(it's actually laughable that Slice, the guy who actually doesn't have a clue what we're talking about stops by just to critise me. i've been trolling him enough (in sa-mp) , now this? yes victims have to approach xD)


@Grim he accuses me of MISINTERPRETATIONS. interesting indeed, because he can't really JUDGE me at that at all. he's been doing misinterpretations all the time. how can you have a proper debate with someone when he doesn't even know what a debate is ?

e.g.:"Classic debate emphasizes logic and real-world discussion"
i'm sorry 0target0, but you did not explain your argument therefore it's just your opinion. i mean, i can just claim Newton's law is misinterpretation because Force is a wrong term and claim to be true. thats what ure doing all the time. i can quote all the post i proven you wrong already, just for u. 



I know you can't reply my question dedicated to 0target0, because so far everything u' had shown in that topic was "ur opinion", with no special arguments. but if universe is a mind then that approves creationism, for e.g. if MIND was  created, then that's officialiy an intelligent design. but can the mind be created with "Big Bang" only? or is it already needed more than that, Someone who is even smarter than us ? obviously a creator.


0target0, you still didn't reply this. why are you avoiding the question? perhaps because all ur arguments were misinterpretations and that's just proves that u're clueless about the following question?  if you're a bad loser that does not mean you perhaps dont know (or is it... )

"Since collapse is ontologically identical with protophenomenal observation (meaning the same thing that occurs in both mental observation and observation by non-mental equipment), how can self-collapse not equal self-observation? Since self-observation is equal to consciousness how is self-collapse ontologically different in any way shape or form from self-observation?"

Nice personal non founded attacks there, towards me, Grim and Slice.

Maka no trolling but when my grandpa passed away, i did do some research about afterlife .. some of them are very promosiving. i can share (on PMs because there are way too many misinterpretators here) and i can promosive you that you'll  have different view on NDE sightings, life after death and so on... and it's not like it relies on Religion or something (the ""evidences"", more likely some interesting facts, not evidences).


RIP to your grandpa.

Promosiving <= Word inventing right there? Please check your dictionary.

Unless you define the words (cause a broad interpretation is possible): self-observation, self-collapse and the circumstances for the self collapse, i can not aswer that question. I see a 'question' that is entirely built out of assumptions, which in fact does not look promising. I have problems with the use of ontological arguments. Since they are not based on any scientific proof.

The reason why there is a misinterpretation is that the universe does not equal a self collapsing wave function, it is a property that we (humans) have given to the universe in order to try and understand the behaviour and the quantumphysical measurement problem. Is this property correct? Maybe so, maybe not. We use it untill it proves us wrong. Since there are much theories about that problem you can just pick one out and combine it with just whatever theory you like.

Penrose Orch Or has nothing to do with God. You have to prove me wrong on that one. Because according to your theory. Universe=Mind=Self Collapsing wave function=God=Consciousness.

You have never proven me wrong styl4, it seems that you just get more mad by the minute. You are the only one on this forum desperate enough to believe in this fairytale.

I also have very promosiving proof about UFO sightings, please PM me for proof, and you can join my sect.