[Serious Discussion] Religion

[STyL4]

"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."

you dont know the terms? then that's perfectly ur problem, that question was asked to 10 scientists at Unique Scientist's Boards and they had either answered it or made it quite clear why they shouldn't have doubts in ORCH OR theory no more or tagged the theory as plausable. Hammeroff or you? i'd pick Hameroff. Newton or you? i'd pick Newton. real scientists understan, people like you unfortunately not. im glad u didn't answer the question because that tells something. i wish RL was like that, murderer gets asked in the court the question and he simply says that the question is not really valid and doesn't proof anything 


"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."

equals.... oh ...my...God. im doing misinterpretations yes


"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."
oh yes i did, look at the previous posts so far. first u were trying to deny the theory (hehe, but failed! ) then u claimed that the theory is not connected with God and is a misinterpretation. yes starting new theme, wasn't misinterpretation to most APPROVED scientists. im sorry, self called chemistry engineer.

and about insults. i'm sorry, according to my previous post u're self-called bad loser, so yes having debate with u pretty much ... sucks.





"Basically STyL4, what you're doing is finding all these reasons, explanations, etc. that other people (with the same fucked up subconscious such as yours) has made up to give themselves some sort of inner peace.
Yes, you can write down ginormous theories on how everything is a big brain, yadda yadda. One can actually make it sound pretty reasonable by lightly twisting words and simplifying explanations.
If you really just stop for a second and take a look at the big picture you come to realize it's all just a bunch of bull shit."

how can u simplify explanations if they're based on proven scientific theories, i mean the facts were taken from there?  (u're not following, uL) and if u'd have to deny God with "Big Bang" theory, would u need to write down the whole theory? denying is what you're doing, not really a valid argument but same approach as 0target0. insults? alright , if they're insults for you then they actually mean something to u i guess, cya if ure leaving. 



"I honestly feel sorry for your inability to see things clearly; that being said, I'll step out of this discussion/debate and let you think you "win" it somehow by basically tossing lame insults, repeating yourself, and posting links to "information" by brainwashed, self-proclaimed scientists. "
thanks for saying that, just follows that u're not reading. how can they be self-proclaimed scientists after all the scientist awards they had received ? that's what u need, self-proclaimed hacker.

PM ME THE PROOFS HOW 0TARGET0'S POST WAS PERFECTLY LOGICAL ABOUT HIM CLAIMING THAT HE'S IN THE NEXT CONCIOUSNESS OF THE LIFE!!!!

+1

That's what we've been telling him long ago but the kid never listens.

but wouldn't it be better if you believed that your grandfathers are going to heaven?

u also agree that this isn't a debate topic?
"Classic debate emphasizes logic and real-world discussion" , another one that doesn't know what a debate is, so why debate with him? 0target0.. xO