The Science Of Eternity (Part 8)

[Virasana]

@AnduinX Also that's rubbish about 'discarding conflicting evidence' no good scientist will EVER discard true evidence, what they will do is use rational common sense and discard rubbish which someone has labeled 'evidence' because it's what they'd like to believe, when it is clearly NOT evidence at all. No human being be they a neuro-scientist or a mystic pagan witch knows just how many brain cells are required to 'think'. Not knowing how something works doesnt mean it's magic.

[Virasana]

@AnduinX I think it is you who have it the wrong way around, the scientists believed the world was round and had to prove it to the others who - without good education quite understandably -couldn't conceptualise how mass & gravity might work.

[Virasana]

No of course I can't prove it. And yes it is based on an assumption, but the assumption is based on the evidence currently available to us. Even as the countdown ticked away for the first moon landing it was an assumption that we would be able to put man on the moon. We chose to ignore the people who said it's not possible and used common sense rather than ignore the quite obvious evidence that we could acheive that goal, & we did. Same thing!

It will be likewise in this case too.

[AnduinX]

@Virasana: In order to hold a materialist view you must discard and dismiss a great deal of conflicting evidence. Such as terminal lucidity and severe hydrocephalus, where people with a small fraction of the brain mass of a normal person can think, remember, and act normally. Also there are NDEs and OBEs were people knew things they could not possibly have known. The 'best' theory would be one that fits with ALL of the evidence.

[AnduinX]

@Virasana: I don't think your moon example is accurate in this example.  In my view it is the materialists that are holding science back, not the other way around. They're more like the Flat-Earthers who laughed at the notion that the Earth was round.

[dawnafternight]

I absolutely adore David Icke.Good on you David keep on doing a great job

[TheNatho1988]

wait and see what happens all we can do to get answers

[TerrahDawn]

What papers went missing? There's copies of his papers on Spiritualism online.

[Sly4859]

Hearsay is not proof. Why cant they just show us the proof and show it for real? Show me the material ghost or whatever you would call it.

[k0smon]

@Sly4859  :: I f you want proof of a 'ghost', just go to a seance where they appear. (Easier said than done as there are very few around).

[Agui007]

For those who are completely unaware or have forgoten, you cannot bring high vibration down as easily as that. If it were all that simple then we'd be seeing the etheric world just like that. I strongly advise the doubters to read Arthur Findlay's book "On the Edge of the Etheric". Remember that our reality is of the lowest on the tuning in dial. To tune to spirit would require a device for seeing the highest frequencies which I don't think there is yet. Russian science is best in this field.

[lowboost]

but doesnt the TV just show recorded video's, maybe thats what is floating around so they say, maybe its just replays of our memories...

[AusDavid12]

Evan though the materialist atheist and religionist are firmly against these findings, I am of the opinion that the evidence will become so completely overwhelming that in the end the debunkers will become irrelevant. Keep reading and learning from good research (avoiding religionist, spiritualist and debunker "science"). We live in interesting times.

[thetruthone]

"good research" is OBJECTIVE RESEARCH. Not fabricated leaps of faith and baseless assumptions that can only convince laymen. Avoid debunkers? Are you serious? The scientific method is set up to "debunk" irrational and unprovable hypothesis. Believe what you like, but as Carl Sagan put it:

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

[AusDavid12]

I agree with what you say. I do not want to accept something because it might happen to be "Satisfying and reassuring" What would be the point of that?

There are people who either don't like the idea of an afterlife who are bias just as there are the other way around. Yes avoid debunker because they are simply in the bussiness of debunking not objective research.

Keep the researh going and make of it what you will.

[SirTedFairyspear]

So, did Sagan know how the universe "really is"? (Quite an achievement - he was omniscient, presumably.) Many people embrace this viewpoint because it confers on them a sort of heroic stoicism; they can feel smugly superior to those deluded fools who believe in life after death and other tosh. But it's just a reality tunnel; totally unprovable either way. (And incidentally, just because the concept of postmortem survival is comforting and reassuring doesn't automatically mean it ISN'T true!)

[gcsoulsurfer]

Science demands proof.The interviewer has clearly made up his mind. A very biased interview style. These people may have experienced these things. Do we have to take their word for it?

[bigguy200]

I disagree the interviewer doesn't state that he made up his mind.

[321sanat]

This is not science. There is no evidence no proof. If you want to believe this bullshit you can believe that all schizophrenes and all hallucinations can see wave of spirits like radio or television can. This is only bullshit...

[davyriviere]

why would people favorite this 8th part page...??!?!

[Virasana]

As others have said, there were constant references to "scientific proof" throughout these vids, but we don't get to see any?

If 'dead' people are "materializing" from the ether, in such solid form that we can shake hand, tug at beards & kiss them, then show us the video footage of this happening, and film it under laboritory conditions and REALLY show the world your proof.

I think James Randi would also be willing to put his $1,000,000 on the table for you collect when you 'proove' it.

[k0smon]

@Virasana ::: You have to go to where the proof is, they will not deliver it to you on a silver platter. Check out {victorzammi,.com}. James Randi is quite a trickster, and his $1 mil is just another one of his tricks.

[Virasana]

@k0smon We'll have to agree to disagree. Which is fine.

But I feel there is an important difference between us.

It appears to me that you feel I'm wrong or misguided and no ammount of my attempting to provide you with absolute concrete and undisputable fact will have any effect other than to make you more blinkered and in denial. You cannot bear - probably because of deep seated fears - the thought of actually being wrong.

I - like Randi - would LOVE to be proved wrong. No one can do that.

[k0smon]

@Virasana You are right that no one can prove you wrong, simply because you already have proven to yourself what you believe. If 'absolute concrete and indisputable fact" existed, we would both be in agreement. Your psychological analysis is in error, and might even be considered a 'cheap shot'.

[Virasana]

@k0smon No 'cheap shots' intended. Our lives integrate the use of devices designed and only possible because of the indisputable concrete facts I talk of. The laughable thing is that you - who dispute their validity - also are using and trusting that very technology. Computers, machines of all types & complexity, space travel, hospital equipment. All rely unwaveringly on solid undenyable scientific fact to exist & operate. Your 'fantasies' however are just that - fantasies - and no more.

[k0smon]

@Virasana I have no problem with technology. You keep using absolutes such as 'indisputable concrete facts' and 'solid undeniable scientific fact" when in truth we have workable hypothesis to explain many things. Nuclear physics will no doubt clarify these in times to come. And 'fantasies", please explain.

[Virasana]

@k0smon I don't see "workable hypothesis" as being 'sturdy' enough to build a modern computer processing 20-30 petaflops (thousand trillion) operations per second. No errors, no flaws, just pure indisputable physics & logic. "Fantasy" "Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements"

"An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a psychological need"

i.e. not based in or on reality. You are afraid of not existing so you fantasize.

[Virasana]

@Virasana When blood stops getting to the brain, the neurons stop firing and consciousness AND subconsciousness ceases to exist.

End of story.

When you die you no longer exist.

The atoms & molecules that you are made up from still exist & change form, but there is no longer any consciousness or awareness or 'person' in existence.

You just need to get over the fear of not existing, thousands of generations of humans have existed & then ceased to exits. Get used to it!

[scabycat]

@Virasana " when u die u no longer exist"- The basic laws of physics dictate that u can neither create nor destroy energy, u can only change it into something else. So whereas our physical bodies turn to dust, what happens to our conciousness? Conciousness is Energy, just like everything else. It simply MUST go somewhere so where does it go?? After researching this subject for quite some time now, I am convinced there is no such thing as death. Just checkout the EVIDENCE

[Entropian2012]

@Virasana You going to be pleasently suprized when you die ^^

[k0smon]

@Virasana Thanks for the explanation. Actually, I am not afraid of non-existence. Every time we go to sleep could be considered short-term non existence. Or when you are put to sleep for surgery - no guarantee that you will wake up. Objectively, I find reason for the continuation of life, not because I have any fear of non existence.

[Virasana]

@k0smon When we sleep we are not dead. We still exist. Our hearts still beat & our brains still work. We dream, another form fantasy seems absolutely real, but we both know dreams are not actualy hapening in reality. They are dreams.

You say "reason for continuation of life" Do you have children? Life already makes a pretty damned good job of continuing itself in each new individual. But when that individual dies, as when a fly dies, it simply no longer exists.

[AnduinX]

@Virasana: Can you prove this assertion, that when our body dies, we die? Of course not, because it's based on the assumption that the brain produces consciousness, which is an unproven assumption.

[mmaylin]

I have watched all 8 videos, throughout the videos the impression was given that scientific evidence was available and I was looking forward to seeing it. You produced no more than well meaning individuals.

I have no need of other evidence because I have seen spirits, but it would have been great to show others that have not been so blessed.

[ellapere]

The 8 videos pertain to electronic voice phenomena.

There are 2 top sites (in my opinion)that clearly describe in detail this subject.

Originally an OLD manifestation occurring for thousands of years, it gained popularity with the personal experiments of Mr. F.Jurgenson and Dr. K. Raudive. Please email me for the 2 websites I can highly recommend.

[ViolentAmvMan]

When was this made?

Why haven't we heard more of this?

Why is this so rare to find?

[Entropy56]

Because the powers that be are suppressing this message. YouTube rules! Naw... Actually it is because you have been a bad person and did not deserve it until now. You must have done something good recently.

[thetruthone]

Because it's BS