The Transcended Omniverse
Well-Known Member
Quote: "The road to truth can be a long journey and there are no shortcuts."
Always Keep An Open Mind And Never Jump To Conclusions: I am going to share my own personal view when it comes to drawing a conclusion in regards to whether the afterlife, paranormal, god, soul, etc. exist or not. This personal view of mine also applies to every other topic that has a lot of debate. I personally think that human beings are very limited, close minded creatures and limit themselves to their particular views. They use shortcut methods of reasoning and logic to arrive at what they think is the truth rather than doing full research and looking at all the objections being said and addressed. I think this shortcut method is flawed and is a very simple, close minded, and limiting approach. People should do full research into both the paranormal and the skeptical/materialistic research before drawing any given conclusion as to whether the skeptics have real evidence or the paranormal has evidence.
I think this is the truly right and open minded way of drawing a conclusion. I will give you an example here with how these shortcut methods are flawed. Skeptics would claim that their scientific method clearly demonstrates paranormal evidence to be fake. But the paranormal researchers would say that the scientific method does not demonstrate the evidence to be fake and that there is, in fact, testable, repeatable evidence for these paranormal phenomena. From there, these paranormal researchers would say that the skeptics have no evidence for their claims and that they are just being close minded and refusing to accept the paranormal evidence. I, myself, have no way of knowing whether the skeptics are right in their conclusions or whether the paranormal researchers are right since I have not done full research into this myself.
I have no interest in this research and am merely keeping an open mind here. I will continue to say some more things here. There are basic facts of life such as the fact that an orange is a juicy fruit or that we will all grow old one day and our physical bodies will die. These things have no debate and these are things we all know to be true. But then there are topics that have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal or the idea that vaccines are harmful or that they cause autism. I have to remain undecided on these things since I have no interest in fully researching these things and I think it is close minded for me to draw a conclusion through any shortcut of reasoning and logic.
As long as a claim is being made by researchers and people who have had a lot of training and education, then this is enough to warrant an open minded, full research into their claims rather than dismissing them through shortcuts. It doesn't matter what that claim is whether it be the Earth being flat, the idea that we are eternal souls, or anything else. Just because an idea sounds crazy and dumb at first glance does not mean we should dismiss it. Neither does it automatically mean that the rest of the arguments these researchers make are dumbfounded and warrant no further research into them. There is a big difference between well-trained, educated researchers making claims as opposed to a very dumb, crazy person making a claim.
If someone claimed that we can rip our heart out and still live, then we can just give up on the debate with that person since he would be very dumb and/or crazy. But if a researcher made this claim and said that there was somehow a way to achieve this, then we should keep an open mind towards that claim. Sure, there are researchers who believe dumb, crazy things. But the very fact that these researchers are people who have a lot of education and training is enough to warrant an open minded, full research into their claims. I will say one last thing here. That is, I do make certain decisions in life despite not knowing the truth. I still decide to not take vaccines despite not knowing whether they are truly harmful or not.
What Would An All Knowing Being Say?: I am going to give a hypothetical example of an all knowing being. If this being were to exist and we were to ask him whether the paranormal, soul, and afterlife is real or not rather than taking the words of skeptics and paranormal researchers, he might say something radical and unexpected. He might say that human beings limit themselves to their particular worldviews through their shortcut methods. From there, this being would give us the real answer as to whether those mystical phenomena exist or not.
I Will Not Fall Into Anyone's Trap. I Cannot Trust Humanity: My personality also plays a major role in my lack of trust in humanity. I am someone who really wants the eternal blissful afterlife of my dreams to be something real. Living forever in the blissful afterlife of my dreams would be the most profoundly beautiful and joyful existence for me. But skeptics would come along and tell me that I have every reason to think the afterlife and paranormal is all woo and bull crap. They would present their shortcut methods in order to try to convince me. They would attempt to trap me into their skeptical worldview (bubble).
But I do not fit into anyone's bubble or box. I am outside the box/bubble which means I cannot trust anybody. Another example would be fundamentalist Christians who would tell me that I have every reason to think hell is real and that I will go there unless I repent my sins. I would tell these Christians that I will not be fooled by their methods of trying to convince me of their worldview. I have this exact same mindset in regards to anybody making any given claim. This would even include people and researchers who claim that there is an eternal blissful afterlife for us all after we die even though this is something I really want to be true.
Peer Reviewed Research: Skeptics would ask me for peer reviewed research in regards to the paranormal. The paranormal researchers such as Dean Radin claim there is peer reviewed research. It is called IONS. If any skeptic objects to this, then it could still be possible they are being close minded and jumping to conclusions using their shortcuts:
Selected Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications on Psi Research
I Cannot Decide One Way Or The Other: When, for example, skeptics and proponents of the paranormal argue back and forth, they make intelligent-sounding arguments that make it difficult for me to determine who is telling the truth. If there was some incredibly stupid-sounding argument that was being made, then I could obviously see that argument as being false. But since both the skeptics and the paranormal proponents/researchers are trained and educated people, then they make smart-sounding arguments.
This is the reason why I remain undecided on who is telling the truth. This is the reason why I tell others to keep an open mind all the way through to the end and to not dismiss researchers because these researchers would come up with further smart-sounding arguments that should really make you think twice about rejecting the claims of these researchers.
Always Keep An Open Mind And Never Jump To Conclusions: I am going to share my own personal view when it comes to drawing a conclusion in regards to whether the afterlife, paranormal, god, soul, etc. exist or not. This personal view of mine also applies to every other topic that has a lot of debate. I personally think that human beings are very limited, close minded creatures and limit themselves to their particular views. They use shortcut methods of reasoning and logic to arrive at what they think is the truth rather than doing full research and looking at all the objections being said and addressed. I think this shortcut method is flawed and is a very simple, close minded, and limiting approach. People should do full research into both the paranormal and the skeptical/materialistic research before drawing any given conclusion as to whether the skeptics have real evidence or the paranormal has evidence.
I think this is the truly right and open minded way of drawing a conclusion. I will give you an example here with how these shortcut methods are flawed. Skeptics would claim that their scientific method clearly demonstrates paranormal evidence to be fake. But the paranormal researchers would say that the scientific method does not demonstrate the evidence to be fake and that there is, in fact, testable, repeatable evidence for these paranormal phenomena. From there, these paranormal researchers would say that the skeptics have no evidence for their claims and that they are just being close minded and refusing to accept the paranormal evidence. I, myself, have no way of knowing whether the skeptics are right in their conclusions or whether the paranormal researchers are right since I have not done full research into this myself.
I have no interest in this research and am merely keeping an open mind here. I will continue to say some more things here. There are basic facts of life such as the fact that an orange is a juicy fruit or that we will all grow old one day and our physical bodies will die. These things have no debate and these are things we all know to be true. But then there are topics that have a lot of debate about them such as the paranormal or the idea that vaccines are harmful or that they cause autism. I have to remain undecided on these things since I have no interest in fully researching these things and I think it is close minded for me to draw a conclusion through any shortcut of reasoning and logic.
As long as a claim is being made by researchers and people who have had a lot of training and education, then this is enough to warrant an open minded, full research into their claims rather than dismissing them through shortcuts. It doesn't matter what that claim is whether it be the Earth being flat, the idea that we are eternal souls, or anything else. Just because an idea sounds crazy and dumb at first glance does not mean we should dismiss it. Neither does it automatically mean that the rest of the arguments these researchers make are dumbfounded and warrant no further research into them. There is a big difference between well-trained, educated researchers making claims as opposed to a very dumb, crazy person making a claim.
If someone claimed that we can rip our heart out and still live, then we can just give up on the debate with that person since he would be very dumb and/or crazy. But if a researcher made this claim and said that there was somehow a way to achieve this, then we should keep an open mind towards that claim. Sure, there are researchers who believe dumb, crazy things. But the very fact that these researchers are people who have a lot of education and training is enough to warrant an open minded, full research into their claims. I will say one last thing here. That is, I do make certain decisions in life despite not knowing the truth. I still decide to not take vaccines despite not knowing whether they are truly harmful or not.
What Would An All Knowing Being Say?: I am going to give a hypothetical example of an all knowing being. If this being were to exist and we were to ask him whether the paranormal, soul, and afterlife is real or not rather than taking the words of skeptics and paranormal researchers, he might say something radical and unexpected. He might say that human beings limit themselves to their particular worldviews through their shortcut methods. From there, this being would give us the real answer as to whether those mystical phenomena exist or not.
I Will Not Fall Into Anyone's Trap. I Cannot Trust Humanity: My personality also plays a major role in my lack of trust in humanity. I am someone who really wants the eternal blissful afterlife of my dreams to be something real. Living forever in the blissful afterlife of my dreams would be the most profoundly beautiful and joyful existence for me. But skeptics would come along and tell me that I have every reason to think the afterlife and paranormal is all woo and bull crap. They would present their shortcut methods in order to try to convince me. They would attempt to trap me into their skeptical worldview (bubble).
But I do not fit into anyone's bubble or box. I am outside the box/bubble which means I cannot trust anybody. Another example would be fundamentalist Christians who would tell me that I have every reason to think hell is real and that I will go there unless I repent my sins. I would tell these Christians that I will not be fooled by their methods of trying to convince me of their worldview. I have this exact same mindset in regards to anybody making any given claim. This would even include people and researchers who claim that there is an eternal blissful afterlife for us all after we die even though this is something I really want to be true.
Peer Reviewed Research: Skeptics would ask me for peer reviewed research in regards to the paranormal. The paranormal researchers such as Dean Radin claim there is peer reviewed research. It is called IONS. If any skeptic objects to this, then it could still be possible they are being close minded and jumping to conclusions using their shortcuts:
Selected Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications on Psi Research
I Cannot Decide One Way Or The Other: When, for example, skeptics and proponents of the paranormal argue back and forth, they make intelligent-sounding arguments that make it difficult for me to determine who is telling the truth. If there was some incredibly stupid-sounding argument that was being made, then I could obviously see that argument as being false. But since both the skeptics and the paranormal proponents/researchers are trained and educated people, then they make smart-sounding arguments.
This is the reason why I remain undecided on who is telling the truth. This is the reason why I tell others to keep an open mind all the way through to the end and to not dismiss researchers because these researchers would come up with further smart-sounding arguments that should really make you think twice about rejecting the claims of these researchers.
Last edited:
