''I'm willing to update my beliefs if confronted with enough evidence.''
And for all these years you've never given definition of what would comprise ''enough evidences''. You simply shrugg off and rationalize away anything that is thrown at you. You would weasel your way out to convince yourself of ''rational explanation'' even if God smacked you in the noggin. This isn't about evidences, it's about how you (wish to) interpret them.
''there are already concrete, testable neurological explanations''
Which explain nothing, really. What would be the evidence of supernatural (don't like this word though) experience being real, when only thing you can do is observe meat in one's skull? How do you know if one's vision is real or fake just bu looking at how brain reacts to it?
(Lasīt komentārus)
Nopūsties: