Quote from: 1aguar on September 26, 2015, 08:45:19 AM

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 26, 2015, 08:17:38 AM

Quote from: 1aguar on September 25, 2015, 11:10:35 PM

Most of that post is just making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up stories with facts. Even if all that you said is correct, I think you have not done an adequate job at refuting any of the points on the near-death site, nor have you given cause to consider the possibility of hypergraphia in the case of the Phoenix Journals. You base your beliefs upon assumptions which are unstated, then give inadequate stories as explanations without considering all of the circumstantial evidence and the possibility of new paradigms.

I am not countering with 'evidence' I am countering with an explanation for why what you consider to be 'evidence' does not qualify as such.

Big difference.

If you do not want to counter each and every piece of evidence that I have provided you with then you have not provided reason to reject every single point of evidence that I propose. Therefore, I have evidence to support my view and you do not, you are merely proposing stories without proposing a reason to discredit the evidence. For example, you did not point out what is wrong with the Mereon Matrix, you merely suggested that it could be wrong... no science can stand up to that kind of criticism, that is like saying "it could be wrong for reasons we don't yet know about".

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 26, 2015, 08:17:38 AM

Let me give you an example:

I did not read it; I would rather you bother yourself with giving reason to dismiss each point of evidence that I referenced; after you get through these 52, we can move on to other evidence that I am familiar with.

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 26, 2015, 08:17:38 AM

Trouble is, you have no basis for asserting such a thing when there is long recorded history of recognising and understanding the medical condition, 'hypergraphia' in humans, many of whom claim to be writing some sort of 'secret knowledge' and there is absolutely no recorded history of it being found, instead, to be a case of a human being channelling information from time-travelling space beings.

What would qualify as "recorded history"?
Who said that the Journals were channeled? I believe that I stated that they were not...
Who said that the messengers Hatonn, Sananda, and others are time-travelers; where are you getting this??

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 26, 2015, 08:17:38 AM

Another example would be the wild claims made by Mellen-Thomas Benedict,

The only 'evidence' you have for his claims are his claims, which is known as the fallacy of 'circular reasoning'. Therefore it is not acceptable as evidence.

Fair enough; I still contend that people having NDE have brought back valid scientific knowledge, as explained in that link.

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 26, 2015, 08:17:38 AM

Every single 'scientific' point that NDE website cites as 'proof' is grossly flawed.

Oh? Do enlighten us!

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 26, 2015, 08:17:38 AM

We've been here before and unless you are willing to strike out each one I objectively debunk, I am not going to waste my time doing so only for you to go back and cite them again because you're incapable of rational thought and unwilling to recognise that you are probably caught up in the 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is the fact you have expended so much time and energy in making this a core element of your identity and belief that you would rather maintain intellectual dishonesty in the face of critical analysis than accept the actual truth.

Believe you me, I am rational and willing to provisionally accept that Mellen-Thomas Benedict is a liar. Now, that still does not refute the point that people having NDE have brought back valid scientific knowledge, nor have you "wasted your time" in evaluating all points of evidence on that page. Not even close.

Whatever cryptodevil is saying here doesn't really matter... except for one point. That point boils down to this: The only evidence you have for any of the blabber you say being fact, is that you call it evidence or fact. There is nothing else.

In other words, the Phoenix Journals may literally be written down, but the only evidence you have for them being fact is, you say they are fact.

Why should anyone believe you? You want us to get in there and read them so that we can see that they are fact? Silly boy. Doc Savage is far more entertaining. At least if anything you have had to say so far is a real example of what is found in the Journals.