If

[Little Rik]

Where is the physical prove that the mind exist?
We know that it exist but how can we touch it, smell it, see it and so on?
So according your demented idea nothing that is not physical can exist because our senses can not grasp hold of them.
You see how demented you are?

Shifting of the burden of proof and argument from ignorance. Your lack of understanding of the physical world is not evidence for a spiritual world.

Wait a minute sur.
You are totally changing the subject.
You said that the mind is NOT abstract.
I sort of asked you.......well if it is not abstract than we can touch, smell, see it and so on.
Instead of admitting your failure you keep on coming up with your usual rosary about the burden of proof.
What burden of proof?
You are the one who declare that the mind is not abstract not me so eventually it is you that got to come up with evidence.
But let me go a bit further.
The reason why i was asking you about whether the mind is abstract or not was because as you can not get grasp of the mind in a physical way you also could not get grasp of anything else that is not physical in a physical way including an hypothetical God.
Unfortunately you (as usual ) got lost with your (NOT ) abstract mind.

You're not choosing the good and cutting the bad. You're choosing with what you agree with and ignoring what you don't. It's called dishonesty, a pigeon tactic.

If you really think so you should show me something that i choose that doesn't make sense.
Again and again when i do ask you to show me any of my failing you fail to come up with anything.
Nothing new son.

Not at all sur.
If you would have said..........I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE NDEs AS ACCORDING TO ME THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE TRUE instead of saying.......THE NDEs ARE NOT REAL OR THEY ARE BULLSHIT.
There is a lot of differences in these two statement.

There is only one reason you care about, does it agree to with your already concluded reality or not.

Sur. I am, pointing out your failing.
The more you evade my point by changing arguments and coming up with your usual rosary about the burden of proof you just keep on sinking in the quick sands more and more.
The only way out the mental mess in which you are is to admit your failing and change attitude. Nothing else will do.

So in the first case you may well say that the burden of prove is on me but in the next statement you DECLARE something and a declaration always require evidence.

You mean how I point out that testimonials are not evidence and give the UFO's as an example. So the testimonials coming from NDE's, magic crystals, or UFOs are all the same, they are NOT EVIDENCE.

Wrong again sur.
It is by selecting the good that got some value and rejecting the bad that we can advance in our progress.
You can well please yourself and carry on the way you like.
That's your life after all.

I never declare that NDEs are real.
I always said that i believe that NDEs are real and that make a big big difference.

So stop referring to NDE's when I ask for evidence. Where is your evidence?

The reason why i say........I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE REAL instead of saying THEY ARE REAL is because materialistic people pretend physical evidence about something that is not physical.
Even if evidence is there it wouldn't make any sense to anyone which outlook is only materialistic-physical.
As far as you keep on pretending physical evidence of something that is not physical than the clash will always be there.
Above i just show you how stupid is to pretend physical evidence of an abstract entity like the mind.
NDEs follow the same pattern.
And so God.

And like the religious people you despise, you don't show any evidence for your belief. So I reply that your belief is unjustified.

Just answered above.

You admit that computers cannot exist without microprocessors. Your only objection is that tools (computers are tools) are used by someone. Well duh. However, you still cannot build a tool from the top-down, you cannot build a house from the top-down. What can you build from the top down? Where is your evidence for it.

Changing argument again.
What this has got to do with what we were talking about only Santa knows.
Typical of someone who can not admit his failing.

So you know for sure that analogies are only related to theories and not to practice?

Actually, neither

Actually both.

Silly again sur.
Analogies are comparisons.
You take two similar things in order to see how they compare one another.

Silly pigeon, your missing the imitation part which is very important.

Imitation comparisons and improvement are all part and parcel of coming up with something better.

Silly 3 times now.
You are just declaring that in the past they were practicing intuitional science.
Sorry pal but your declaration need EVIDENCE.
Without evidence your statement is the usual pile o'crap.

They definitely weren't practicing physical science. How would you know that they didn't practice intuitional science? Because they didn't come to the same conclusions as you? Please, elaborate on more on your dishonesty.

You allege that i did say that they were not practicing intuitional practices.
I never said that.
I said to you.........how do you know that they were practicing intuitional science?
They may they may not.
We do not know that is why i suggest you to stop speculating whether they did or did not.

Dictionaries are like cars or any other physical-material-mental thing.

No they are not like cars. They tell people the meaning of words society has agreed upon. If you want to communicate within society, you have to use the words correctly. Otherwise, you only sound like an idiot.

Fool.
Also a car or a computer tell us that this is the new technology.
Until an expert or an inventor come up with something new and more advanced we are left with this technology with this knowledge.
As the technologies and the discover change also the dictionaries are bound to change in order to keep up with the change so there can not be any differences between one another.
They are all in the same boat in the same flow.

All this bullshit of yours does not answer the question.
I did ask you in which way you expect the burden of prove about something abstract.
In a physical way?
In a abstract way or in which way?

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. You make lots of claims and provide terrible if any justification for them. Plus, your follow up questions don't make any sense. Most likely, you assumed something thinking I assumed the same thing.

Aren't you sick to recite the same rosary about the burden of proof and answer the question instead.
HOW DO YOU WANT YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF?
Physically, mentally or which other way?

It was all about real reality.
According to the laws of this universe if you insert a knife into your flesh you are bound to feel pain but the guys in the festival that i shown do not feel pain when they insert any metal in their flesh so this according to me means that this universe is not the real reality.

I already gave two examples where this statement of your is false. Please stop repeating it. You're becoming boring.

False statement?
What is false?
It sound like the usual way to avoid answering my questions?