Jimmy! Just wanted to say how much I've been enjoying your mysterious world podcast, especially your talks with the folks from Project Stargate and remote viewing. You might also want to look into Project Gateway at some point as it has similar import and is personally testable. Have a great week!
@@AlexofAwesome Howdy, Alex! Thanks for your kind words! Just yesterday, I was recording some video for January episodes in which I interview one of the original Star Gate remote viewers. He had some very interesting experiences! There was an intersection between Star Gate and the Monroe Institute, which was involved in Gateway. Still researching that. God bless you!
@@JimmyAkin Thank you for your efforts, and the response. Never expected that! Awesome. Looking forward to it! Oh! And early merry Christmas to you and your family. :)
@@subhrodiprakshit8923 Sure, and thanks for asking! I will provide just a couple of examples, to show what I mean, but feel free to comment if you wanted to point out something more specific. At one point of the debate, Seth pointed out that Arjuna’s reasoning introduced many elements into the picture. Arjuna’s reply was that those “additional” elements were not being added by him, but by a millenarian Vedic tradition. That may be true, but it does not answer Seth’s point. Whether a multiplication of hypotheses happened in 3000 B.C. or in 2021, it’s still a multiplication of hypotheses - a direct violation of Ockham’s razor. Another example is when Arjuna reported that the majority of people who were confronted with the supposed evidence for reincarnated children came to the conclusion that their children were in fact reborn, rather than reaching another conclusion. This was, for him, a proof of the fact that reincarnation is the most obvious option, from among those presented by Seth. However, how valid is this reasoning? People are exposed to reincarnation not only on a philosophical level: there’s an abundance of movies and books that are built on the concept, even just for entertainment. How many movies do you know about Morphic Resonance? In other words, arguing that people were convinced of reincarnation (and maybe they were by the researchers themselves) does not make reincarnation itself necessarily more logical than the other options - only more popular. And, in conclusion, I think that Seth was right in pointing out a logical leap from Stevenson and Tucker’s research to the doctrine of reincarnation. What we objectively have is nothing more than a few thousand cases of children remembering supposed past lives: most of which were either frauds or vitiated by grave methodological flaws in the first place, as illustrated by Seth. Of the few that weren’t, there’s nothing intrinsic to the cases themselves, nor to the laws of logic, that would prevent another explanation, such as those presented by Seth (or even others that weren’t mentioned in the debate). All in all, then, this “evidence” will convince only those who are already believers in reincarnation, imho - but then, what kind of evidence is that? Cheers! :)
Seth's closing statement really sums it up very well. The evidence comes off as speculative and anecdotal based on data that comes down to being at best purely coincidental IMO.
"IMO" and "comes off as" are key here, as cumulative case arguments achieve explanatory complexity to a degree that unequivocal decidability is lost and the last say falls to personal judgement to a fair degree. In some sense this is also a problem in the field of psychological diagnoses and prescriptions, and even to some extent in medical research (as Arjuna mentioned). In other words, there are domains of rationality where some degree of subjectivism cannot be eliminated altogether, much to the perhaps disappointment of scientism and its cognates. I disagree and I think there is some reasonable warrant for reincarnation as the most compound explanation for the high variability of compelling cases (where Seth's alternative explanations x may more simply explain y, it may be the case that explanation z is necessary as a simpler explanation for q, etc.). Yes, the evidence is to some extent speculative, but so is the evidence for the Resurrection. BUT speculation doe snot imply being devoid of intellectual merit. The speculative evidence for the Resurrection, when interpreted within the context of a robust Theology and Christian Hope, makes the Resurrection far more plausible than when viewed through the lens of an altogether alternative worldview. Worldviews, simply put, are underdetermined by purely rational means.
Thanks for such amazing friendly discussions ; from these we learn a lot ....I examined some Reincarnation cases within Islam ( In Palestine a Druze boy ) ..and it was mind blowing ..
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
Didn't think of it at the time but I think the cross gender cases rule out moronic resonance. I don't think it makes sense to say to bodies of different genders can contain brain structures with precise similarity to one another. I also think the fact that this phenomenon doesn't happen with people who are still alive rules out morphic resonance. If morphic resonance where the cause then I think we would see more cases where someone remembered the life of someone whose still alive. Even in the cases there there is some overlap in the lifetimes (meaning the previous personality was still alive after the birth of the child) the previous personality is always deceased when the phenomenon occurs. And finally, I don't see why morphic resonance would give memories only of the later stages of the previous personalities life and emotionally significant memories.
Some interesting points but he did mention that there's overlap between lives (like you said) and if you counter with the previous person was dead when the phenomena occurred then who was the baby/toddler before that when they were both alive? were they not conscience at all? were they someone who changed minds opted out and now the recently dead came and took over? these are not flaws in your thinking at all but just new questions which arise if you're correct. Also perhaps you can't remember memories of someone who's still alive because the memories/experiences we collect in this life don't get delivered to wherever they're stored until we die to then be picked up back here and the emotionally significant ones are picked up most because they take up the most GB lol kinda what I mean is they're the most impactful and memorable kinda makes sense they'd give off a stronger signal and be "picked" up by us. I still think what you're saying may be more plausible than what I am, thing that gets me is how adamant the person is that they are the previous person, even feeling homesickness and refusing to engage with new family insisting they want their "other mum" that strong identification with the memories and insistence they are the other person is harder to explain under morphic resonance than reincarnation hypothesis, also people who look identical to the prior person physically "e.g. Jeff Keene" does that mean morphic resonance also keeps physical characteristic information stored somewhere? it'd need to broaden what it is and how it works to explain the physical characteristic cases like Keene's. All that being said my scepticism has risen a lot (of Ian Stevenson in particular) after hearing about the claims of "leading questions" and shoddy "research methods" of the ones involved with collecting that data.
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
Some of the strongest evidence ever brought forth on the reality of reincarnation (not involving hypnosis). A Civil War general’s reincarnation, plus a great story of a young boy, 9/11 and the reincarnation of a New York City firefighter who perished in one of the Twin Towers. The full story as told by the boy's mother on (and off) a popular Reincarnation Forum starting in 2007 up to the present day. The book is titled, Fire in the Soul: Reincarnation from Antietam to Ground Zero.
I didn't really buy the evidence that Arjuna raised, but honestly, I could grant that it's all good evidence from a Christian perspective. I don't even need to posit demons. I could posit that one, say, Mr Smith died, and his guardian angel was reassigned to the newly conceived and preborn Mr Jones. Some psychological stickiness from his attentive angel, made Jones carry just a few of Smith's memories - which were true memories for Smith, but powerful false memories for Jones. Jones from the womb to, say, age 4, spent all his time with a psychic force who previously attended Smith 24/7. A few memories might get transferred. That (prima facie) sounds just as reasonable as reincarnation. Not that I think that's what's happening. It's just equally possible if this is good evidence.
Given God, reincarnation is of course not metaphysically impossible. For a universalist Christian, it could easily be seen as serving a purpose, in fact. For even Thomistic views of the mind/body, reincarnation makes a fair degree of sense as giving minds opportunities for further spiritual growth. Why wouldn't a God of infinite mercy give you as many chances as possible? Of course, it should also be noted that reincarnation is not mutually excolusive with heaven/hell- in principle, it is not even mutually exclusive with eternal hell (and definitely not exclusive with ultimate reconciliation- heaven- the beautific vision). Simply put, you have to stretch certain passages of scripture beyond their strict contents in order to totally throw reincarnation off the table, and until it is totally off the table, there is no reason to be totally close minded about it. Cautious, sure.
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
I actually agree with John Hick when he says that the scientific/empirical/testimonial evidence for reincarnation isn’t good… but I find the philosophical/theological arguments for it very compelling, especially when paired with the soul-building theodicy, theosis, grace, justice, and even annihilationism… I’ve given reincarnation a lot of thought over the past ~7 years as a Christian, and I’m honestly still open to it, due to some questions that I have regarding certain passages in the Bible, and how all attempts to answer those questions that I’ve heard have fallen short. So I’m currently leaning towards a concept of Gilgul Neshamot (accepted in Judaism), which ultimately will leave the universe to those who incessantly and knowingly reject God, which will lead to the annihilation of that universe, which will be followed by a new universe. 🤓 It’s also really interesting how the concept of morphic resonance could make a feasible ground for the more commonly accepted (among Christians) eschatological doctrine of the final resurrection. Peace. 🤙🏻
Though I support the Victorious Gospel (aka apokatastasis, aka Historical Christian universalism), I do think that reincarnation is not necessarily anti-Christian. However, in my view, if reincarnation is true, this Earth right now is simply hell. And reincarnation is your punishment, close to what Hindus and Buddhists believe. This is supported by the fact that without some guiding light that takes you beyond your mere existence, nothing can satisfy your thirsty soul.
Catholics and orthodox do accept that non-believers can potentially go to Heaven. Arjuna should become a catholic or orthodox. :) I can recommend the channel *"Catholic Answers"* . ___________ People should follow the religion that has the *most* amount of evidence. Objectively speaking, that is *Christianity* . Even Anthony Flew admitted that.
@@hhstark8663 I think he should stick to Vaishnavism. As a Perennialist, I think he can encounter God there too. Though if ever wants to be Christian, I would suppose Catholicism or Orthodoxy would be best options.
@@atanas-nikolov Nice!! Universalism is interesting, too, but I do think that there are certain souls who will always reject God… I think those are the ones in the book of Revelation during the pouring of the bowls of wrath who seem to have knowledge of God, yet they blaspheme and hate God and remain in perpetual rebellion. They are eventually annihilated along with the Earth/universe, and I think that, by God’s grace, they’ve been given chance after chance to make up their mind and return to God, but they choose to return to the kind of world that they formed in their state of perpetual rebellion (which explains the tribulation and turmoil) until it’s all annihilated. I don’t think the Earth is hell, because I still hold to the Genesis idea of the goodness of Creation (even after The Fall), and to the idea in Romans 1 that Creation gives us good intuitive reasons to know that God exists… God speaks through Creation, so I also have a really (REALLY) strong view of God’s immanence/omnipresence, which is what makes the knowledge of God and the salvation of souls possible, and which can be used to respond to the Problem of Evil in a way that I haven’t heard anyone use yet... Furthermore, I accept the view that hell is the place where God is not, and I don’t think there can be such a place besides non-existence… I think perfect being theology (or a Being with all positive/additive traits and no negative/subtractive traits) does explode into a Being that is pure existence/actuality, which transcends matter (Creation) as mind (consciousness) and math (logic/Truth), while being immanent within all of Creation, not just this universe. If hell is created, and if it is a place where God is not, then hell would not be… so hell is non-existence, I think… but this is just the way the puzzle pieces fit together for me in my current pursuit of God. Keep drawing near to God, and God will draw near to you, friend. 🤙🏻
@user-ms5ky6ih2u Absolutely. I know a lot of people who have experienced miracles in one of the countries where it seem to happend the least. One example are some girls in a neighbouring city who went on a bus and saw a baby with a cleft lip. They asked to pray and prayed for him. Soon after the mother screams high pitched startling the whole bus as her baby is healed in front of her eyes. Also I have experienced things myself. If you want to investigate the case for miracles maybe you should go seek out the two volume work called miracles by Craig Keener.
I kept hearing “well if you already accept Vedas then reincarnation makes more sense” The whole point is to establish the truth of the Vedas and reincarnation first though..over all the scientific explanations. I haven’t seen a convincing reason yet.. And also, why are we relying on faulty data rather than directly test people who keep reincarnating? Like the Dalai Lama has supposedly done it 14 times… Or whichever Hindu or Buddhist leader that claims to reincarnate today.
You're right IMO. There won't be one that stands above the others in any objective sense, because what is true for you is determined by your consciousness and your awareness, and your perspective. Evidence for one person isn't the same as another person. Good evidence or personal evidence less so. Why do you think we're all split into groups as Human persons? How do you think scientific research is actually done? Most of the modern theories about Geology, Astrophysics, and Neurology is simply 'truth' by majority consensus over time and approximate usefulness. Truly new or radically different theories in science that help us to better make sense of the world we find ourselves in are usually 'heretical' to the past majority, and involve a turning over of the status-quo in major ways. Heliocentrism was heresy to Geocentrism. Quantum mechanics was Heresy to Einstein's relativity, as Relativity was to Newtonian notions of gravity. They're all only still 'better' models simply because more labs _agree_ that they can reproduce them using the inductive scientific method and more people agree that scientists and the scientific method is trustworthy, or more trustworthy than many other sources at least. The inductive method in many cases presupposes Physicalism/Materialism, which is by no means the only viable option for testing. You could test a metaphysical theory if that theory gave you tools to test it. Christianity basically says this in a weak sense, if you can believe it without cognitive dissonance; that you receive the Holy Spirit, or could be in visions if you're pious enough, a strong feeling, redemption from God, hearing the voice of God/an angel, a relationship with Jesus, etc. This only happens when and because people believe it could happen. If they did not, why ever become a Christian? Even those who became Christian or another religion _after_ having an experience like that, still left "Religious" open as a possibility in their mind. See what I mean? The world is shaped by human consciousness at a personal and direct level. None of us need be only Matter if we choose not to be. None of us need be confined to a single perspective if one chooses differently either. It is still a choice, no matter what you do unless you can/decide to convince yourself that Newtonian determinism or Quantum determinism is true, Free Will can be used to make a choice.
@@AlexofAwesomedo you understand what are you saying? According to you ,You are yourself determined to be an atheist even if after all good convincing talks... Or examples,. And nothing other than your determination possible...! According to you a determined atheist freely can't be convinced and find God by grace. As per time space and thirst of self.!
@@subhrodiprakshit8923 I nowhere said I'm an Atheist. What made you come to that conclusion? All I said was that someone who closes the door to God, won't find him. Someone who is a committed orderly rationalist and materialist will not be open to spiritual beliefs. The Bible says as much if you believe in it. Seek, then find. Have you heard debates with committed Atheists like Dawkins, or Harris? It's clear that they have closed that door, at least for the moment. It's always possible they could open it again if they so choose/can convince themselves that it's reasonable to have faith. Again, why make such assumptions about me? All I affirmed was the power of Free Will and consciousness, which the Bible also affirms.
@@subhrodiprakshit8923I never said I was a Bible believer either, but since you wound up aggressively accusing me of being an atheist and are commenting on a Christian channel I made an educated guess. If you're absolutely convinced you're right, what else is there to say? Have a good life and I hope whatever religion or system you enjoy and have chosen as your belief (because it seems most reasonable/correct to you) brings you freedom and takes you to good places instead of ill. Have a good life.
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
@@CapturingChristianity Woah you responded to my comment! Wow this is crazy haha I am a pretty big fan. Your content is great and I love how ur debates seem to really be trying to find the truth.
@@CapturingChristianity You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
I practiced Hinduism and as a result I had past life and prebirth memories flooding to me. Christ saved me out of that and I realized they were planted in my mind by the false gods I worshipped.
@@brahilly False god as in, not God the All-Mighty God the Father. False doesn't mean they don't exist, but are not God. I'm not describing what I mean too well. Jonathan Pageau is a great resource for topics like this
@@APolitical99 So what are they then? Also, are you aware that young children claiming to have lived previously have had their statements verified by researchers from the University of Tennesee? Because their memories are verifiable, one can not label them as false memories. How would you account for this?
@@brahilly So god in this sense more or less refers to what many might describe as "demonic". Principalities. Well, I would have to see an individual case. Maybe it is demonic. Maybe memories are transfered to people in some way. I think there are more issues with reincarnation then there are reasons to believe in it(as in accept that it happens). But I would need an individual case to look into. Just because someone has memories of someone else, that we can verify to be true, I don't think that then leads straight to reincarnation. Maybe I can be convinced otherwise, as I am currently destructing (almost) everything, it's painful and I am looking for answers, answers I know I probably won't get. So I try to remain open.
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
Ultimately, the problem I have with Seth's argument is that it completely relies upon a particular use of Ockham's razor. Really, hypotheses are only artificially (inscincerely) divorceable from the worldviews that announce them. Let's pretend we do not believe what we believe in order to have a sterile and clinical logic chopping discussion. An honest conversation would allow all importation, theological or otherwise. Only atheists can play this game of "let's only consider the empirical data". A simpler explanation is also simpler given the context of ethical/theological motivations. That's why Seth's position is ultimately false- because he refuses to engage his full perspective. Instead he solves an artificial logic problem in which of course you cannot decide between competing metaphysical views of what underlies the phenomena in question. One explanation may not be ultimately simpler when you cansider also arguments for God, the nature of God, the nature of the Good, etc. simplicity is only simple in a well-defined operational context in which there is already a lot of background agreement.
"Some of my atoms, in my body, might have once been shared by dinosaurs for instance..." which means?? -33:32 Arjun says that in possesion you have two souls instead of one. What two souls? A demon latches on to a soul that has nothing to do with reincarnation, so we have one soul and a demon. The young boy then says things that the demon is telling him to say. Why is that more complicated then reincarnation?
Excellent discussion! Thanks for doing this!
Jimmy! Just wanted to say how much I've been enjoying your mysterious world podcast, especially your talks with the folks from Project Stargate and remote viewing. You might also want to look into Project Gateway at some point as it has similar import and is personally testable. Have a great week!
@@AlexofAwesome Howdy, Alex! Thanks for your kind words! Just yesterday, I was recording some video for January episodes in which I interview one of the original Star Gate remote viewers. He had some very interesting experiences!
There was an intersection between Star Gate and the Monroe Institute, which was involved in Gateway. Still researching that.
God bless you!
@@JimmyAkin Thank you for your efforts, and the response. Never expected that! Awesome. Looking forward to it! Oh! And early merry Christmas to you and your family. :)
Hearty thanks to Cameron for holding this debate. I wish he gives more space to Eastern Religions in future. This is really open minded of him.
Definitely
He's shown a lot of openess to bringing in alternative views for dialogue. It was an honour to be involved.
@Cosmic Lifeist Do advaitins worship Krishna? I thought Krishna or vaishnavas are more Vishishtadvaitins or Dvaitins.
Very interesting dialogue! And it’s a good friendly discussion instead of a heated argument! This is how we find truth. Thanks Cameron.
Both very civilised, both proposed interesting arguments, but ultimately I believe Seth built a more solid defence
How ?
Can you explain?
@@subhrodiprakshit8923 Sure, and thanks for asking! I will provide just a couple of examples, to show what I mean, but feel free to comment if you wanted to point out something more specific.
At one point of the debate, Seth pointed out that Arjuna’s reasoning introduced many elements into the picture. Arjuna’s reply was that those “additional” elements were not being added by him, but by a millenarian Vedic tradition. That may be true, but it does not answer Seth’s point. Whether a multiplication of hypotheses happened in 3000 B.C. or in 2021, it’s still a multiplication of hypotheses - a direct violation of Ockham’s razor.
Another example is when Arjuna reported that the majority of people who were confronted with the supposed evidence for reincarnated children came to the conclusion that their children were in fact reborn, rather than reaching another conclusion. This was, for him, a proof of the fact that reincarnation is the most obvious option, from among those presented by Seth. However, how valid is this reasoning? People are exposed to reincarnation not only on a philosophical level: there’s an abundance of movies and books that are built on the concept, even just for entertainment. How many movies do you know about Morphic Resonance? In other words, arguing that people were convinced of reincarnation (and maybe they were by the researchers themselves) does not make reincarnation itself necessarily more logical than the other options - only more popular.
And, in conclusion, I think that Seth was right in pointing out a logical leap from Stevenson and Tucker’s research to the doctrine of reincarnation. What we objectively have is nothing more than a few thousand cases of children remembering supposed past lives: most of which were either frauds or vitiated by grave methodological flaws in the first place, as illustrated by Seth. Of the few that weren’t, there’s nothing intrinsic to the cases themselves, nor to the laws of logic, that would prevent another explanation, such as those presented by Seth (or even others that weren’t mentioned in the debate). All in all, then, this “evidence” will convince only those who are already believers in reincarnation, imho - but then, what kind of evidence is that?
Cheers! :)
@@lorenzomurrone2430 great
Seth's closing statement really sums it up very well. The evidence comes off as speculative and anecdotal based on data that comes down to being at best purely coincidental IMO.
"IMO" and "comes off as" are key here, as cumulative case arguments achieve explanatory complexity to a degree that unequivocal decidability is lost and the last say falls to personal judgement to a fair degree. In some sense this is also a problem in the field of psychological diagnoses and prescriptions, and even to some extent in medical research (as Arjuna mentioned). In other words, there are domains of rationality where some degree of subjectivism cannot be eliminated altogether, much to the perhaps disappointment of scientism and its cognates. I disagree and I think there is some reasonable warrant for reincarnation as the most compound explanation for the high variability of compelling cases (where Seth's alternative explanations x may more simply explain y, it may be the case that explanation z is necessary as a simpler explanation for q, etc.). Yes, the evidence is to some extent speculative, but so is the evidence for the Resurrection. BUT speculation doe snot imply being devoid of intellectual merit. The speculative evidence for the Resurrection, when interpreted within the context of a robust Theology and Christian Hope, makes the Resurrection far more plausible than when viewed through the lens of an altogether alternative worldview. Worldviews, simply put, are underdetermined by purely rational means.
@@koffeeblack5717 so...what now then?
Thanks guys
Interesting points!
Thanks for such amazing friendly discussions ; from these we learn a lot ....I examined some Reincarnation cases within Islam ( In Palestine a Druze boy ) ..and it was mind blowing
..
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
Didn't think of it at the time but I think the cross gender cases rule out moronic resonance. I don't think it makes sense to say to bodies of different genders can contain brain structures with precise similarity to one another. I also think the fact that this phenomenon doesn't happen with people who are still alive rules out morphic resonance. If morphic resonance where the cause then I think we would see more cases where someone remembered the life of someone whose still alive. Even in the cases there there is some overlap in the lifetimes (meaning the previous personality was still alive after the birth of the child) the previous personality is always deceased when the phenomenon occurs. And finally, I don't see why morphic resonance would give memories only of the later stages of the previous personalities life and emotionally significant memories.
Some interesting points but he did mention that there's overlap between lives (like you said) and if you counter with the previous person was dead when the phenomena occurred then who was the baby/toddler before that when they were both alive? were they not conscience at all? were they someone who changed minds opted out and now the recently dead came and took over? these are not flaws in your thinking at all but just new questions which arise if you're correct.
Also perhaps you can't remember memories of someone who's still alive because the memories/experiences we collect in this life don't get delivered to wherever they're stored until we die to then be picked up back here and the emotionally significant ones are picked up most because they take up the most GB lol kinda what I mean is they're the most impactful and memorable kinda makes sense they'd give off a stronger signal and be "picked" up by us.
I still think what you're saying may be more plausible than what I am, thing that gets me is how adamant the person is that they are the previous person, even feeling homesickness and refusing to engage with new family insisting they want their "other mum" that strong identification with the memories and insistence they are the other person is harder to explain under morphic resonance than reincarnation hypothesis, also people who look identical to the prior person physically "e.g. Jeff Keene" does that mean morphic resonance also keeps physical characteristic information stored somewhere? it'd need to broaden what it is and how it works to explain the physical characteristic cases like Keene's.
All that being said my scepticism has risen a lot (of Ian Stevenson in particular) after hearing about the claims of "leading questions" and shoddy "research methods" of the ones involved with collecting that data.
Arjuna is on the right, his speech is on the left. If this is not evidence, I don’t know what is.
What do you mean? Please explain
Lol
@@gentilechristian220 my audio was only coming out one speaker.
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
Some of the strongest evidence ever brought forth on the reality of reincarnation (not involving hypnosis). A Civil War general’s reincarnation, plus a great story of a young boy, 9/11 and the reincarnation of a New York City firefighter who perished in one of the Twin Towers. The full story as told by the boy's mother on (and off) a popular Reincarnation Forum starting in 2007 up to the present day. The book is titled, Fire in the Soul: Reincarnation from Antietam to Ground Zero.
I didn't really buy the evidence that Arjuna raised, but honestly, I could grant that it's all good evidence from a Christian perspective. I don't even need to posit demons. I could posit that one, say, Mr Smith died, and his guardian angel was reassigned to the newly conceived and preborn Mr Jones. Some psychological stickiness from his attentive angel, made Jones carry just a few of Smith's memories - which were true memories for Smith, but powerful false memories for Jones.
Jones from the womb to, say, age 4, spent all his time with a psychic force who previously attended Smith 24/7. A few memories might get transferred. That (prima facie) sounds just as reasonable as reincarnation. Not that I think that's what's happening. It's just equally possible if this is good evidence.
If people are learning and growing then why is everyone so ignorant and disagreeable.
Given God, reincarnation is of course not metaphysically impossible. For a universalist Christian, it could easily be seen as serving a purpose, in fact. For even Thomistic views of the mind/body, reincarnation makes a fair degree of sense as giving minds opportunities for further spiritual growth. Why wouldn't a God of infinite mercy give you as many chances as possible? Of course, it should also be noted that reincarnation is not mutually excolusive with heaven/hell- in principle, it is not even mutually exclusive with eternal hell (and definitely not exclusive with ultimate reconciliation- heaven- the beautific vision). Simply put, you have to stretch certain passages of scripture beyond their strict contents in order to totally throw reincarnation off the table, and until it is totally off the table, there is no reason to be totally close minded about it. Cautious, sure.
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
I'd be so curious to know if the skeptic believes there is good evidence for the resurrection?
Yes, the skeptic (Seth Hart) does believe there is good evidence for the resurrection.
I actually agree with John Hick when he says that the scientific/empirical/testimonial evidence for reincarnation isn’t good… but I find the philosophical/theological arguments for it very compelling, especially when paired with the soul-building theodicy, theosis, grace, justice, and even annihilationism… I’ve given reincarnation a lot of thought over the past ~7 years as a Christian, and I’m honestly still open to it, due to some questions that I have regarding certain passages in the Bible, and how all attempts to answer those questions that I’ve heard have fallen short. So I’m currently leaning towards a concept of Gilgul Neshamot (accepted in Judaism), which ultimately will leave the universe to those who incessantly and knowingly reject God, which will lead to the annihilation of that universe, which will be followed by a new universe. 🤓 It’s also really interesting how the concept of morphic resonance could make a feasible ground for the more commonly accepted (among Christians) eschatological doctrine of the final resurrection. Peace. 🤙🏻
Morphic resonance being grounds for resurrection sounds like an interesting theory.
Though I support the Victorious Gospel (aka apokatastasis, aka Historical Christian universalism), I do think that reincarnation is not necessarily anti-Christian. However, in my view, if reincarnation is true, this Earth right now is simply hell. And reincarnation is your punishment, close to what Hindus and Buddhists believe.
This is supported by the fact that without some guiding light that takes you beyond your mere existence, nothing can satisfy your thirsty soul.
Catholics and orthodox do accept that non-believers can potentially go to Heaven.
Arjuna should become a catholic or orthodox. :)
I can recommend the channel *"Catholic Answers"* .
___________
People should follow the religion that has the *most* amount of evidence. Objectively speaking, that is *Christianity* . Even Anthony Flew admitted that.
@@hhstark8663 I think he should stick to Vaishnavism. As a Perennialist, I think he can encounter God there too.
Though if ever wants to be Christian, I would suppose Catholicism or Orthodoxy would be best options.
@@atanas-nikolov Nice!! Universalism is interesting, too, but I do think that there are certain souls who will always reject God… I think those are the ones in the book of Revelation during the pouring of the bowls of wrath who seem to have knowledge of God, yet they blaspheme and hate God and remain in perpetual rebellion. They are eventually annihilated along with the Earth/universe, and I think that, by God’s grace, they’ve been given chance after chance to make up their mind and return to God, but they choose to return to the kind of world that they formed in their state of perpetual rebellion (which explains the tribulation and turmoil) until it’s all annihilated.
I don’t think the Earth is hell, because I still hold to the Genesis idea of the goodness of Creation (even after The Fall), and to the idea in Romans 1 that Creation gives us good intuitive reasons to know that God exists… God speaks through Creation, so I also have a really (REALLY) strong view of God’s immanence/omnipresence, which is what makes the knowledge of God and the salvation of souls possible, and which can be used to respond to the Problem of Evil in a way that I haven’t heard anyone use yet... Furthermore, I accept the view that hell is the place where God is not, and I don’t think there can be such a place besides non-existence… I think perfect being theology (or a Being with all positive/additive traits and no negative/subtractive traits) does explode into a Being that is pure existence/actuality, which transcends matter (Creation) as mind (consciousness) and math (logic/Truth), while being immanent within all of Creation, not just this universe. If hell is created, and if it is a place where God is not, then hell would not be… so hell is non-existence, I think… but this is just the way the puzzle pieces fit together for me in my current pursuit of God.
Keep drawing near to God, and God will draw near to you, friend. 🤙🏻
I would love to hear this Christian destroy miracle stories.
If you think the evidence for miracles and reincarnation are in any way on par you havent even dipped your toe in the evidence.
@@MrMuruks
A good start would be the book _"Miracles Today"_ by the former hard-core atheist scholar Craig Keener.
@@hhstark8663 I have his two volume work but didnt know about this one. Thanks :)
@@MrMuruksDo you think the evidence for miracles is better than the evidence for reincarnation?
@user-ms5ky6ih2u Absolutely. I know a lot of people who have experienced miracles in one of the countries where it seem to happend the least. One example are some girls in a neighbouring city who went on a bus and saw a baby with a cleft lip. They asked to pray and prayed for him. Soon after the mother screams high pitched startling the whole bus as her baby is healed in front of her eyes. Also I have experienced things myself. If you want to investigate the case for miracles maybe you should go seek out the two volume work called miracles by Craig Keener.
the audio might be screwd up i cant hear anything th guy in the striped shirt says but i can hear everyone else in the videya
I kept hearing “well if you already accept Vedas then reincarnation makes more sense”
The whole point is to establish the truth of the Vedas and reincarnation first though..over all the scientific explanations. I haven’t seen a convincing reason yet..
And also, why are we relying on faulty data rather than directly test people who keep reincarnating? Like the Dalai Lama has supposedly done it 14 times…
Or whichever Hindu or Buddhist leader that claims to reincarnate today.
You're right IMO. There won't be one that stands above the others in any objective sense, because what is true for you is determined by your consciousness and your awareness, and your perspective. Evidence for one person isn't the same as another person. Good evidence or personal evidence less so. Why do you think we're all split into groups as Human persons? How do you think scientific research is actually done? Most of the modern theories about Geology, Astrophysics, and Neurology is simply 'truth' by majority consensus over time and approximate usefulness. Truly new or radically different theories in science that help us to better make sense of the world we find ourselves in are usually 'heretical' to the past majority, and involve a turning over of the status-quo in major ways. Heliocentrism was heresy to Geocentrism. Quantum mechanics was Heresy to Einstein's relativity, as Relativity was to Newtonian notions of gravity. They're all only still 'better' models simply because more labs _agree_ that they can reproduce them using the inductive scientific method and more people agree that scientists and the scientific method is trustworthy, or more trustworthy than many other sources at least. The inductive method in many cases presupposes Physicalism/Materialism, which is by no means the only viable option for testing. You could test a metaphysical theory if that theory gave you tools to test it. Christianity basically says this in a weak sense, if you can believe it without cognitive dissonance; that you receive the Holy Spirit, or could be in visions if you're pious enough, a strong feeling, redemption from God, hearing the voice of God/an angel, a relationship with Jesus, etc. This only happens when and because people believe it could happen. If they did not, why ever become a Christian? Even those who became Christian or another religion _after_ having an experience like that, still left "Religious" open as a possibility in their mind. See what I mean? The world is shaped by human consciousness at a personal and direct level. None of us need be only Matter if we choose not to be. None of us need be confined to a single perspective if one chooses differently either. It is still a choice, no matter what you do unless you can/decide to convince yourself that Newtonian determinism or Quantum determinism is true, Free Will can be used to make a choice.
@@AlexofAwesomedo you understand what are you saying?
According to you ,You are yourself determined to be an atheist even if after all good convincing talks... Or examples,. And nothing other than your determination possible...!
According to you a determined atheist freely can't be convinced and find God by grace. As per time space and thirst of self.!
@@subhrodiprakshit8923 I nowhere said I'm an Atheist. What made you come to that conclusion? All I said was that someone who closes the door to God, won't find him. Someone who is a committed orderly rationalist and materialist will not be open to spiritual beliefs. The Bible says as much if you believe in it. Seek, then find. Have you heard debates with committed Atheists like Dawkins, or Harris? It's clear that they have closed that door, at least for the moment. It's always possible they could open it again if they so choose/can convince themselves that it's reasonable to have faith. Again, why make such assumptions about me? All I affirmed was the power of Free Will and consciousness, which the Bible also affirms.
@@AlexofAwesome Bible and it's folly philosophy like all other Abrahamics are refuted by all eastern thoughts .
@@subhrodiprakshit8923I never said I was a Bible believer either, but since you wound up aggressively accusing me of being an atheist and are commenting on a Christian channel I made an educated guess. If you're absolutely convinced you're right, what else is there to say? Have a good life and I hope whatever religion or system you enjoy and have chosen as your belief (because it seems most reasonable/correct to you) brings you freedom and takes you to good places instead of ill. Have a good life.
Reincarnation is just another word for h 🔥.
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
49:09 is it just me or is there a pattern of the people debating Christians on this channel having technical difficulties?
It's just you.
@@CapturingChristianity Woah you responded to my comment! Wow this is crazy haha I am a pretty big fan. Your content is great and I love how ur debates seem to really be trying to find the truth.
@@CapturingChristianity but ok haha
@@CapturingChristianity You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
I practiced Hinduism and as a result I had past life and prebirth memories flooding to me. Christ saved me out of that and I realized they were planted in my mind by the false gods I worshipped.
Usually when we say false Gods, we mean that they're nonexistent. If the Gods were false, how did they plant plant these things in your mind?
@@brahilly
False god as in, not God the All-Mighty God the Father. False doesn't mean they don't exist, but are not God. I'm not describing what I mean too well. Jonathan Pageau is a great resource for topics like this
@@APolitical99
So what are they then?
Also, are you aware that young children claiming to have lived previously have had their statements verified by researchers from the University of Tennesee? Because their memories are verifiable, one can not label them as false memories. How would you account for this?
@@brahilly
So god in this sense more or less refers to what many might describe as "demonic". Principalities.
Well, I would have to see an individual case. Maybe it is demonic. Maybe memories are transfered to people in some way. I think there are more issues with reincarnation then there are reasons to believe in it(as in accept that it happens). But I would need an individual case to look into.
Just because someone has memories of someone else, that we can verify to be true, I don't think that then leads straight to reincarnation. Maybe I can be convinced otherwise, as I am currently destructing (almost) everything, it's painful and I am looking for answers, answers I know I probably won't get. So I try to remain open.
@@brahilly easily. possession? Or partial possession planting false memories.
Ah, so the skeptic would probably say that Christianity does NOT have strong evidence but has ENOUGH to lead to faith.
If you have evidence you don't need faith
You CAN NOT die from your point of view because the universe is spatially infinite. Matter can only be arranged in a finite number of different ways and if the universe is indeed spatially infinite then everybody has an infinite number of exact incarnations of themselves living on exact copies of this Earth in other exact copies of our observable universe. P:articles can also be in many places at once. Every time you make a decision or something happens to you, you get physically cloned far far away in 3D space in our infinitely sized universe and invisibly cloned right here in higher dimensional space who makes the opposite decision or the opposite thing happens to them. You are unaware of seeing the other versions of yourself because quantum decoherence prevents you from seeing copies of yourself. If there is a non zero chance of survival no matter how unlikely then you will survive from your point of view because the version of you CAN NOT know that it died and only the version of you who lives can continue to realise it's living. Even if the probability is 1 in trillions to live to 200 you will live to 200 from your point of view. If the probability is significantly less again to live to 300 no matter how bad your life is or how weak or ill you are you will still survive from your point of view. Your are living on an infinity of planet Earths spread through out infinite universe without realising it. I have 2 videos here explaining it ruclips.net/video/4te_7vpj5WM/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/HB7FOPILuRU/видео.html
34:38 (personal bookmark)
Ultimately, the problem I have with Seth's argument is that it completely relies upon a particular use of Ockham's razor. Really, hypotheses are only artificially (inscincerely) divorceable from the worldviews that announce them. Let's pretend we do not believe what we believe in order to have a sterile and clinical logic chopping discussion. An honest conversation would allow all importation, theological or otherwise. Only atheists can play this game of "let's only consider the empirical data". A simpler explanation is also simpler given the context of ethical/theological motivations. That's why Seth's position is ultimately false- because he refuses to engage his full perspective. Instead he solves an artificial logic problem in which of course you cannot decide between competing metaphysical views of what underlies the phenomena in question. One explanation may not be ultimately simpler when you cansider also arguments for God, the nature of God, the nature of the Good, etc. simplicity is only simple in a well-defined operational context in which there is already a lot of background agreement.
Watched 1:21:00
"Some of my atoms, in my body, might have once been shared by dinosaurs for instance..." which means?? -33:32
Arjun says that in possesion you have two souls instead of one. What two souls? A demon latches on to a soul that has nothing to do with reincarnation, so we have one soul and a demon. The young boy then says things that the demon is telling him to say. Why is that more complicated then reincarnation?
Your channel is silly. There is no intelligent side of Christian Belief. Lol
lol u gottem man