Leo Gura

It must be true because Omniscience is true. The only way to predict and manipulate the entire Universe is to be God. That's what God is. God requires complete awareness of every truth in existence. This awareness grants Omnipotence. You are failing to grasp that science actually seeks God, which is Omniscience, Omnipotence, Truth. Without realizing God science can never reach it's ultimate goal. This is why my metaphysics is so powerful and fundamental. My metaphysics is the only thing capable of explaining all of reality and the entire function of science. Science seeks Omnipotence without understanding that it's doing so. And science does not understand that Omnipotence requires Omniscience, which requires Truth. If you miss even on ounce of Truth you cannot have Omniscience and Omnipotence. I know these things because I realized God. Science has not. Anyone who hasn't realized God will not know these things. I understand every epistemic and ontolgical error of science and how much this holds back science. Science does not know this. That is the difference.

You are mistaken. All truth is relevant because in the end science must predict the whole universe, which is impossible to do without knowing everything true. If it is true that an ant on a planet on the other side of the galaxy farted 5 billion years ago, this truth must be relevant to science.

An irrelevant point since in the vast majority of cases no two facts about the universe are relevant to each other or any scientist. But they are still scientific facts. Science is advanced by making very specific correlations between very specific truths and data. You cannot ever know which piece of data (which truth) will be relevant to your next breakthrough discovery. Just because you can't foresee the relevance of a truth does not mean it is irrelevant. That's just a lack of vision. It will change science as long as the view is true. If the view is false then it won't. Although even false views can advance science. If atheism is false (and it is) this must affect science. It's only a question of time. If God exists (and it does) this must affect science. It's only a question of time. Anything true affects science, since anything true is real, and science is the study of reality.

Looks like serious, solid work. Great!

Any true claim, of any kind whatsoever, is relevant and necessary to the advancement of science. Otherwise there would exist aspects of the universe which are real but science cannot account for, explain, predict, or manipulate. You can say my metaphysics is false. But if anything in my metaphysics is true, it must is relevant for science.

Understanding of consciousness and paranormal phenomena. Understanding of psychedelics. Understanding of mental illness. Understanding of alien minds, communication with aliens. Understanding of spirituality, mysticism, religion. Fundamental physics. Psychology and sociology.

Yes, it limits science. This does not mean all science stops. You can keep doing limited science for a long time into the future. If I tell you that the speed of your car engine is artificially limited, this does not mean you can't drive it. Again, this is a failure of basic logic. Physics was limited by Newtonian mechanics prior to Einstein. This does not mean physics didn't make new discoveries and developments between Newton and Einstein. Paradigm shifts are necessary for science to advance, but much science can still be done within old paradigms. Just because scientific discoveries are still happening is not proof that a new paradigm isn't needed. A new paradigm unlocks new domains of science without stopping research in the old domains.

I never said such a silly thing. You invented this strawman.

Contemplate this, and you will have the answer you seek: Why is it fundamentally important to thoroughly understand the limitations of the current methodology of science?

You should direct that silly bit of logic at Einstein, Newton, and any other scientist or philosopher you revere.

"Look, Leo, I discovered a new rock on Mars! So why do I need you? What good are you? Look at this new rock! I can be a Satan worshiper and still discover new rocks!"

And Newton didn't know about Einstein and science still advanced before Einstein. Your logic is so bad that it doesn't warrant a serious response. The reason I don't bother to respond to your points, point by point, is because you're not even in the same ballpark of what I'm trying to teach. You make very shallow and uninteresting rebuttals which, if I took seriously, I would have become a typical clueless academic. Do you comprehend that to reach the level of understanding that I reached I had to be ruthless with dismissing all of these typical materialists, scientistic talking-points? To me what you're doing is not serious. It does not lead to profound levels of understanding of reality. It is not my position that enlightenment will necessarily make better practical scientists. Maybe it makes for worse scientists because you stop even caring about science. Makes no difference to me. The things I teach are so profound that to measure them with the yardstick of practicality is an insult to intelligence. Whether something is practical or not is irrelevant to me. Which is not to say that there are no practical implications here for science. There certainly are. But they are subtle, not as cartoonish as landing a man on the moon. This whole argument is like saying 300 years ago: "But what are the practical implications of Non-Euclidean geometry? It's all just abstract metaphysical junk and we don't need it to sail a ship around the world." Just look at the logic of it. It's so myopic. ANYTHING TRUE HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE! Whether you are intelligent enough to see the implications or not is irrelevant. Whether it helps you jerk off on the moon is irrelevant. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. "But Leo, you said science is limited. But I can still get my dick sucked on Mars so why does it matter?" This is the level of logic here.

Guess what guys! If you are born a billionaire, people will just come to be your friends! You don't gotta do anything. Your DMs will be blowing up!

It is stupid that you reduce science to builiding rockets. That you even consider this a serious counter-argument to what I said only doubles the validity of what I said. Note: The only reason you could send a rocket to the moon was because people like Einstein took epistemology seriously and used it to generate insights that some engineering monkey just used be to practical. You should read the importance Einstein gave to epistemology and philosophy.

Bingo

@Husseinisdoingfine This is like saying we air dropped Fidel Castro into Cuba and it all worked out. #LeftIsBest Half of the dictators around the world are Marxist revolutionaires.

Science cannot function without caring about truth. What good is false science? The two cannot be seperated like that. They don't understand that reality is undefinable. They think they are defining it and they are missing all the most important aspects necessary for understanding reality. You can't just skip all the stuff I talk about. It's all fundamental.

Communist litmus test is to sit down and write out all the things that were wrong with the socialist worldview and why it failed in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. Yes, that's another way to say what I said.

It does matter because science has wrong epistemology and wrong ontology, which limits science. Science is fundamentally about understanding reality. Their ability to understand reality is very self-limited. Understanding cannot be reduced to practical measures.

You really want to pay thousands of dollars a month for an experimental drug with who knows what side-effects that you must take for the rest of your life in order to look a bit more muscular? This is gym rat mentality. This dude is so out of touch with what matters in life. Men are such insecure fools.

Nazis still scheming. https://apnews.com/article/nazi-white-supremacist-guns-fbi-washington-2246cf68af02d592d192a9b52d8941e3

That's because they don't understand why conservatives exist or what conservatism is. They only know strawmans and childish demonizations. They haven't bothered to actually see reality from the conservative perspective. Leftists are paradigm-locked.

Meow

Play works everywhere. You can even play with a dog. Give it a try sometimes. And notice that when you play with a dog you are not thinking about whether you are good enough for the dog and how to change yourself to make the dog like you more. Should I wear red shoes or blue shoes? Which color does the dog like more? Should I tell the dog this joke, or that joke? Maybe if I work out at the gym and take some supplements the dog will like me more. What should I say to the dog to get it to like me?