On the first point.
Right, so when I gave those percentages. I was talking about induction. So I'm not necessarily saying that incorporeal doesn't exist. I'm giving the induction rates that we currently have on it because induction is the only way for me to get external information directly. So since there's a 100% rate of induction on corporeal and a 0% on incorporeal, I have to operate under the assumption that only corporeal is real until I can find evidence for it. The problem here is that I can't even give something a name if it has a 0% induction rate. So it can never be anything other than hypothetical.
Now as for dark matter and energy, those could very well end up as the inductions that you need. However, at the moment we don't have enough information so without having that information, it's safer to assume that those things will end up falling into one of the categories that we have already made inductions for.
On the second point.
So let's say that's true and people will kill themselves. Why shouldn't they? If the new reality is so much better than wouldn't it be immoral to force people to stay in this world of suffering? Furthermore, if there is a reality where we can be whatever we want, than why are we in this reality to begin with and why do we intuitively work so hard to stay in it as long as possible and delay our inevitable happiness?
Third point.
Hinduism has it's advantage from theoretical stand point because it's foundation is built on a very flexible concept. However, from a political standpoint, I would say it's not doing as well as some other systems since people do sometimes get killed over there religion which is not as common in the more politically subdued religions like Christianity and Judaism.
Science might not be moving in the direction you like, but it's still moving forward. While money plays into it, it's not the only factor. Universities do plenty of fringe studies and there are plenty of theists with money. I promise you. At some point, we have to realize that part of the problem is we don't even know exactly what it is we're looking for. We don't know which tools to use, and we don't know how it fits into or is necessary for our model of reality. All of these things need to be addressed and then science would actually jump all over this. This scientist who discovers ghosts will get a Nobel Prize and a pile of money for sure.
Fourth point.
You say you're not jumping to conclusions, but you have this dream about vegas and then you connect it to a trip with vegas which you then connect with a guy throwing up blood (which is a normal thing that happens and people don't necessarily die on the spot from it.) and then you say something about hearing a voice (which could either be your inner dialogue or some kind of hallucination) and then you touch the guy and he stops vomiting. Which btw, touching people's backs sometimes helps with vomiting because part of vomiting is psychological and the physical shock of sensation can sometimes interrupt the vomiting process. Now if you say you're not jumping to conclusions, then can you explained how you ruled out all of the normal possibilities because you should rule out the most likely ones first.
1. I had a dream that happened to relate to something that happened later and then someone vomited and stopped vomiting at a weird time.
Sounds more plausible than.
2. I had a dream that predicted that I was going to vegas to heal my friend of his deadly vomiting problem and I think it was magic.
Furthermore, are you sure it was blood? If he drank something read, it could look EXACTLY like blood. I know this from experience.
To your extra point.
Well I can't understand the whole properly if I don't look at the pieces. If the story was true, then all of the pieces should work to justify the whole in some way. You can't just connect a dream to something if there's not logical reason to do so. It's not like you had the dream and then woke up and had a surprise trip to vegas the same day. Maybe then it would be a little odd, but it still wouldn't be evidence of much except maybe that you subconsciously new you were going.
I don't know how a natural explanation is anymore forced that a supernatural one. I mean yeah, it FEELS more smooth to suppose something supernatural because it's so easy to do "Why'd this cup fall over? Fairies did it. Well that was easy enough" But we're not doing the leg work here. there's a good reason that we go to the natural explanation first. Because statistically speaking, natural things have infinitely more. So that means that we have a data set to compare it to. when that data set doesn't match, THEN we go to supernatural.
On the millions of people thing. The amount of people doesn't matter. The problems is you can find contradictions in the claims and the claims only ever start to match after people have spread the claims around enough to agree on them.
For example. When people first started giving alien stories, all the stories were dramatically different. But as time went on they started to become more and more alike because people would see the news and it would cause a norm for it.
The important thing isn't the amount of people per se, it's that the stories match and we can find evidence to verify the stories outside of the accounts themselves.
