"Worse yet, no amount of additional knowledge can change the situation."- sounds like your stuck into a certain mindset. I wouldn't discourage additional learning as there is always more to be gained.
The "certain mindset" I am "stuck" in is called critical thinking. It is a method of analysis that leads to the most reasonable or probable conclusion given the information at hand. The opposite might be called magical thinking, where confirmation bias or blind faith rather than reason justifies belief, and anyone who doesn't agree with them becomes a "closed minded skeptic".
Allot of brilliant people have concluded that Einstein was correct in that Emc2= energy cannot be destroyed it can only change form.
Actually, it's E=MC² . It is an equation that describes a balance of quantity between mass and energy. It has nothing to do with an equivalence for the types of things that matter and energy form. In other words, in no way does it equate squirrels with basketballs, or suggest that the transformation of one to the other maintains the contextual integrity of the original.
They believe our conscious is that energy source.
If you mean "consciousness", we have a huge thread on that. You are welcome to participate. So far, the best evidence makes it unreasonable to conclude that consciousness doesn't require a brain in order to manifest. But even if we suppose that preserving consciousness after death is somehow possible, that doesn't justify concluding that such consciousness is the same thing as the person who has died.
At best, it can only be a weak copy or projection of part of the deceased. The reasons for this are more than I have time for in this post. Suffice it to say, that in the end, the only form of immortality or continuity of personhood that is possible, is for a person to never die ( period ). Nothing else counts, no matter how hard we want to believe in it.
I would like you to consider having Dr Michael Pitstick on as a guest. He is very well spoken and they are working with departed people on the other side to create new ways to communicate with the deceased. (I.e. the soulphone) .
According to this website:
Soulphone Foundation, having Dr Michael Pitstick on as a guest will not be something that is possible without jumping through hoops that attempt to establish belief prior to their appearance. I suspect I might even be labeled by them as a "closed minded skeptic", and therefore would not meet their criteria for an interview. To me, that attitude says a lot all by itself.
However if you would like to discuss their prerequisites and perspectives in an open forum, where we can fair-mindedly analyze the content without their conditions, that might be very interesting.
