Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[gnostic]

I am what I am, if I'm happy I'm happy!

I speak the truth in the context of reality as I see it.

And you don’t think I or others do the same?

Considering reality as not being real is a rejection of reality.

It is not about rejecting reality, Ben. It is all about being skeptical of “woo” claims that defy reality.

It is also being skeptical about the explanations made or conclusions reach by the claimants...eg the claimants reaching conclusions that the NDE involved “spirits” or the “afterlife” - the woo parts in the conclusions.

What defy reality, so the burden of proof falls on any of the claimants.

The only way for claimants to demonstrate what they claimed to be true, there must be some ways to verify their claims.

And the only mean of VERIFICATIONS, are through EVIDENCE...which claimants (eg NDE, OOB, 6th-sense, etc) don’t have.

 

[rational experiences]

Any comment can only be made by someone living. Is pretty basic human acceptance.

Non acceptance science who wants to get as close to knowing what science cannot learn whilst living.

Hence a human should look at the scientist who wants the knowledge as just the selves who want it

Just like they did once before.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All that is is Brahman, nothing exists that is not Brahman.

All that we perceive is an illusion. Perhaps existing is the same as non-existing. Think of virtual particles, though we do not understand it at the moment. For what reason, they arise from nothing and dissipate into nothing!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you don’t think I or others do the same?


It is not about rejecting reality, Ben. It is all about being skeptical of “woo” claims that defy reality.

It is also being skeptical about the explanations made or conclusions reach by the claimants...eg the claimants reaching conclusions that the NDE involved “spirits” or the “afterlife” - the woo parts in the conclusions.

What defy reality, so the burden of proof falls on any of the claimants.

The only way for claimants to demonstrate what they claimed to be true, there must be some ways to verify their claims.

And the only mean of VERIFICATIONS, are through EVIDENCE...which claimants (eg NDE, OOB, 6th-sense, etc) don’t have.

Some do, some don't, all is as it is, I'm ok with it.

This idea of skeptics demanding evidence that provide proof is fine, but there are those who actually have looked at the evidence and accept it. The claimants know that some atheist skeptics will never accept the idea of NDE for it implies a spiritual aspect of reality which they reject, so why bother engaging them.

Look, the world is perfect as it is in the context of what it is, transforming and unfolding through karma and dharma, cause and effect, reaping what you sow, etc., it is not heaven!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All that we perceive is an illusion. Perhaps existing is the same as non-existing. Think of virtual particles, though we do not understand it at the moment. For what reason, they arise from nothing and dissipate into nothing!

There is no nothing, there is no illusion except in the relative sense of not understanding. If you truly understand, everything is perfect as it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think that is possible. I know they are real, that's what matters.

It is not a question of the existence of the phenomenon. It is your belief about them that lacks the possibility to be objectively validated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ahem, yes, logic says that you obviously are not going to actually know God simultaneously with not believing in God.
It means what it says, God is omnipresent, there is not one part of Dan from Smithville, seen and unseen, known and unknown, that is not of God. The physical universe which is 5% of all that exists is merely the manifestation of God, the rest is unobservable to human senses.

It is circular reasoning. And not how I have seen it play out for people that come to God.

I appreciate you sharing your belief, however.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is circular reasoning. And not how I have seen it play out for people that come to God.

I appreciate you sharing your belief, however.

It is understanding and logic, not circular reasoning. True understanding requires understanding not understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is understanding and logic, not circular reasoning. True understanding requires understanding not understanding.

Reasoning uses understanding and logic.

You lost me on the last part.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Reasoning uses understanding and logic.

You lost me on the last part.

But not circular!

To understand truly, we must first understand what we do not understand, otherwise our perception will be distorted. As a result of correcting our errors, we are able to see not understanding in others.

 

[rational experiences]

No argument allowed.

First is just a human. Natural

No teachings no arguments.

Then you have the egotists theist scientist. Just humans. Were babies. As babies own no right to argue as the adult.

Who displaces natural one human as two humans inferred by self thesis. A one of human. The theist scientist.

Who pretends the other human a Female never existed. Just his maths calculus.

Possessed by it was a healer medical science assessment.

One self.

The human who pretends they are a God who invented all things.

So as he thinks he proved I owned no links actually to a thesis. Direct ownership as. God. One self only.

As he wants the energy power of the God or a God in science for machines.

Why the bible was a Whole study of man liar the God from nothing man theist.

Versus conscious life after Christ. Used as a base human inferred reference. By human teachers.

After Christ meant water oxygen at ground where we lived. Christ in the higher heavens.

As there is no theory how you got invented human.

So he begins O earth released out of mass cold one background O Oo small mass as a radiation term.

And that o little release is not O whole God the earth disappearing in one moment.

So then he has to use origin old man's science memories. O. Earth. God in its Whole body by O conversion. Our planet.

A reaction.

Earth survived maths science I want God as mass time shifted O. A long time ago. Archaeology proved it.

As any theory a formula owns a beginning and end. Just a conversion.

Otherwise no theory is expressed.

Reality. Thesis science was gained only by the memory the conversion.

Why earth still exists today.

Yet science said by science of man old man memories earth O removed one whole mass of itself still exists.

Information only. To be advised. Not a theory.

So in modern thesis he said all of earth . Machine can and will time shift one mass O planet. Discussed as Jesus reinstating out of tomb. Earth stone. Yet discusses o small version first being radiation only as natural release.

Bible only talked about gas spirit cause not radiation dissipation thesis. Nuclear power plant new input idea.

Theism communicated transmitted back. Theist says it is transmitted by a carrier. All in his own head state.

The thesis is origin science rationally. As if pyramid was not yet active in first occasion. end cause O whole earth God shifted into conversion of mass.

A very ancient man of sciences memory. The theory he is using actually is the end of life on earth.

 

[gnostic]

Some do, some don't, all is as it is, I'm ok with it.

This idea of skeptics demanding evidence that provide proof is fine, but there are those who actually have looked at the evidence and accept it. The claimants know that some atheist skeptics will never accept the idea of NDE for it implies a spiritual aspect of reality which they reject, so why bother engaging them.

Look, the world is perfect as it is in the context of what it is, transforming and unfolding through karma and dharma, cause and effect, reaping what you sow, etc., it is not heaven!

Again with the “atheist” jab.

No. It isn’t about atheism vs theism.

It is about science vs pseudoscience.

You are ignoring that @Dan From Smithville is both theist and Christian, and he understand science, especially biology a lot better than me.

He (Dan) too has been skeptical of NDE claims AND CONCLUSIONS made about the OOB & spirits.

So it isn’t just the skepticism of atheists. Theists too can be also skeptical.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again with the “atheist” jab.

No. It isn’t about atheism vs theism.

It is about science vs pseudoscience.

You are ignoring that @Dan From Smithville is both theist and Christian, and he understand science, especially biology a lot better than me.

He (Dan) too has been skeptical of NDE claims AND CONCLUSIONS made about the OOB & spirits.

So it isn’t just the skepticism of atheists. Theists too can be also skeptical.

A lot of today's accepted science will certainly one day be shown to be pseudoscience, what was that saying by T H Huxley ..."It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstition". Remember humanity is still evolving, and I know it is not pc, but not evenly, some are more evolved than others as we speak.

Dan the Christian knows very well that you can not serve two masters without serving one second best, but yes, anyone can be a skeptic, of science or religion.

 

[rational experiences]

Think about a human dying.

They lay in front of you. You think they died. They revive. The whole time their body...the evidence never went anywhere.

Life is the physical body itself.

I did a type of study of feelings meditating..then leaving quickly opening my eyes...nope not floating like I felt I was.

So I ask questions as a spiritual human. A living human. Spiritual by my behaviours.

What occurs. What did creation stories theme teach. What are humans experiences spirit term. A study model.

Not a scientist. As it's not science.

The argument. Scientists who believe the occult is a science. As scientific terminology for thesis machines and machine conditions.

Hence you now must challenge the scientists who try to claim spiritual purpose is a science.

As mass is put into the machine physically by men. To own science by creation practice.

Now they are trying to claim energy spirit can transport transform spiritually into his machine by his controls. By passing through its mass into a reaction.

If he knew how a human did it. Transferred energy he says. When a human only lost water and oxygenation having a bio chemical body reaction by lack of both.

Science arguing as just science by mass is trying to get humanities realisation that other scientists are not using information correctly.

Disinformation says science metal is origin inside god mass was a hot melt that cooled in seams of pressure.

He does a time shift first to ground dust mineral particles himself to build the machine. By thesis just in his mind state.

The radiation mass that separated what it once was is gone. His theory is he wanted it first. Highest place. Not to be a mineral.

If you know earths highest held mass bodies then no other God term is relevant as a status science position conditions.

What the arguing is really about.

 

[Lekatt]

It is not a question of the existence of the phenomenon. It is your belief about them that lacks the possibility to be objectively validated.

I lived a spiritual experience every day, it does not matter to me whether it can be objectively validated or not. I know it is real. If others don't believe it is OK.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think that is possible. I know they are real, that's what matters.

Why not?
You seem very sure for someone who can't demonstrate the veracity of their claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you confirm that atheists reject the belief in the reality represented by the concept of God/s.

I don't believe in God(s).
I've never seen convincing evidence that God(s) exist.
That doesn't mean I say there are no God(s).

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not possible to convey the experience of transcendence to someone who has not realized it, it is a subjective experience. As to why it is interpreted as a religious/spiritual experience, it is because it fits the description of things one sees in most religious teachings. Out of body/expanded consciousness, bliss and peace beyond understanding, beyond thought, a sense of oneness with all that exists. You need to understand though that it is not 'I' the ego mind that experience any of these things, ie, ben d, it is the transcendent state of mind, for all intents and purposes the ego mind does not arise during a true religious experience. Self identification transitions from the human body to the transcendence state of universal being.

Now it is a given that you are free to disbelieve or some such, I understand and do not mean to try and persuade anyone to believe me, what I do say is that anyone who wants proof may do the practice and the results will speak for themselves.

I'm sorry but this sounds like woo-woo to me.

Christianity doesn't have anything to do with out of body/expanded consciousness (whatever that even means). At least, not when I was a member. There was no talk of "a a sense of oneness with all that exists" and "ego minds" and all this woo-woo stuff that doesn't really explain anything. This all just sounds like a lot of post hoc rationalization to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some do, some don't, all is as it is, I'm ok with it.

This idea of skeptics demanding evidence that provide proof is fine, but there are those who actually have looked at the evidence and accept it. The claimants know that some atheist skeptics will never accept the idea of NDE for it implies a spiritual aspect of reality which they reject, so why bother engaging them.

Look, the world is perfect as it is in the context of what it is, transforming and unfolding through karma and dharma, cause and effect, reaping what you sow, etc., it is not heaven!

The claimant knows that skeptics don't accept spiritual explanations for NDE because spirits and spirit worlds are not in evidence.

(There, I fixed it for you.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But not circular!

To understand truly, we must first understand what we do not understand, otherwise our perception will be distorted. As a result of correcting our errors, we are able to see not understanding in others.

Some people use circular logic. I have seen it.

Sort of cryptic way to put the search for knowledge. Perception is a basic skill that can be honed. I see not understanding many places.