Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is your understanding of what I mean by the concept of God?

Some undetectable being / entity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just told you none of them know.
Instead, they believe.

I don't doubt for a second all of them had some experience.
The problem is not acknowledging that they experienced something.
The problem is their own explanation for what they believe they experienced.

There's a huge difference between both. A difference that you don't seem to be comprehending at all.

The experience and the explanation thereof, are 2 different things.

An obvious difference that seems to go over the heads of some here.

It is not NDE's that I doubt. It is the explanations and claims that lack substance for anyone to accept beyond merely believing those explanations are correct and all others are eliminated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All that can be explained in a different way, such as the TV example. There is no storage of memory ever found in the brain. The brain is not a computer only an interface to the spirit. Millions of experiencers will tell you that. How do you explain Savants. How do you explain identical twins totally different personalities. There seems to be a need to believe in the brain in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I know people tend to fear death and some fear the religious teaching of Hell. But there is nothing to fear. Believers, nonbelievers, kind people or hateful people all go to the same place from which they came --the Spirit World. There is no hell, no judgment, or no punishment. This is a learning and growing situation filled with Love and Caring. Nothing, no nothing to fear.

Once again, the numbers of people that believe something is not evidence of what is believed.

And yet again, lack of a valid explanation does not mean that what you believe becomes the valid explanation by default.

Just because you can fill a gap with a story does not make that story true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Some undetectable being / entity.

No, the reality represented by the concept of God as understood by myself and many others is that it is all that exists, and of course it is detectable, at least some of the 5% observable to human senses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, the reality represented by the concept of God as understood by myself and many others is that it is all that exists, and of course it is detectable, at least some of the 5% observable to human senses.

That sounds pretty meaningless to me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That sounds pretty meaningless to me.

So what aspect can I help you with that you presently do not understand? Btw, you will find me very patient.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what aspect can I help you with that you presently do not understand? Btw, you will find me very patient.

I just don't see the sense of it.
"god is everything". what does that mean?

I'm holding a pencil, which is part of the set of "everything". So god is also this pencil?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I just don't see the sense of it.
"god is everything". what does that mean?

I'm holding a pencil, which is part of the set of "everything". So god is also this pencil?

It means God is everything, the 5% observable universe includes all physical existence plus the 95% unobservable universe. God is one, the distinction of observable and unobservable is a merely human conceptual distinction.

Yes, it includes you and your pencil.

 

[Lekatt]

Once again, the numbers of people that believe something is not evidence of what is believed.

And yet again, lack of a valid explanation does not mean that what you believe becomes the valid explanation by default.

Just because you can fill a gap with a story does not make that story true.

Nothing can convince you of anything.
But the time will come when you see what we saw and you will be pleased.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It means God is everything, the 5% observable universe includes all physical existence plus the 95% unobservable universe

Myeah, you're just repeating it instead of clarifying it.
So you call the universe and all it contains "god". I just call it existence. Or the universe.

I could say that the universe is the flying unicorn. And then claim that therefor the flying unicorn is real, since the universe is real.

But what would be the functional use of such a meaningless tautology?

God is one, the distinction of observable and unobservable is a merely human conceptual distinction.
Yes, it includes you and your pencil.

Myeah, I don't see the point.

I just call it a pencil.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing can convince you of anything.

Evidence can.

Just-so stories can't.
Faith based claims can't.

But the time will come when you see what we saw and you will be pleased.

Only if by that time sufficient evidence is provided.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nothing can convince you of anything.

Evidence of what you claim. That would help. You don't want to recognize the value of evidence though, do you. Videos describing an experience and proclaiming it to be whatever you believe is not evidence for what you believe.

You are living on the concept of believing anything anyone tells you. How useful is that?

But the time will come when you see what we saw and you will be pleased.

Maybe so. No one can say with any evidence. It could be that what you believe will turn out mostly to be wrong too. I would find that amusing if I would even care then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It means God is everything, the 5% observable universe includes all physical existence plus the 95% unobservable universe. God is one, the distinction of observable and unobservable is a merely human conceptual distinction.

Yes, it includes you and your pencil.

God is not part of me. And he's not part of my pencil.

This is woo woo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing can convince you of anything.
But the time will come when you see what we saw and you will be pleased.

Your mind reading skills need some work ...

EVIDENCE will convince us.
Got any?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

God is not part of me. And he's not part of my pencil.

This is woo woo.

If you had been following, it is the reality represented by the concept of God I am referring to, if you reject the concept of God then that same reality exists, ie., the 5% observable universe which includes all physical existence plus the 95% unobservable universe. And you are included in that reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Myeah, you're just repeating it instead of clarifying it.
So you call the universe and all it contains "god". I just call it existence. Or the universe.

I could say that the universe is the flying unicorn. And then claim that therefor the flying unicorn is real, since the universe is real.

But what would be the functional use of such a meaningless tautology?

Myeah, I don't see the point.

I just call it a pencil.

I said I was patient, so let me go slowly. Forget for the moment what the concept of Panetheism, Brahman, God refer to.

Do we have agreement that the universe comprises approx. 5% observable universe which includes all physical existence plus the 95% unobservable universe?

 

[gnostic]

I said I was patient, so let me go slowly. Forget for the moment what the concept of Panetheism, Brahman, God refer to.

Do we have agreement that the universe comprises approx. 5% observable universe which includes all physical existence plus the 95% unobservable universe?

According to NASA & ESA and other involved with WMAP & Planck space telescopes, then yes, that’s what they estimated (so far) about the total masses of the universe.

But what they have to say, have nothing to do with the nonexistent Brahman and God. Equating the universe with either, is making leaps that lead to more incredulous improbable questions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

According to NASA & ESA and other involved with WMAP & Planck space telescopes, then yes, that’s what they estimated (so far) about the total masses of the universe.

But what they have to say, have nothing to do with the nonexistent Brahman and God. Equating the universe with either, is making leaps that lead to more incredulous improbable questions.

Gnostic, please understand that concepts are only meant to represent something, the concept itself is just a symbolic sign. You are welcome to not believe in a reality represented by such concepts as spirit, panetheism, God, etc., but that does not mean you get to say that someone of religion is forbidden to have an understanding that includes your understanding of what constitutes reality, more or less, but also has another dimension to it, consciousness, and applies a symbolic sign for it, eg. Panetheism.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, please understand that concepts are only meant to represent something, the concept itself is just a symbolic sign. You are welcome to not believe in a reality represented by such concepts as spirit, panetheism, God, etc., but that does not mean you get to say that someone of religion is forbidden to have an understanding that includes your understanding of what constitutes reality, more or less, but also has another dimension to it, consciousness, and applies a symbolic sign for it, eg. Panetheism.

I didn’t say anything about you or others cannot say or write anything about personal beliefs.

But you are the one who brought up the the 5% of ordinary matters in the universe (and the rest being currently unobservable masses), that these percentages come from NASA’s and ESA’s space missions.

All I am saying , that nothing in their reports indicated or attributed the “unobservable” to the unnatural Brahman or God.

Science deals only with the physical, seen or unseen, not in the supernatural.

What I mean by “unseen”, is that while they may not have the technology to directly observe Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they can observe their gravitational effects on other objects, objects such as stars, galaxies or even light (photons) itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So my understanding of reality for which I use the concept 'God' to repre

I didn’t say anything about you or others cannot say or write anything about personal beliefs.

But you are the one who brought up the the 5% of ordinary matters in the universe (and the rest being currently unobservable masses), that these percentages come from NASA’s and ESA’s space missions.

All I am saying , that nothing in their reports indicated or attributed the “unobservable” to the unnatural Brahman or God.

Science deals only with the physical, seen or unseen, not in the supernatural.

What I mean by “unseen”, is that while they may not have the technology to directly observe Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they can observe their gravitational effects on other objects, objects such as stars, galaxies or even light (photons) itself.

I understand that science does not deal with the God concept, but you then go on to claim God is unnatural. If the reality represented by the concept of Brahman is the 100% (5% plus 95%), then you may not like it, but that just happens to go with the definition of Brahman, neither you or I have any say in the matter, we are just discussing the reality of existence as it is understood through science and religion.