Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

None of these words have even come up. I'm just responding to your statements.

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

I don't know how to quantify that which we don't know.
If you are referring to mass, in terms of generated gravitational forces, then sure.

So what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

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.

You aren't making any sense to me.

You're just taking the universe and declaring it to be some god. Or whatever.
I see no use in this.

Yes, if this "brahman" is the universe then the universe is "brahman". Back to the meaningless tautology.
If the universe is a fart of the undetectable unicorn, then the universe is a fart of the undetectable unicorn.

I can make stuff up and "declare" them to be just-so also.
What use does that have?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

None of these words have even come up. I'm just responding to your statements.

I don't know how to quantify that which we don't know.
If you are referring to mass, in terms of generated gravitational forces, then sure.

So what?

So God/Brahman is all that science is also aware of, the 5% physically observed and the 95% unobserved universal existence, but science uses the concept of Universe instead of Brahman. There are obviously reasons for that but first things first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So God/Brahman is all that science is also aware of, the 5% physically observed and the 95% unobserved universal existence, but science uses the concept of Universe instead of Brahman. There are obviously reasons for that but first things first.

You have successfully repeated your original claim for the upteenth time once again...

We're several posts now after I first asked you to clarify. You're still nowhere near to clarifying anything. Every response was simply yet another repeat of the claim.

Are you planning on starting to try and clarify any time soon or not?
Because this doesn't seem to be going anywhere at all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You aren't making any sense to me.

You're just taking the universe and declaring it to be some god. Or whatever.
I see no use in this.

Yes, if this "brahman" is the universe then the universe is "brahman". Back to the meaningless tautology.
If the universe is a fart of the undetectable unicorn, then the universe is a fart of the undetectable unicorn.

I can make stuff up and "declare" them to be just-so also.
What use does that have?

The universal concept of Brahman preceded that of atheism, atheists are merely displacing the concept of a universal Brahman with the concept of a dead/unconscious universe except for planet Earth where sentient life has evolved, and allowing that given the right circumstances, conscious life may have arisen elsewhere.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have successfully repeated your original claim for the upteenth time once again...

We're several posts now after I first asked you to clarify. You're still nowhere near to clarifying anything. Every response was simply yet another repeat of the claim.

Are you planning on starting to try and clarify any time soon or not?
Because this doesn't seem to be going anywhere at all.

I have clarified it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The universal concept of Brahman preceded that of atheism

Every god concept by definition preceded atheism, because atheism is a response to god claims.

Someone need to claim a god exists, before I can respond to said claim with disbelief.......................

, atheists are merely displacing the concept of a universal Brahman with the concept of a dead/unconscious universe except for planet Earth where sentient life has evolved, and allowing that given the right circumstances, conscious life may have arisen elsewhere.

You have yet to give me any kind of concept for this thing I am allegedly "displacing".
All you have done so far is to simply say "these things here that you call universe, I call brahman".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have clarified it.

You have not.

You just repeated the claims of which I asked to clarify them.
I can only repeat my question.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Every god concept by definition preceded atheism, because atheism is a response to god claims.

Someone need to claim a god exists, before I can respond to said claim with disbelief.......................

You have yet to give me any kind of concept for this thing I am allegedly "displacing".
All you have done so far is to simply say "these things here that you call universe, I call brahman".

This is not going anywhere, I'll explain it this way, wrt the reality represented by the concept of God, most devoted religious folk know what they know from personal experience, atheists naturally don't know what they don't know, nor will they until they experience God first hand.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have not.

You just repeated the claims of which I asked to clarify them.
I can only repeat my question.

Btw, the Neil DeGrass Tyson quote you use is inane... "Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."!
Reality perceived by anyone is what it is, not what science determines. If a soul perceives happiness when contemplating God, that is the reality of their experience, if they perceive divine bliss when contemplating God, they experience divine bliss. To believe science has a part in this process is just plain silly, only the perceiver knows the experience because it is subjective.

 

[gnostic]

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.

First.

I considered anything supernatural, paranormal and occult to be unnatural...and that would include transcendent consciousness, and in this thread the spiritual aspect of NDE or the out-of-body experience.

Second.

Religion don’t quantify in percentages, Ben.

The universe make up 5% of ordinary matters out of the total masses, come from the WMAP and Planck data results.

The results you have hijacked for your own agenda.

If a soul perceives happiness when contemplating God, that is the reality of their experience, if they perceive divine bliss when contemplating God, they experience divine bliss. To believe science has a part in this process is just plain silly, only the perceiver knows the experience because it is subjective.

This thread is about NDE plus the claims of soul or spirits, and the Scientific Method.

This thread is not about “happiness” or “divine bliss”...science cannot observe, measure or test either either of these, and no scientists would ever claim “science” could.

All you are doing is moving the goalpost.

Sure there are limitations as to what sciences can “model” &”test”, but adding these irrelevant things into the topic is just you being petty.

Like I said, this thread is about “NDE” and the “scientific method”, so no one is off-topic when others would you or leroy or Lekatt for evidence of spirits or out-of-body experiences in association with NDE.

And no one claimed that ones can test “divine bliss”, so this is nothing more than strawman argument.

Btw, the Neil DeGrass Tyson quote you use is inane... "Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."!
Reality perceived by anyone is what it is, not what science determines.

Sciences are based on the evidence of the physical reality or natural reality.

There are nothing wrong with using methods and tools, and there are nothing wrong with using evidence to “VERIFY” or “REFUTE” any model or any statements.

Such tests, using observational evidence add objectivity to finding out what model is true or false, accurate or inaccurate.

And there are nothing wrong that there being limits as to what sciences can and cannot do.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

First.

I considered anything supernatural, paranormal and occult to be unnatural...and that would include transcendent consciousness, and in this thread the spiritual aspect of NDE or the out-of-body experience.

Second.

Religion don’t quantify in percentages, Ben.

The universe make up 5% of ordinary matters out of the total masses, come from the WMAP and Planck data results.

The results you have hijacked for your own agenda.



This thread is about NDE plus the claims of soul or spirits, and the Scientific Method.

This thread is not about “happiness” or “divine bliss”...science cannot observe, measure or test either either of these, and no scientists would ever claim “science” could.

All you are doing is moving the goalpost.

Sure there are limitations as to what sciences can “model” &”test”, but adding these irrelevant things into the topic is just you being petty.

Like I said, this thread is about “NDE” and the “scientific method”, so no one is off-topic when others would you or leroy or Lekatt for evidence of spirits or out-of-body experiences in association with NDE.

And no one claimed that ones can test “divine bliss”, so this is nothing more than strawman argument.



Sciences are based on the evidence of the physical reality or natural reality.

There are nothing wrong with using methods and tools, and there are nothing wrong with using evidence to “VERIFY” or “REFUTE” any model or any statements.

Such tests, using observational evidence add objectivity to finding out what model is true or false, accurate or inaccurate.

And there are nothing wrong that there being limits as to what sciences can and cannot do.

Religion does not do science, and likewise science does not do religion.
If you do not do religion, then fine, stick with what you feel is appropriate. The point I've been making is that the reality represented by the concept of God is perceivable, but not through dualistic approach, it is only a subjective perception that is beyond thought, the religious meditative approach.
Consider before you reply and understand that if you have not realized the divine within, then wrt God, you not only don't know, you do not even know what you do not know.

 

[rational experiences]

Conscious the study of science researching where is his god the point moment in heavens.

Man as a God.

So we ask what God? The son of God sacrificed man. A man says as a human.

Okay.

Real man in biology is sacrificed any disease pain suffering lived. Early age death. Biological.

Modern day reason. Death is natural is not unhealthy.

Advised.

No I want God's son in the heavens the energy body returned. For a machines reaction he theories.

What son?

Gods son and energy.

Okay what theory do you believe in?

First you were an alien in the clouds....energy he says never ends you just transform.

Says Jesus man lives in clouds as image changed by Satan. All in cloud terminology. Stating life's biological water only.

Okay. Why is a human an alien?

I want the mass UFO radiation in heavens for machine resourcing his answer.

If I machine attack you I should get son of God human moment. Contact.

Why?

As you see God the father or Jesus when you die.

What about you are the alien?

Why I am studying the NDE moment nearly dead not quite dead.

Oh so you know that we barely survived life's sacrifice historic?

Yes.

You know by a human thinking you believe radiation kills us? As biology.

Yes.

But the NDE is natural also?

Yes experienced.

So you are trying by machines in out of space to cause it yourself yet earths metals owns machine parts not a UFO radiation mass? Communicating studies.

Yes he says.

Okay tell the public the real reasons you tell fake theories so they can argue correctly.

Biology transfers into bacteria microbes says medical human biologist. As son of a man human.

God doesn't save your life. It saved waters life.

Occult science wants to argue natural biology.

Theism I add up a calculus to say causes.

I believe accumulated radiation by adding over a timed life span in earths atmosphere causes death.

What type of accumulation. Ohhhh over a long life time period small amounts equals the total of what killed biology. Says a human theist.

Oh....so it's not let's accumulate it now instant then let a human have it. The question I heard a man's voice ask can I use this theory as a weapon?

As the alien UFO accumulated mass moment attack had given human life instant death. Do you want to cause it to study it brother experimenter?

Of course he does as he believes we are worthy of his destruction.

Psyche. .....I God did it to myself you should all have the same and get given a men expressed mentality...let me show you my god of destruction in weapons.

Is really the topic of what the theist means.

As a human had two human parents first...all of us. They had human sex.

Before us lived two just human beings

Their closest next but less biological life apes.

Not God
Not Jesus.
Not an alien.

So we do a summation what anti mass do you calculate to claim I want a science caused owned human NDE moment to have gods man Jesus image?

When clouds as cloud mass owns it itself?

No biology is a Cloud by the way scientist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is not going anywhere

Because you aren't taking it anywhere... all you do is repeat the claims I'm asking you to explain / clarify.
You're running around in circles, chasing your own tail.

, I'll explain it this way, wrt the reality represented by the concept of God, most devoted religious folk know what they know from personal experience, atheists naturally don't know what they don't know, nor will they until they experience God first hand.

Another meaningless tautology.
"if you know you know and if you don't you don't.

Another repeat of the baseless assertions.
Another fail of actually clarifying or explaining them.


Oh well

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reality perceived by anyone is what it is, not what science determines

No. Perception is easily fooled.
What is meant by the quote is that the tools and methods from science don't suffer from human psychological weaknesses and bias.

To take an extreme example... Someone who hallucinates will see / perceive things that aren't there. The tools and methods of science won't be revealing the thing the person is claiming to perceive, because those tools make objective measurements from actual physical manifestations of things.

If your hallucination is that you see a dragon sitting in your living room, then the objective tools and methods of science won't be detecting said dragon. Because said dragon isn't actually there. It's just your mind playing tricks on you.

That's an extreme example off course, but it's just to make the point.
The same applies to much more subtle things also, which don't require hallucinations and instead just faulty perception from our imperfect faculties and / or subjective and biased interpretation of the things we think we perceive.

If a soul perceives happiness when contemplating God, that is the reality of their experience

The guy who sees the dragon in his living room... that dragon is also the reality of their experience.
But it's not the reality that actually exists outside of that person's head.

To believe science has a part in this process is just plain silly, only the perceiver knows the experience because it is subjective.

You completely miss the point.
Subjective reality is only "reality" as you perceive it. Which isn't necessarily actual reality. That's what "subjective" means.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point I've been making is that the reality represented by the concept of God is perceivable, but not through dualistic approach, it is only a subjective perception that is beyond thought, the religious meditative approach.

In other words, it's just imagination/fantasy. Or at the very least, indistinguishable from imagination/fantasy.

Consider before you reply and understand that if you have not realized the divine within, then wrt God, you not only don't know, you do not even know what you do not know.

Consider before you reply that what you are calling "subjective perception" is indistinguishable from sheer imagination and fantasy.

You don't know what you don't know either. And since, by your own admission, you are talking about "subjective perception", which is indistinguishable from imagination, you don't know if what you perceive is actually real or just imagination / deception / hallucination.

Now consider that when it comes to any other subject, such perception WILL be written of as deception / imagination / hallucination.

Just like the guy who sees a dragon in his living room. A dragon that nobody else can see and which can't be detected through objective means. Everyone, except the guy off course, will consider the dude to be seriously deranged, hallucinating, imagining things,....

But when it comes to your god claims, apparently sudden different rules and standards apply.


Really all I am doing, is NOT applying different rules and standards to certain claims.
You claiming to "subjectively perceive" gods, is no different at all from the guy who claims to see a dragon in his living room.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because you aren't taking it anywhere... all you do is repeat the claims I'm asking you to explain / clarify.
You're running around in circles, chasing your own tail.

Another meaningless tautology.
"if you know you know and if you don't you don't.

Another repeat of the baseless assertions.
Another fail of actually clarifying or explaining them.

Oh well

You don't understand what is being said to you, you can't know God if you do not perceive God and you can't perceive God unless you know God exists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In other words, it's just imagination/fantasy. Or at the very least, indistinguishable from imagination/fantasy.

Consider before you reply that what you are calling "subjective perception" is indistinguishable from sheer imagination and fantasy.

You don't know what you don't know either. And since, by your own admission, you are talking about "subjective perception", which is indistinguishable from imagination, you don't know if what you perceive is actually real or just imagination / deception / hallucination.

Now consider that when it comes to any other subject, such perception WILL be written of as deception / imagination / hallucination.

Just like the guy who sees a dragon in his living room. A dragon that nobody else can see and which can't be detected through objective means. Everyone, except the guy off course, will consider the dude to be seriously deranged, hallucinating, imagining things,....

But when it comes to your god claims, apparently sudden different rules and standards apply.

Really all I am doing, is NOT applying different rules and standards to certain claims.
You claiming to "subjectively perceive" gods, is no different at all from the guy who claims to see a dragon in his living room.

I don't claim anything, it is your dualistic mind that imagines there is no such thing as a non-dual state of mind. That's why you do not understand what I'm saying to you, you imagine my mind operates like an atheist's mind, ie., dualistically, thinking consciousness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't understand what is being said to you, you can't know God if you do not perceive God and you can't perceive God unless you know God exists.

Replace "god" by "dragon" and repeat that while assuming it's the guy from my example who says it.

The statement has the exact same merit coming from him concerning dragons as it has coming from you concerning the god you happen to believe in.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. Perception is easily fooled.
What is meant by the quote is that the tools and methods from science don't suffer from human psychological weaknesses and bias.

To take an extreme example... Someone who hallucinates will see / perceive things that aren't there. The tools and methods of science won't be revealing the thing the person is claiming to perceive, because those tools make objective measurements from actual physical manifestations of things.

If your hallucination is that you see a dragon sitting in your living room, then the objective tools and methods of science won't be detecting said dragon. Because said dragon isn't actually there. It's just your mind playing tricks on you.

That's an extreme example off course, but it's just to make the point.
The same applies to much more subtle things also, which don't require hallucinations and instead just faulty perception from our imperfect faculties and / or subjective and biased interpretation of the things we think we perceive.


The guy who sees the dragon in his living room... that dragon is also the reality of their experience.
But it's not the reality that actually exists outside of that person's head.

You completely miss the point.
Subjective reality is only "reality" as you perceive it. Which isn't necessarily actual reality. That's what "subjective" means.

Subjective reality is not dualistic, but memory of and thinking about it is. A truly religious soul does not ruminate about their subjective perception of reality, the moment a single thought or memory arises, the mind is in the same dualistic state as an atheists' mind state.