(October 12, 2013 at 8:33 am)Zazzy Wrote: It doesn't seem difficult to understand that god concepts are supernatural, which by definition puts them above and outside of the physical and natural. Science can only study things that abide by the known rules of the physical. Therefore science cannot possibly investigate anything truly supernatural.

Gee, i can't believe!!!
Something that make sense.
Only one thing.
When you say........SCIENCE....... you intend physical science so write physical science.
There are people like me that believe in other types of science as well.

Quote:If we discovered a god who DID abide by natural laws, which we could then study, then it wouldn't be a god, because it would be bound by natural law and would not be supernatural. A god subject to gravity or entropy would be a disappointing god.

I am afraid that you create a dogma in your mind when you come to believe that if God incarnate he would only abide by natural laws.

---

(October 13, 2013 at 8:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ...........brain function is required for an NDE to occur (remember, no dead person has ever experiences an 'N'DE

Not true.
In NDE's the consciousness take over and the brain is not required anymore.
The brain is not dead but is also not working so who else is experiencing that reality?

Quote:Addendum: I'm not going to reply to your reply to me. Feel free to take this as a capitulation if it so pleases you, but I'm unsure of the value of debating you on claims you've made with which you've already said you disagree.

Life in the forum is about arguing until you can prove your case.
If you have nothing to convince the other party too bad.
Very often the problem arise when people lock themselves in the corral of dogma like believing that through physical science they can understand everything.

Quote:I have tried to read the Aquarian Gospel. As a work of fiction, it wasn't awful. However, I'm an historian by education, and the errors in the book and the explanations for them left me unconvinced.

What make me believe that this Gospel speak the truth is that everything goes hand in hand with the teaching of Shiva, Krisna e Buddha.

(October 13, 2013 at 8:29 am)enrico Wrote: Gee, i can't believe!!!
Something that make sense.
Only one thing.
When you say........SCIENCE....... you intend physical science so write physical science.
There are people like me that believe in other types of science as well.

I don't need you to tell me what science is and is not. If you believe there are other ways to scientifically glean knowledge other the the established scientific method, either show how they work in the laboratory, or call them something else. But I'm pleased we agree on this point.

Quote:I am afraid that you create a dogma in your mind when you come to believe that if God incarnate he would only abide by natural laws.

I'm afraid you know nothing about me. And since my original post said nothing about incarnate gods, I'll repost my first reply to you, which apparently you missed, which does address incarnation:

Quote: If a god became incarnate- that is, in a physical body- it would seem that it would be bound by the limitations of bodies as we know them, since all bodies observed by the scientific method to date have not been incarnate gods and have been subject to natural phenomena. If the body was merely a puppet of a supernatural being, then all bets would be off, because, again, the supernatural being would be, by definition, outside of natural laws.

So it's a pointless thing to discuss, because when you claim a god is supernatural, asking someone to study it using the scientific method is farcical.

Enrico... people suggest myths to each other regularly. Sometimes for scientific reasoning, sometimes to lie. In fact I can devise some ploy about a swimming pastrami monster living in the oceans. What stops the early humans in Africa from suggesting a god figure and passing that thought onto everyone else? Everyone could be thinking about god, but it is not any more true. If everyone had been conspiring of my pastrami monster, is it any more true, or sensible? No, it still sounds fucking ridiculous even after a couple glasses of wine. If it is not physical, it is a mind game. A mind game that never had anything to do with reality.

Quote:...........brain function is required for an NDE to occur (remember, no dead person has ever experiences an 'N'DE

Quote:Not true.
In NDE's the consciousness take over and the brain is not required anymore.
The brain is not dead but is also not working so who else is experiencing that reality?

If dead people can experience NDEs, why are they called 'NEAR Death Experiences'?

What is your justification for saying that consciousness takes over and the brain is not required any more? There has never been any indication or evidence that consciousness does NOT require a functional brain.

If the brain isn't working, then how do you explain that people remember their experiences during NDEs? Memory is clearly a brain function, so if the brain was non function, they people concerned would have no memory of the event (they would also be dead - non-functional brains never, EVER restart.

Boru

(October 13, 2013 at 6:32 am)enrico Wrote:

(October 12, 2013 at 10:24 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Show me an "I" which exists in the absence of a functioning brain.
Take your time. No rush.

NDE's.
Gee, it took me hours to think about it.

Gee. Took me 5 seconds to prove that crap wrong.
NEAR death, is not "death". "Near dead" people have brains. They prove absolutely NOTHING. Maybe you should have taken a wee bit longer. :p
It's also interesting. NEVER is ANYTHING "encountered" in an NDE that is not endemic in the prior experience of the person describing the experience.
People from Western cultures ONLY experience Western music, and experiences endemic in, and known from their lives in Western culture. People from other cultures only experience elements from THEIR cultures, and NEVER once, anything totally "other" or unique. That alone makes them highly suspect. You'd think if they "went to heaven" there would be at least ONE thing unique. Show me a 7 day dead corpse with NO FUNCTIONING BRAIN, and maybe I'll say it deserves investigation. You can't.
Rats have NDE's. Do they fly up to Jebus ? Jebus no likey rats.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/08/...xperiences

(October 14, 2013 at 9:42 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Gee. Took me 5 seconds to prove that crap wrong.

Gee, this time i am a lot faster.
Only 3 1/2 sec. to come up with an answer.

Quote:NEAR death, is not "death". "Near dead" people have brains. They prove absolutely NOTHING. Maybe you should have taken a wee bit longer. :p
It's also interesting. NEVER is ANYTHING "encountered" in an NDE that is not endemic in the prior experience of the person describing the experience.

I never understood why they say NDE when in reality the body and mind come to a total halt as confirmed by DOCTORS.
Do you trust doctors?
If you don't then there is no point in arguing any longer.

Quote:People from Western cultures ONLY experience Western music, and experiences endemic in, and known from their lives in Western culture. People from other cultures only experience elements from THEIR cultures, and NEVER once, anything totally "other" or unique. That alone makes them highly suspect. You'd think if they "went to heaven" there would be at least ONE thing unique.

We are all different and with these differences we go in the next dimension.
The roads to Rome are all different but when you and everybody else reach Rome then the reality is only one.
The same apply to our journey toward the goal of life which is the same for everyone.
So is the goal of life that is the same not the journey to it.
In other words it does not mean that when you leave your body you will experience the same thing as Paul or Jim.
It is up to your karma and the distance that separate you from the goal of life.
If you are a rapist or a murderer you will experience rats but if you are a good person you will see a lot of nice things.
At the end when the rapist will have paid his debt then also him will experience nice things.
Capish?

Quote:Show me a 7 day dead corpse with NO FUNCTIONING BRAIN, and maybe I'll say it deserves investigation. You can't.

I am afraid i need a translation.
What are you talking about?

Quote:Rats have NDE's. Do they fly up to Jebus ? Jebus no likey rats.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/08/...xperiences

Let the scientists keep with their experiments on rats and let the human being who had their NDE talk about their experience.
So far i rely on the experience of human beings.

---

(October 14, 2013 at 9:31 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If dead people can experience NDEs, why are they called 'NEAR Death Experiences'?

Those who invented the word NDE could not find a better word to describe people who die and then come back to life.
If you think of a better word then i can recommend you for your suggestion.

Quote:What is your justification for saying that consciousness takes over and the brain is not required any more? There has never been any indication or evidence that consciousness does NOT require a functional brain.

That is not true.
There are books.......
http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Near-Deat...1571745475
...........that talk about all these experiences and they clearly say that as soon as the brain is off the consciousness take over.
This is also in line with my yoga philosophy.

Quote:If the brain isn't working, then how do you explain that people remember their experiences during NDEs? Memory is clearly a brain function, so if the brain was non function, they people concerned would have no memory of the event (they would also be dead - non-functional brains never, EVER restart.

Once again you fall in the corral of dogma.
Who told you that that memory is clearly a brain function?
Physical science?
Ah, this science that pretend to exit his limit and penetrate in a different dimension.

Have a good day Boru.

Assuming NDE's confirms mind/brain separation is simply not safe.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...ast-hurrah

(October 14, 2013 at 8:52 am)Walking Void Wrote: Enrico... people suggest myths to each other regularly. Sometimes for scientific reasoning, sometimes to lie. In fact I can devise some ploy about a swimming pastrami monster living in the oceans. What stops the early humans in Africa from suggesting a god figure and passing that thought onto everyone else? Everyone could be thinking about god, but it is not any more true. If everyone had been conspiring of my pastrami monster, is it any more true, or sensible? No, it still sounds fucking ridiculous even after a couple glasses of wine. If it is not physical, it is a mind game. A mind game that never had anything to do with reality.

You got PHYSICAL love but you also got divine or spiritual love.
One is easy to describe the next one is a lot lot harder but it does not mean that it does not exist.
What i suggest you to do in order to get a bit of clue about how the system works is to look in people eyes and faces and try to grasp their
situation.
You will note that thieves, rapists, junkies look terrible but good people look a lot better and if you look at really good people they look even better.
In old painting saints have an aureole on their head that represent the bright aura.
Even better you can exit the corral of dogma and try for yourself by engaging in spirituality so you will understand that there is a dimension NON-PHYSICAL.

"You will note that thieves, rapists, junkies look terrible but good people look a lot better"

Now that is the funniest shit I've read in a long time.

(October 14, 2013 at 11:33 am)enrico Wrote: You will note that thieves, rapists, junkies look terrible but good people look a lot better and if you look at really good people they look even better.

Have you ever been out in the world? There are plenty of good-looking rapists and thieves who use their appearance to con people and abuse them. And junkies are not bad people just because they're junkies. Do you simply throw someone away because they have the misfortune to get hooked on a drug?

This kind of black-and-white view of people is almost unbelievably naive.