Evolution

[Little Rik]

2) Many NDEs already proved that consciousness separate from the dead body by being able to see their dead body below or to see things or places where these people never been before. Witness confirmed the authenticity of the vision so obviously at the time of physical death the consciousness separate from the body.

No they don't 

1. imagining your near dead body is not the same as being separate from it 

2. Imagining a place you have never been will not either 

3. Witness confirm what the person told them 

So you have demonstrated dick all dick .

---

4) Entropy in the universe?
Guesses, guesses and more guesses.
In the meantime it make sense that constant food is needed for anything to be alive

Says the man who tries to compares the universe to a living thing 

5) Hallucinations are easily forgotten.
NDEs not, beside NDEs give spiritual strength while hallucination only give trouble.
Real NDEs spring from consciousness while hallucination from a brain in trouble but not dead yet.

All of this is bunk

So you reckon that a dead body (brain dead, eyes closed, no blood running, no sign of life) lying on a surgery bed can see what the surgeons are doing on his dead body and recount to those surgeons what they did to his body?  


Gee, I thought you guys did not believe in miracles!  
I just can not believe all this BS.  

[Amarok]

No they don't 

1. imagining your near dead body is not the same as being separate from it 

2. Imagining a place you have never been will not either 

3. Witness confirm what the person told them 

So you have demonstrated dick all dick .

---

Says the man who tries to compares the universe to a living thing 


All of this is bunk

So you reckon that a dead body (brain dead, eyes closed, no blood running, no sign of life) lying on a surgery bed can see what the surgeons are doing on his dead body and recount to those surgeons what they did to his body?  


Gee, I thought you guys did not believe in miracles!  
I just can not believe all this BS.  

Already explained this on this thread and no there is no miracle involved . Just you dimwitted lack of reasoning . 

[Little Rik]

FOOL.  

After all this time that atheists say that there is no need for a God to run this universe because entropy can do the job then I said that UNIVERSAL entropy is a guess.
Pay attention to my words Riz Tiz.  
As you can clearly see I didn't say that entropy is a guess.
I instead said that UNIVERSAL entropy is a guess.
Entropy can well work under certain circumstances.
To work in a way that it would replace God in running the universe is a total different story that is why I said that UNIVERSAL entropy is a guess.

Got it now?  

Whether you said universal or not does not alter the fact Entropy in either case is a fact . Get it now. 

FOOL 

Once again you shift the point in order to prove me wrong.

IDIOT.

The point stay the same whether you like it or not which is that universal entropy is a guess which of course has zero to do with whether entropy under different circumstances is a fact or not.

DOUBLE FOOL Tiz.

---

So you reckon that a dead body (brain dead, eyes closed, no blood running, no sign of life) lying on a surgery bed can see what the surgeons are doing on his dead body and recount to those surgeons what they did to his body?  


Gee, I thought you guys did not believe in miracles!  
I just can not believe all this BS.  

Already explained this on this thread and no there is no miracle involved . Just you dimwitted lack of reasoning .

Already explained?
Already explained my foot Tiz.  

Where is the evidence that a dead body can see what the surgeons are doing to his body?  


Addendum.
Do me a favor Tiz.
Move on for a while so I got enough time to answer to your friend yog.  

[Amarok]

Whether you said universal or not does not alter the fact Entropy in either case is a fact . Get it now. 

FOOL 

Once again you shift the point in order to prove me wrong.

IDIOT.

The point stay the same whether you like it or not which is that universal entropy is a guess which of course has zero to do with whether entropy under different circumstances is a fact or not.

DOUBLE FOOL Tiz.

I shifted nothing i simply pointed out your wrong neither is a guess .

So no your the 
IDIOT.

DOUBLE FOOL Rik 

---

Already explained?

Already explained my foot Tiz.   

Where is the evidence that a dead body can see what the surgeons are doing to his body?  


Addendum.
Do me a favor Tiz.
Move on for a while so I got enough time to answer to your friend yog.  

Yup already explained . And that was already explained . And no i'll stick around kicking you around is to much fun. And i'm sure yog is enjoying using you as punching bag as well . But your free to take what dignity you have left . Put your tail between your legs and avoid being completely destroyed by us . 
But i know that unlikely you have thing for pain it seems . And no real sense .

[Little Rik]

1) Once you see God during your NDE you see that particular God that you believed during your life so for a Christian will be Jesus for a Buddhist Buddha, for an Hindu Shiva, Krishna or any of those hundreds Gods worship in their lives.
God is one of course but He will take a form that will be more familiar with the person who experience Him according to his-her previous culture.

Ignoring for the moment that this is a rationalization about NDEs rather than actual evidence from NDEs, this doesn't actually help you.  First, you're now asserting that the perceptions experienced in an NDE do not accurately reflect the underlying reality.   This undermine's your claim that the presence of a God in an NDE establishes reincarnation and karma as you've severed the link between the character of the God presented and his actual attributes or character.  Regardless, in point #5 below you're attempting to assert the exact opposite, that the perceptions in an NDE are an accurate reflection of the underlying reality and not illusory.  You can't have it both ways.  You have to choose one or the other.  The good news is that you're fucked either way you go.  If you assert as you are here that the perceptions in an NDE do not in fact represent reality reliably, then we cannot reliably infer anything based upon the content of NDEs, as according to you, it's just a reflection of prior beliefs.  On the other hand, if the perceptions in an NDE accurately reflect reality, as you try to argue in point #5, then you're back to having mutually contradictory accounts of reality.  If those perceptions are accurate, then reality is inconsistent and absurd, and we again cannot rely upon the testimony of NDEs because it is not clear from the content of NDEs what version of reality is in fact the true one.  So, the argument above doesn't help you.  As a matter of principle, though, you need to decide which poison pill you want to swallow and stick with it.

This has been shown time and time again in thousand of NDEs.

No, this is a rationalization attempting to explain the inconsistencies in NDE accounts, and is based not on the content of the NDEs but is instead is just an example of advocates of the survival hypothesis trying desperately to salvage something out of the actual evidence.  Even if you were to somehow dredge up an NDE account in which a god figure claimed, "I am not the real god, but simply an avatar of the one true God," you would simply be adding yet another God to the pile of incompatible gods.  But you can't do that, because there is no NDE evidence for this view of the inconsistency; what you have is a rationalization based upon prior beliefs and a desperate desire to rescue the supposed reliability of NDE accounts.  Unfortunately it fails because it undermines its own goal, that of establishing that NDE content is an accurate and reliable representation of an actual reality.  Moreover, having effectively severed the link between a particular go figure and its alleged attributes, you can no longer determine whether Christian God or Yoga God is the underlying "one true god."  So instead of furthering your attempt to demonstrate that karma and reincarnation exist, instead you've simply shot yourself in the foot.  Way to go, Ace.

Sorry yog but you are a lot more stupid than I thought.  
A welcome in the other dimension can not be traumatic.
Suppose a Christian that for all his-her life saw God as a person represented by Jesus see instead a welcoming Buddha or the other way around in which a Buddhist see Jesus to welcoming in heaven.
Wouldn't he-she be shocked?

Once the welcome is over then the reality take place and the person understand that God has no human figure.  

2) Many NDEs already proved that consciousness separate from the dead body by being able to see their dead body below or to see things or places where these people never been before. Witness confirmed the authenticity of the vision so obviously at the time of physical death the consciousness separate from the body.

Since I explained the problems with this in my last post, I'm going to be brief and refer you back to that post for clarification if needed.  As a practical matter, the content of the OBE portion of an NDE can be explained multiple ways.  It's consistent with consciousness leaving the body.  It is also consistent with consciousness being capable of clairvoyance/clairaudience in which visual and auditory perception is extended outside of the body without consciousness actually leaving the body.  There is nothing in the OBE/NDE content which can itself distinguish between the two explanations.  You've chosen to champion the consciousness leaving the body hypothesis, as you should, given its necessary to your claims of reincarnation.  However you haven't produced any evidence which would tip the balance in favor of your view, and against clairvoyance/clairaudience.  Additionally, as noted in my previous post, the truthfulness of the OBE portion of an NDE doesn't demonstrate the truthfulness of other parts of an NDE (such as an experience of God).  That simply doesn't follow.  Moreover, as noted in my last post, perception of illusory content is often experienced with truthful, non-illusory content.  Our experience of illusory perceptions is that the content is mixed, including one part truth and one part fantasy.  So demonstrating the truth of part of an NDE doesn't establish the truth of the whole of the NDE.  

I went over all this in great detail in my last post.  What, did you sleep through most of it?

Your problem spring from the fact that or you hardly read any NDEs or even if you read them you do not believe them.
In any case there is no point in arguing but if you want to argue the evidence is there.
The evidence in all cases is on my side.
Why?

Because NDEs can be proven.
Real people who had an NDE exist.
Hospitals that can support the evidence that these people were there exist.
Doctors that witness these people dead exist.
Doctors that witness these people alive again exist.
People that witness all these things exist so obviously all this is verifiable not BS.

This by the way kill the atheist dogma that once you die is all over.

As noted in my last post as well as above, this is simply not true.  You have yet to establish that consciousness even can leave the body, so your claim of victory here is premature.

No need for me to established what has already been established.

3) Obviously you have never seen me to provide any evidence for my god outside of NDEs.
Why?
Because awareness in consciousness is not transferable.
I could transfer money to you but not my awareness that God exist and that make sense.
Why should you or anyone else benefit from my spiritual efforts?
It would be like giving a degree to someone who never studied.

I could really care less about what you claim about your personal experience, it isn't evidence of your claims of karma and reincarnation.  From what I've seen, you reason like a pregnant cow, and any conclusions you draw based upon your own experience are not reliable.  You can't even be trusted to reason profitably about the material presented in an internet post, much less demonstrated any more advanced acumen.  If your mental abilities are defective, your belief that you have acquired truth is likely also defective.  Deluded people cannot be trusted to determine the truth or falsity of their delusions.

Regardless, the point was that you have not established the reliability or truthfulness of the content of NDEs.  Until you do, all your babbling about what NDEs do or do not show is quite beside the point.  Until you establish their reliability, the only other evidence you can appeal to is empirical evidence about the real world.  Since you apparently don't have any such evidence, and you've failed to provide credible evidence from NDEs, you're effectively left with squat.  You have no evidence for the existence of karma and reincarnation, which is required if you're to be believed regarding your views on consciousness and evolution.

Wrong once again yog.  

As I already explained above NDEs are real BECAUSE those people are real, hospitals and doctors are real and witnesses are real.
You on the contrary haven't been able to contradict the veracity of all of this.  

4) Entropy in the universe?
Guesses, guesses and more guesses.
In the meantime it make sense that constant food is needed for anything to be alive.  

Hahahahahaha!  Entropy is established physics.  There is no guessing involved.  It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.  But this is testimony to the fact that you will deny established facts if they conflict with your religious/spiritual beliefs.  That's pathetic.  You whine about my justified dismissal of your prior arguments, and then you have the gall to attempt to dismiss established physics with a wave of your hand.  You have a double standard and are a confirmed hypocrite.

Regardless, entropy is real, and the universe thus has had an abundant supply of energy throughout its history.  This is simply more proof that you're a deluded crank.  Denying entropy.  Sheesh!  How stupid.

IDIOT.

Read my answer to Tiz in which I explain my point on UNIVERSAL entropy.  

5) Hallucinations are easily forgotten.
NDEs not, beside NDEs give spiritual strength while hallucination only give trouble.
Real NDEs spring from consciousness while hallucination from a brain in trouble but not dead yet.

As noted in my reply to point #1, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  I really don't care which line of bullshit you choose to subscribe to because neither one leads to the conclusion you desire.  So commit to one or the other.  Or don't.  I don't care.  If you choose to hang onto both it will simply show that your beliefs are not logically consistent, and your holding them is irrational.  So pick a side, asshole.

Reality hurt yog, doesn't it?  




Here one of the many NDEs in which God explain about karma and reincarnation.

http://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1cathleen_c_nde.html

---

Put your tail between your legs and avoid being completely destroyed by us.

You are an absolute joke Tiz.

[Angrboda]

Ignoring for the moment that this is a rationalization about NDEs rather than actual evidence from NDEs, this doesn't actually help you.  First, you're now asserting that the perceptions experienced in an NDE do not accurately reflect the underlying reality.   This undermine's your claim that the presence of a God in an NDE establishes reincarnation and karma as you've severed the link between the character of the God presented and his actual attributes or character.  Regardless, in point #5 below you're attempting to assert the exact opposite, that the perceptions in an NDE are an accurate reflection of the underlying reality and not illusory.  You can't have it both ways.  You have to choose one or the other.  The good news is that you're fucked either way you go.  If you assert as you are here that the perceptions in an NDE do not in fact represent reality reliably, then we cannot reliably infer anything based upon the content of NDEs, as according to you, it's just a reflection of prior beliefs.  On the other hand, if the perceptions in an NDE accurately reflect reality, as you try to argue in point #5, then you're back to having mutually contradictory accounts of reality.  If those perceptions are accurate, then reality is inconsistent and absurd, and we again cannot rely upon the testimony of NDEs because it is not clear from the content of NDEs what version of reality is in fact the true one.  So, the argument above doesn't help you.  As a matter of principle, though, you need to decide which poison pill you want to swallow and stick with it.

I notice that you did not respond to this point.  That's probably for the best as I strongly suspect you have no answer to it.  As noted here and in response to your previous post's point #5, you're trying to assert mutually contradictory things, both that the content of NDEs is not an accurate representation of underlying reality, and that it is an accurate representation of reality.  I warned you in my last post that this issue would dog you if you didn't resolve it, and to my eye, you haven't even addressed it.  If you're indeed asserting both, then it's trivially easy to prove the truth of the statement "Little Rik is wrong," by recourse to the Principle of explosion (See proof below in hide tags).

---

Assume the following:

P = "The content of NDEs is an accurate representation of underlying reality" (from point #5 of your previous post, HERE)

¬ P = "The content of NDEs is not an accurate representation of underlying reality" (from point #1 of your previous post, HERE)

Q = "Little Rik is wrong." (to be demonstrated)

From these propositions we derive the following:

1.    P ∧ ¬ P    assumption

2.    P    from (1) by conjunction elimination

3.    ¬ P    from (1) by conjunction elimination

4.    P ∨ Q    from (2) by disjunction introduction

5.    Q    from (3) and (4) by disjunctive syllogism

6.    ( P ∧ ¬ P ) → Q    from (5) by conditional proof (discharging assumption 1)

7.    Therefore Q, "Little Rik is wrong."

---

This has been shown time and time again in thousand of NDEs.

No, this is a rationalization attempting to explain the inconsistencies in NDE accounts, and is based not on the content of the NDEs but is instead is just an example of advocates of the survival hypothesis trying desperately to salvage something out of the actual evidence.  Even if you were to somehow dredge up an NDE account in which a god figure claimed, "I am not the real god, but simply an avatar of the one true God," you would simply be adding yet another God to the pile of incompatible gods.  But you can't do that, because there is no NDE evidence for this view of the inconsistency; what you have is a rationalization based upon prior beliefs and a desperate desire to rescue the supposed reliability of NDE accounts.  Unfortunately it fails because it undermines its own goal, that of establishing that NDE content is an accurate and reliable representation of an actual reality.  Moreover, having effectively severed the link between a particular go figure and its alleged attributes, you can no longer determine whether Christian God or Yoga God is the underlying "one true god."  So instead of furthering your attempt to demonstrate that karma and reincarnation exist, instead you've simply shot yourself in the foot.  Way to go, Ace.

Sorry yog but you are a lot more stupid than I thought.  
A welcome in the other dimension can not be traumatic.
Suppose a Christian that for all his-her life saw God as a person represented by Jesus see instead a welcoming Buddha or the other way around in which a Buddhist see Jesus to welcoming in heaven.
Wouldn't he-she be shocked?

Once the welcome is over then the reality take place and the person understand that God has no human figure.  

Ignoring for the moment that this is yet another bare assertion which isn't supported by any evidence from the NDEs themselves, this presents yet another problem for you.  If the original god figure who presents himself is not the "real" god, and the real god only presents him or herself once the welcome is over, then how does one determine that the welcome is indeed over and one is in fact experiencing reality?  One can easily imagine an infinite regress of slightly less "unreal" presentations, stretching backward such that one never actually arrives at the true reality, or, at the very least, one has no way of knowing when that point has been reached and thus one is then comprehending the real reality.

You've simply replaced one illusory experience with a series of them that has no identifiable end.  How did you determine that God has no human figure?  Perhaps the God that has no human figure is but a prelude to the real God who does have a human figure.  This is simply something you've once again concluded based upon the spiritual/religious dogmas that you believe, rather than based upon any evidence.  Once you've introduced the notion that any god figure presented in an NDE is illusory, you've undermined any rationale possible for claiming that this or that particular NDE content is not illusory.  As far as you know, it's turtles all the way down, and you never encounter reality.  You've effectively denied yourself the ability to claim anything based on the content of NDEs.  You've cut your nose off to spite your face.

2) Many NDEs already proved that consciousness separate from the dead body by being able to see their dead body below or to see things or places where these people never been before. Witness confirmed the authenticity of the vision so obviously at the time of physical death the consciousness separate from the body.

Since I explained the problems with this in my last post, I'm going to be brief and refer you back to that post for clarification if needed.  As a practical matter, the content of the OBE portion of an NDE can be explained multiple ways.  It's consistent with consciousness leaving the body.  It is also consistent with consciousness being capable of clairvoyance/clairaudience in which visual and auditory perception is extended outside of the body without consciousness actually leaving the body.  There is nothing in the OBE/NDE content which can itself distinguish between the two explanations.  You've chosen to champion the consciousness leaving the body hypothesis, as you should, given its necessary to your claims of reincarnation.  However you haven't produced any evidence which would tip the balance in favor of your view, and against clairvoyance/clairaudience.  Additionally, as noted in my previous post, the truthfulness of the OBE portion of an NDE doesn't demonstrate the truthfulness of other parts of an NDE (such as an experience of God).  That simply doesn't follow.  Moreover, as noted in my last post, perception of illusory content is often experienced with truthful, non-illusory content.  Our experience of illusory perceptions is that the content is mixed, including one part truth and one part fantasy.  So demonstrating the truth of part of an NDE doesn't establish the truth of the whole of the NDE.  

I went over all this in great detail in my last post.  What, did you sleep through most of it?

Your problem spring from the fact that or you hardly read any NDEs or even if you read them you do not believe them.
In any case there is no point in arguing but if you want to argue the evidence is there.
The evidence in all cases is on my side.
Why?

Because NDEs can be proven.
Real people who had an NDE exist.
Hospitals that can support the evidence that these people were there exist.
Doctors that witness these people dead exist.
Doctors that witness these people alive again exist.
People that witness all these things exist so obviously all this is verifiable not BS.

This makes the second time that I've explained the same point, and you still show no sign whatsoever of comprehending the problem, or even showing any sign that you've read my explanation.  (It's right above in my post.  Read it, dumbass.)

As explained, I'm not disputing that NDEs are in some sense real here, only that you cannot demonstrate that the content of the OBE is not a result of clairvoyance/clairaudience, instead of a result of consciousness leaving the body.  No leaving the body means no reincarnation.  In order to show that consciousness leaves the body in an OBE, you have to demonstrate that the OBE experience is not a result of clairvoyance/clairaudience.

You complain that I don't read NDE accounts, yet you appear unable to even read what is written in a simple post.  I can only conclude that your inability to "get it" is either that you have incurable reading comprehension problems, or that you are just terminally stupid.  And once again you accuse me of claiming that NDEs are bullshit.  Again, your slander is simply unsupported.  Throughout this discussion I have continually granted that the accounts of NDEs are genuine, I have only disputed the conclusions that one can infer from those accounts.  And since in the past two posts you, yourself, have held out that some of the content of NDEs is illusory, and not an accurate representation of an underlying reality, then I have no need to dispute the NDEs' contents directly.

Given that I've explained the above point to you twice and you still fail to grasp it, I'm likely not going to repeat the explanation yet again if it comes up.  I'll simply cut & paste my previous responses which you have yet to actually address.

This by the way kill the atheist dogma that once you die is all over.

As noted in my last post as well as above, this is simply not true.  You have yet to establish that consciousness even can leave the body, so your claim of victory here is premature.

No need for me to established what has already been established.

If you had actually established it, then your point here might be relevant.  Unfortunately for you, it's yet another claim that isn't supported by the evidence.

3) Obviously you have never seen me to provide any evidence for my god outside of NDEs.
Why?
Because awareness in consciousness is not transferable.
I could transfer money to you but not my awareness that God exist and that make sense.
Why should you or anyone else benefit from my spiritual efforts?
It would be like giving a degree to someone who never studied.

I could really care less about what you claim about your personal experience, it isn't evidence of your claims of karma and reincarnation.  From what I've seen, you reason like a pregnant cow, and any conclusions you draw based upon your own experience are not reliable.  You can't even be trusted to reason profitably about the material presented in an internet post, much less demonstrated any more advanced acumen.  If your mental abilities are defective, your belief that you have acquired truth is likely also defective.  Deluded people cannot be trusted to determine the truth or falsity of their delusions.

Regardless, the point was that you have not established the reliability or truthfulness of the content of NDEs.  Until you do, all your babbling about what NDEs do or do not show is quite beside the point.  Until you establish their reliability, the only other evidence you can appeal to is empirical evidence about the real world.  Since you apparently don't have any such evidence, and you've failed to provide credible evidence from NDEs, you're effectively left with squat.  You have no evidence for the existence of karma and reincarnation, which is required if you're to be believed regarding your views on consciousness and evolution.

Wrong once again yog.  

As I already explained above NDEs are real BECAUSE those people are real, hospitals and doctors are real and witnesses are real.
You on the contrary haven't been able to contradict the veracity of all of this.

 
None of this answers the points already raised.  You keep repeating the same faulty crap.  I don't need to claim that some of the content in NDEs is not real because you, yourself, have claimed as much in point #1 of your previous post, HERE, as well as in your nonsense above about the potential traumatic nature of being greeted in an NDE with the actual reality, instead of an illusory experience of the god or gods that one is used to and has come to expect.

4) Entropy in the universe?
Guesses, guesses and more guesses.
In the meantime it make sense that constant food is needed for anything to be alive.  

Hahahahahaha!  Entropy is established physics.  There is no guessing involved.  It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.  But this is testimony to the fact that you will deny established facts if they conflict with your religious/spiritual beliefs.  That's pathetic.  You whine about my justified dismissal of your prior arguments, and then you have the gall to attempt to dismiss established physics with a wave of your hand.  You have a double standard and are a confirmed hypocrite.

Regardless, entropy is real, and the universe thus has had an abundant supply of energy throughout its history.  This is simply more proof that you're a deluded crank.  Denying entropy.  Sheesh!  How stupid.

IDIOT.

Read my answer to Tiz in which I explain my point on UNIVERSAL entropy.  

Inventing bullshit terms to attempt to hide your ignorance won't help you here.  But as long as you're suffering under the delusion that it will, I'll point out that there is no difference between the local existence of entropy and any supposed difference at some alleged "UNIVERSAL" level.  As above, so below.  The entropy of the universe is basically a corollary of the first law of thermodynamics.  If you have any evidence that the first law of thermodynamics is violated anywhere, I suggest you write up your evidence, submit your paper to the journal Nature, and then stand back and wait for them to deliver your Nobel prize.

UNIVERSAL entropy and plain old entropy are the same thing.  You're just attempting to bullshit your way out of things yet again.

But fear not, as I said, this won't help you anyway, even if I grant you what you desire, that supposedly the entropy of the universe is not sufficient to supply all the energy needs of the universe.  Even in that case, you have only demonstrated the existence of "a god," which is not necessarily the same as "your god," whom I've taken to calling Yoga God.  In your mad scramble to evict yourself from the latest hole that you've dug for yourself, you lost sight of the prize, which was to demonstrate, with evidence, the existence of karma and reincarnation.  It doesn't help you to prove "a god" unless you can demonstrate that this god is "your god."  Many Christian theologians posit that their god is actually the source of sustenance and order in the universe.  As Christian theologian Paul Tillich opined, "God is ... the ground and the power of being...".  So even if I granted you your claim that a god is necessary to provide the energy needs of the universe, that is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate that this god is a god of reincarnation and karma.  So, tough luck, but you've failed once again.  If Christian God is the real god, then Yoga God is not.  Nothing about your argument proves things one way or the other.

5) Hallucinations are easily forgotten.
NDEs not, beside NDEs give spiritual strength while hallucination only give trouble.
Real NDEs spring from consciousness while hallucination from a brain in trouble but not dead yet.

As noted in my reply to point #1, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  I really don't care which line of bullshit you choose to subscribe to because neither one leads to the conclusion you desire.  So commit to one or the other.  Or don't.  I don't care.  If you choose to hang onto both it will simply show that your beliefs are not logically consistent, and your holding them is irrational.  So pick a side, asshole.

Reality hurt yog, doesn't it?  

I can understand your curiosity in asking this question, as it's apparent from your posts that you are completely unacquainted with reality.  But enough trash talk, on to something of substance.

Here one of the many NDEs in which God explain about karma and reincarnation.

http://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1cathleen_c_nde.html

By your own account, people encounter the version of god they are expecting when they have an NDE, and thus the god which appears in a persons NDE is not the true, real God underlying all of reality.  So you've presented someone who encountered Yoga God.  Big deal.  By your own argument, this Yoga God who is talking about karma and reincarnation is not the real god.  According to you, god has no human form, so obviously this Yoga God whom she has encountered is a mere fiction to prevent her from being traumatized by an unfamiliar reality.  As such, his words and actions aren't an accurate representation of the true reality, but rather simply a reflection of her cultural expectations.  For all we know, if her NDE had lasted longer, this Yoga God might have proceeded to peel back his face to reveal Jesus God, who would then explain that "no, reincarnation and karma are not real," he was only telling her that so as not to traumatize her with an unexpected divinity and reality.  Ultimately, until you resolve the contradiction described in my first point above, presenting evidence from NDE accounts is pointless as you've essentially established that it is impossible to tell what is and is not real in an NDE.  

So, no, this NDE doesn't demonstrate that karma and reincarnation are real, it only shows that you have a penchant for tripping over your own balls in your attempt to make a coherent case for reincarnation and karma.  That is, assuming you have balls.  

You have failed again and again and again.  And what shakes out is that you have no evidence to support your belief in karma and reincarnation.

---

I just had to highlight this comment from the NDE you presented.  According to the her, the God she met in her NDE, explained the answers to many questions, including the following:

"I knew that He had the answers to all questions so I began to ask Him things I had wondered about the most. Why is there evil? His reply, Because there is good."

That's some profound wisdom right there.  Ahahahahaha.  And you base your entire case for your worldview on such bullshit?  Unreal.

---

[Little Rik]

I notice that you did not respond to this point.  That's probably for the best as I strongly suspect you have no answer to it.  As noted here and in response to your previous post's point #5, you're trying to assert mutually contradictory things, both that the content of NDEs is not an accurate representation of underlying reality, and that it is an accurate representation of reality.  I warned you in my last post that this issue would dog you if you didn't resolve it, and to my eye, you haven't even addressed it.  If you're indeed asserting both, then it's trivially easy to prove the truth of the statement "Little Rik is wrong," by recourse to the Principle of explosion (See proof below in hide tags).

More and more BS on your part yog.

Unfortunately you don't pay much attention to what I did write about free will in the past because your ego shift your mind elsewhere.
Free will is one of the reasonS why God in many cases can not be perceived 100% and therefore one of the reason why people who had an NDEs come back into their bodies.
Other reasons are the karma still in action and an unfinished task.
Free will in many cases prevent the person to focus 100% on God so obviously when your mind is still worry about other things you can not perceive God in full.
A perfect example is in the NDE that I show you in the last post in which Cathleen went back in her body just because she worry about her parents.
Obviously in your twisted mind you reckon that two reality don't make any sense when in fact they make full sense.
God can be perceived 100% or 0% with any number in the middle.
It is all up to the perceiver.  

Sorry yog but you are a lot more stupid than I thought.  
A welcome in the other dimension can not be traumatic.
Suppose a Christian that for all his-her life saw God as a person represented by Jesus see instead a welcoming Buddha or the other way around in which a Buddhist see Jesus to welcoming in heaven.
Wouldn't he-she be shocked?

Once the welcome is over then the reality take place and the person understand that God has no human figure.  

Ignoring for the moment that this is yet another bare assertion which isn't supported by any evidence from the NDEs themselves, this presents yet another problem for you.  If the original god figure who presents himself is not the "real" god, and the real god only presents him or herself once the welcome is over, then how does one determine that the welcome is indeed over and one is in fact experiencing reality?  One can easily imagine an infinite regress of slightly less "unreal" presentations, stretching backward such that one never actually arrives at the true reality, or, at the very least, one has no way of knowing when that point has been reached and thus one is then comprehending the real reality.
You've simply replaced one illusory experience with a series of them that has no identifiable end.  How did you determine that God has no human figure?  Perhaps the God that has no human figure is but a prelude to the real God who does have a human figure.  This is simply something you've once again concluded based upon the spiritual/religious dogmas that you believe, rather than based upon any evidence.  Once you've introduced the notion that any god figure presented in an NDE is illusory, you've undermined any rationale possible for claiming that this or that particular NDE content is not illusory.  As far as you know, it's turtles all the way down, and you never encounter reality. You've effectively denied yourself the ability to claim anything based on the content of NDEs.  You've cut your nose off to spite your face.

Read once again my answer above.
If you do not read with your twisted mind and drop your ego for a while you should be able to understand how the system works.

Your problem spring from the fact that or you hardly read any NDEs or even if you read them you do not believe them.
In any case there is no point in arguing but if you want to argue the evidence is there.
The evidence in all cases is on my side.
Why?

Because NDEs can be proven.
Real people who had an NDE exist.
Hospitals that can support the evidence that these people were there exist.
Doctors that witness these people dead exist.
Doctors that witness these people alive again exist.
People that witness all these things exist so obviously all this is verifiable not BS.

This makes the second time that I've explained the same point, and you still show no sign whatsoever of comprehending the problem, or even showing any sign that you've read my explanation.  (It's right above in my post.  Read it, dumbass.)

As explained, I'm not disputing that NDEs are in some sense real here, only that you cannot demonstrate that the content of the OBE is not a result of clairvoyance/clairaudience, instead of a result of consciousness leaving the body.  No leaving the body means no reincarnation.  In order to show that consciousness leaves the body in an OBE, you have to demonstrate that the OBE experience is not a result of clairvoyance/clairaudience.

You complain that I don't read NDE accounts, yet you appear unable to even read what is written in a simple post.  I can only conclude that your inability to "get it" is either that you have incurable reading comprehension problems, or that you are just terminally stupid.  And once again you accuse me of claiming that NDEs are bullshit.  Again, your slander is simply unsupported.  Throughout this discussion I have continually granted that the accounts of NDEs are genuine, I have only disputed the conclusions that one can infer from those accounts.  And since in the past two posts you, yourself, have held out that some of the content of NDEs is illusory, and not an accurate representation of an underlying reality, then I have no need to dispute the NDEs' contents directly.

Given that I've explained the above point to you twice and you still fail to grasp it, I'm likely not going to repeat the explanation yet again if it comes up.  I'll simply cut & paste my previous responses which you have yet to actually address.

Clairvoyance works with the consciousness in your body-brain not outside or separated from it.
In this case the blood is flowing and your body is alive which is not the case in an NDE.

Here once again you clearly show how stupid you are in pulling up and out more and more BS in order to prevent your downfall.
Shame on you yog.  

No need for me to established what has already been established.

If you had actually established it, then your point here might be relevant.  Unfortunately for you, it's yet another claim that isn't supported by the evidence.

You never get tired of pulling more BS out your magician hat, do you yog?  

Wrong once again yog.  

As I already explained above NDEs are real BECAUSE those people are real, hospitals and doctors are real and witnesses are real.
You on the contrary haven't been able to contradict the veracity of all of this.

 

None of this answers the points already raised.  You keep repeating the same faulty crap.  I don't need to claim that some of the content in NDEs is not real because you, yourself, have claimed as much in point #1 of your previous post, HERE, as well as in your nonsense above about the potential traumatic nature of being greeted in an NDE with the actual reality, instead of an illusory experience of the god or gods that one is used to and has come to expect.

Read again my first answer.
It will explain you how the system works.

IDIOT.

Read my answer to Tiz in which I explain my point on UNIVERSAL entropy.  

Inventing bullshit terms to attempt to hide your ignorance won't help you here.  But as long as you're suffering under the delusion that it will, I'll point out that there is no difference between the local existence of entropy and any supposed difference at some alleged "UNIVERSAL" level.  As above, so below.  The entropy of the universe is basically a corollary of the first law of thermodynamics.  If you have any evidence that the first law of thermodynamics is violated anywhere, I suggest you write up your evidence, submit your paper to the journal Nature, and then stand back and wait for them to deliver your Nobel prize.

UNIVERSAL entropy and plain old entropy are the same thing.  You're just attempting to bullshit your way out of things yet again.

But fear not, as I said, this won't help you anyway, even if I grant you what you desire, that supposedly the entropy of the universe is not sufficient to supply all the energy needs of the universe.  Even in that case, you have only demonstrated the existence of "a god," which is not necessarily the same as "your god," whom I've taken to calling Yoga God.  In your mad scramble to evict yourself from the latest hole that you've dug for yourself, you lost sight of the prize, which was to demonstrate, with evidence, the existence of karma and reincarnation.  It doesn't help you to prove "a god" unless you can demonstrate that this god is "your god."  Many Christian theologians posit that their god is actually the source of sustenance and order in the universe.  As Christian theologian Paul Tillich opined, "God is ... the ground and the power of being...".  So even if I granted you your claim that a god is necessary to provide the energy needs of the universe, that is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate that this god is a god of reincarnation and karma.  So, tough luck, but you've failed once again.  If Christian God is the real god, then Yoga God is not.  Nothing about your argument proves things one way or the other.

The universe is not a close container.
That is why UNIVERSAL entropy is off.
Ok. put in this way..........according to yoga the universal dimension is a God's mental projection.
Put in a tiny scale you can create a dimension in your imagination.
You can image an animal in a garden.
Is this imagination closed in a container?
Of course is not that is why entropy in your or in God imagination can not exist.

Reality hurt yog, doesn't it?  

I can understand your curiosity in asking this question, as it's apparent from your posts that you are completely unacquainted with reality.  But enough trash talk, on to something of substance.

If you say so.  

Here one of the many NDEs in which God explain about karma and reincarnation.

http://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1cathleen_c_nde.html

By your own account, people encounter the version of god they are expecting when they have an NDE, and thus the god which appears in a persons NDE is not the true, real God underlying all of reality.  So you've presented someone who encountered Yoga God.  Big deal.  By your own argument, this Yoga God who is talking about karma and reincarnation is not the real god.  According to you, god has no human form, so obviously this Yoga God whom she has encountered is a mere fiction to prevent her from being traumatized by an unfamiliar reality.  As such, his words and actions aren't an accurate representation of the true reality, but rather simply a reflection of her cultural expectations.  For all we know, if her NDE had lasted longer, this Yoga God might have proceeded to peel back his face to reveal Jesus God, who would then explain that "no, reincarnation and karma are not real," he was only telling her that so as not to traumatize her with an unexpected divinity and reality.  Ultimately, until you resolve the contradiction described in my first point above, presenting evidence from NDE accounts is pointless as you've essentially established that it is impossible to tell what is and is not real in an NDE.  

So, no, this NDE doesn't demonstrate that karma and reincarnation are real, it only shows that you have a penchant for tripping over your own balls in your attempt to make a coherent case for reincarnation and karma.  That is, assuming you have balls.  

You have failed again and again and again.  And what shakes out is that you have no evidence to support your belief in karma and reincarnation.


I just had to highlight this comment from the NDE you presented.  According to the her, the God she met in her NDE, explained the answers to many questions, including the following:

"I knew that He had the answers to all questions so I began to ask Him things I had wondered about the most. Why is there evil? His reply, Because there is good."

That's some profound wisdom right there.  Ahahahahaha.  And you base your entire case for your worldview on such bullshit?  Unreal.
[/hide]

Read again my first answer yog and try to understand how the free will works.  

[Amarok]

Read my answer to Tiz in which I explain my point on UNIVERSAL entropy

You didn't explain dick . You just made up a term then dismissed it .

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The point stay the same whether you like it or not which is that universal entropy is a guess which of course has zero to do with whether entropy under different circumstances is a fact or not.

This is impressive.  A simple, declarative sentence containing two factual and six grammatical errors.  You must tell me where you pick your mushrooms.

Boru

[Little Rik]

The point stay the same whether you like it or not which is that universal entropy is a guess which of course has zero to do with whether entropy under different circumstances is a fact or not.

This is impressive.  A simple, declarative sentence containing two factual and six grammatical errors.  You must tell me where you pick your mushrooms.
Boru

I am so glad to find in you a perfect English teacher.  

Let us make a deal brother Brian.  
You teach me English and I teach you how to get out your mental wimpiness.  

Agree?  

---

Read my answer to Tiz in which I explain my point on UNIVERSAL entropy

You didn't explain dick . You just made up a term then dismissed it.

Time to go to sleep Tiz.  

You are not even funny.