Evolution

[Abaddon_ire]

Hey LR. What karma are you accumulating for hurling all of these insults and invective? By now, it seems to be an awful lot. Yet somehow, you seem unconcerned that you are building up a karmic debt of epic proportions. If you believed what you claim you would not be doing so (or would be stupid for doing so). Seems to me that you don't believe what you claim, else you wouldn't be hurling such evil at people. 

And it is no use resorting to the "they did it too" schoolyard argument. Atheists can insult you all they like, they don't believe what you do so it doesn't matter to them. Even christians and muslims can hurl as much abuse at you as they wish since, in their system of belief neither karma nor reincarnation exist anyway. 

But to you, karma and reincarnation are real and you will have to pay for every scurrilous comment you have made here and wherever else you have done such. Are you willing to pay that much karmic debt?

That is interesting Aba.
Atheists can talk crap as much as they like because there is no karma.
What a smart-brilliant idea Aba you gave me.
Right now I become atheist so karma will not affect me at all.
Gee, I never thought about that Aba.      

Ok, now let us be serious and answer your question.

Obviously you haven't got a clue what karma is all about.
Suppose a policeman say...........that guy driving too fast or driving under the influence of "something" will get killed for sure.
Does the policeman pick up any karma for saying that?
Of course not.
Karma is wishing harm to other people not predicting an obvious result.

The same apply to me.
Why should I build karma for saying the obvious?
I never ever wish any harm to those two guys that said that my mother is  whore.
All I did is to state the obvious.
Anyone engaged in talking very very dirty obviously will lose the awareness in consciousness and in the next life obviously they will not deserve a human body anymore.  

All that karma nonsense is your cockeyed belief not mine. According to your cockeyed belief, every insult you hurl here is adding to your negative karma.

Got a problem with that? Tough. You are the one who believes you are reincarnating. Probably as a cockroach. Maybe an amoeba. You have only yourself to blame.

As for myself, since I am immune to all of that kind of superstitious baloney, I have nothing to worry about at all.

[Whateverist]

For the patience shown in this post I want a new category for member awards titled "The moron whisperer", and I'd like to see her get the first one by popular acclaim.

---

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).

[hide]
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."

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

[/hide]

[JackRussell]

LR is a Dunning Kruger poster boy; he is right about everything and never makes a mistake. He knows more than everybody here and must be listened to.

NDE wash, rinse, repeat.

LR is never wrong and has nothing to learn from anybody, we are all idiots and our thoughts are worthless.

But this thread should be in pseudoscience and skepticism

coz' I ain't convinced.

[Amarok]

Epic fail Rik you said a heap of nothing 

FOOL 
DUMBASS 

[Angrboda]

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.  

Ignoring for the moment that you're now introducing another unsupported concept -- free will -- I don't see how this helps you any.  As I elaborated in an earlier post, the problem here is that there doesn't appear to be any way to determine when one is in fact perceiving God 100%, rather than say 60% or 20%.  If one cannot determine for a fact what part of an NDE correlates to perceiving God 100%, then you have no basis for concluding that any specific content is truly real.  One might believe one is perceiving God 100% when in fact they are not, and vice versa.  By your own admission, some NDE content reflects an illusory experience of God where one's perception is not 100%.  As I pointed out regarding the NDE that you linked to in your last post, there is no way of knowing that her experience of a god who talked of reincarnation was a perception of the underlying, true, 100% reality, and so there is no way we can rely upon her NDE to conclude that karma and reincarnation is real.

I'll repeat the important point since you appear not to be grasping it.  If one has no way of knowing that one is perceiving God 100%, then one has no way of knowing that their experience of God is an accurate representation of reality, as opposed to being illusory.  How do you know that you are perceiving God 100% from the content of the NDE itself?  If there is no way to know, then there is no way to rely upon the testimony of any NDE as regards God and underlying reality.

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.

As I explained above, your answer did not really resolve anything.  It certainly did not answer this point, in which one is unable to determine when the supposed welcome is over and thus implying that one is then accurately perceiving reality.  So, again, how does one know when the "welcome" is over?

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.

Okay.

In this case the blood is flowing and your body is alive which is not the case in an NDE.

How do you know that blood flowing and an alive body are required for clairvoyance?  Do you have any evidence that blood and life are necessary for consciousness to see remotely?  I'm suggesting that clairvoyance occurs under the same conditions as your supposed example of consciousness leaving the body, namely that we are capable of clairvoyance even when their is no blood flowing or life in the body because clairvoyance is an ability of pure consciousness, unrelated to our biology.  Do you have any way of showing that it is not?  Please present it if you do.  Until then, we have no reason for necessarily concluding that consciousness leaves the body in an OBE, as clairvoyance remains a live possibility.

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.

I've done that and it doesn't seem to answer the problem.  As noted above, we have no way of determining from the content of an NDE that the person's experience does not represent a case in which their perception of God is less than 100%.  "Free will" doesn't appear to offer any such method for determining when one is perceiving God at 100% and when one is not.  As far as I can see, your appeal to free will only resolved why different people make different choices in an NDE, not anything with how one would know that what one is perceiving is 100% true.  That's the question you must answer, and free will doesn't seem to do it.

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.

One might be able to make this argument if you had independent evidence that the God according to yoga is the true reality.  Otherwise you're assuming the existence of God, to disprove entropy, to thereby prove the existence of God.  That's circular reasoning and thereby invalid.   Moreover, if you have evidence that the universal dimension is a mental projection of God, I'd say we've moved past the point of needing any argument based upon the universe's energy needs.  So in order to take your answer here seriously, instead of dismissing it as an unsupported assertion, you're going to have to show that God exists and that the universe is his mental projection independent of the argument about the universe needing a constant infusion of energy.  Regardless, both because of my second point as well as your needing to provide a separate foundation for believing in God, it's clear that this argument has met its end.  It isn't adequately supported, nor can one conclude from it that reincarnation and karma exist, even if it is successful.  I will also note that it's not clear that even if you manage to demonstrate that this universe is a mental projection of God that this then entails that reincarnation and karma are true, as that would depend upon knowing additional information about God beyond the fact of his mental projection. Indeed, positing that the universe is just a mental projection of God is only the beginning of a million questions for which you must provide answers and supporting evidence.

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.

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

Again, your answer of "free will" doesn't appear to answer anything. (See my answer above.) For example, in the case of Caroline's NDE, how do we know that she was perceiving God 100%, instead of say 40%, in which case her God's representations about karma and reincarnation are not reliable?

I will also note in passing that her NDE doesn't say anything about karma, nor even imply it. It's also worth noting that after her NDE she reports that she is a Christian, which puts your bullshit about people being changed in their beliefs after an NDE to rest. Clearly she had an NDE which contradicted the Christian God, yet she remained a Christian afterword.

---

In closing, no, I don't see how "free will" affects he validity of anything I said before. If you think it does, then you're going to have to explain how free will resolves the problem of not being able to know when we are perceiving God 100%. Until you do, the problems I explained in my prior post still remain problems. Please also note that we are still, a week after your initial claim that NDEs entail reincarnation and you have yet to show a clear example of such. Instead you've undermined your own case by asserting that NE content doesn't reliably indicate reality.

So, you haven't answered my prior objections, and until you do, we're going to have to consider the request for evidence for reincarnation and karma to be unfulfilled.

[Little Rik]

That is interesting Aba.
Atheists can talk crap as much as they like because there is no karma.
What a smart-brilliant idea Aba you gave me.
Right now I become atheist so karma will not affect me at all.
Gee, I never thought about that Aba.      

Ok, now let us be serious and answer your question.

Obviously you haven't got a clue what karma is all about.
Suppose a policeman say...........that guy driving too fast or driving under the influence of "something" will get killed for sure.
Does the policeman pick up any karma for saying that?
Of course not.
Karma is wishing harm to other people not predicting an obvious result.

The same apply to me.
Why should I build karma for saying the obvious?
I never ever wish any harm to those two guys that said that my mother is  whore.
All I did is to state the obvious.
Anyone engaged in talking very very dirty obviously will lose the awareness in consciousness and in the next life obviously they will not deserve a human body anymore.  

All that karma nonsense is your cockeyed belief not mine. According to your cockeyed belief, every insult you hurl here is adding to your negative karma.

Got a problem with that? Tough. You are the one who believes you are reincarnating. Probably as a cockroach. Maybe an amoeba. You have only yourself to blame.

As for myself, since I am immune to all of that kind of superstitious baloney, I have nothing to worry about at all.

It is bizarre but also all those who did something wrong thought that they would be immune to the law of karma only to find out that they reborn with tons of problem one life later.  

The idiots    then have even the audacity to deny the karma and say that is all about bad luck.
I never finish to wonder how some people are so thick.  

---

LR is a Dunning Kruger poster boy; he is right about everything and never makes a mistake. He knows more than everybody here and must be listened to.

NDE wash, rinse, repeat.

LR is never wrong and has nothing to learn from anybody, we are all idiots and our thoughts are worthless.

But this thread should be in pseudoscience and skepticism

coz'  I ain't convinced.

Most of you guys already made the big mistake to hide from your consciousness the big reality that God is alive and well.
Not happy with that now you try to hide even every single truth that contradict your dogma.
The free will doesn't always help you however.
That is something that you will learn the hard way.  

[Little Rik]

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.  

Ignoring for the moment that you're now introducing another unsupported concept -- free will -- I don't see how this helps you any.  As I elaborated in an earlier post, the problem here is that there doesn't appear to be any way to determine when one is in fact perceiving God 100%, rather than say 60% or 20%.  If one cannot determine for a fact what part of an NDE correlates to perceiving God 100%, then you have no basis for concluding that any specific content is truly real.  One might believe one is perceiving God 100% when in fact they are not, and vice versa.  By your own admission, some NDE content reflects an illusory experience of God where one's perception is not 100%.  As I pointed out regarding the NDE that you linked to in your last post, there is no way of knowing that her experience of a god who talked of reincarnation was a perception of the underlying, true, 100% reality, and so there is no way we can rely upon her NDE to conclude that karma and reincarnation is real.

I'll repeat the important point since you appear not to be grasping it.  If one has no way of knowing that one is perceiving God 100%, then one has no way of knowing that their experience of God is an accurate representation of reality, as opposed to being illusory.  How do you know that you are perceiving God 100% from the content of the NDE itself?  If there is no way to know, then there is no way to rely upon the testimony of any NDE as regards God and underlying reality.

Take a student that try to assimilate 100% of what is written in a book.
He may or may not assimilate 100% but even in  case he assimilate only 10% you can not say that what he has assimilate is illusory.
Why should be?
As far as the book carry the golden truth even 1% of that book carry an amount of truth therefore is foolish to say that 1% is illusory.
Can't you see how wrong you are?  

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.

As I explained above, your answer did not really resolve anything.  It certainly did not answer this point, in which one is unable to determine when the supposed welcome is over and thus implying that one is then accurately perceiving reality.  So, again, how does one know when the "welcome" is over?

As a rule reality is perceived according to the degree of your own awareness in consciousness.
NDEs are not given to give you more awareness to the point in which you reach a parallelism between yourself and God.
If that would be the case nobody would come back into their body and everybody would be one with God.
That gap between you and God will have to be attain by one own effort.
Again the understanding of how the system in heaven works is directly related to one own degree of consciousness.
We are all different so obviously we all perceive differently God consciousness but the day or stage that we reach a parallelism with God consciousness then there will not be any more differences.
That day where all the students will have learn 100% of the book then they all will have the same awareness of the content of the book.  

In this case the blood is flowing and your body is alive which is not the case in an NDE.

How do you know that blood flowing and an alive body are required for clairvoyance?  Do you have any evidence that blood and life are necessary for consciousness to see remotely?  I'm suggesting that clairvoyance occurs under the same conditions as your supposed example of consciousness leaving the body, namely that we are capable of clairvoyance even when their is no blood flowing or life in the body because clairvoyance is an ability of pure consciousness, unrelated to our biology.  Do you have any way of showing that it is not?  Please present it if you do.  Until then, we have no reason for necessarily concluding that consciousness leaves the body in an OBE, as clairvoyance remains a live possibility.

As far as I understand and has been proved the consciousness only leave the body when the body die however everything is possible.
Miracles may well happen.
By the way since when atheists believe in miracles?  

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

I've done that and it doesn't seem to answer the problem.  As noted above, we have no way of determining from the content of an NDE that the person's experience does not represent a case in which their perception of God is less than 100%.  "Free will" doesn't appear to offer any such method for determining when one is perceiving God at 100% and when one is not.  As far as I can see, your appeal to free will only resolved why different people make different choices in an NDE, not anything with how one would know that what one is perceiving is 100% true.  That's the question you must answer, and free will doesn't seem to do it.

Free will determine how a person is willing to get close or far from God.
The closer the person wish to be the more he-she will get not just during an NDE but even after his-her physical death.
Obviously the degree of perception depend on this factor.

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.

One might be able to make this argument if you had independent evidence that the God according to yoga is the true reality.  Otherwise you're assuming the existence of God, to disprove entropy, to thereby prove the existence of God.  That's circular reasoning and thereby invalid.   Moreover, if you have evidence that the universal dimension is a mental projection of God, I'd say we've moved past the point of needing any argument based upon the universe's energy needs.  So in order to take your answer here seriously, instead of dismissing it as an unsupported assertion, you're going to have to show that God exists and that the universe is his mental projection independent of the argument about the universe needing a constant infusion of energy.  Regardless, both because of my second point as well as your needing to provide a separate foundation for believing in God, it's clear that this argument has met its end.  It isn't adequately supported, nor can one conclude from it that reincarnation and karma exist, even if it is successful.  I will also note that it's not clear that even if you manage to demonstrate that this universe is a mental projection of God that this then entails that reincarnation and karma are true, as that would depend upon knowing additional information about God beyond the fact of his mental projection.  Indeed, positing that the universe is just a mental projection of God is only the beginning of a million questions for which you must provide answers and supporting evidence.

God reality can be fully understood even without years of spiritual work.
If you follow mathematics the sums lead to a positive result.
Entropy is easily dismiss as the universe is not a close container, the universe itself can not appear as per magic and to exist for billions of years or most probably for ever it need a super mind to run it so if you take all these elements in consideration plus many other then the result indicate that God is alive and well.

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

Again, your answer of "free will" doesn't appear to answer anything.  (See my answer above.)  For example, in the case of Caroline's NDE, how do we know that she was perceiving God 100%, instead of say 40%, in which case her God's representations about karma and reincarnation are not reliable?

That is a load of garbo yog.
Perceiving even 1% of what God say doesn't mean that what God say is wrong.

I will also note in passing that her NDE doesn't say anything about karma, nor even imply it.

Wrong again yog.
As far as there is reincarnation there is karma.
Why God would reincarnate people again and again if these people are free from karma?
Why punish people for nothing?  
Again you should understand why 1 + 1 = 2.

It's also worth noting that after her NDE she reports that she is a Christian, which puts your bullshit about people being changed in their beliefs after an NDE to rest.  Clearly she had an NDE which contradicted the Christian God, yet she remained a Christian afterword.

It may sound very very strange but also LR is a Christian.

In fact I follow Jesus as well because Jesus reached a parallelism with God and therefore merge and become God itself.
The same God of my yoga and the same God of Shiva, Krishna, Buddha, San Francis and many other.
All of them are now part of the great ocean of consciousness.
Cathleen's Christianity must be a pure Christianity which has very little to do if any with the various Christian religions that in turn have very little to do with Jesus teachings.    

In closing, no, I don't see how "free will" affects he validity of anything I said before.  If you think it does, then you're going to have to explain how free will resolves the problem of not being able to know when we are perceiving God 100%.  Until you do, the problems I explained in my prior post still remain problems.  Please also note that we are still, a week after your initial claim that NDEs entail reincarnation and you have yet to show a clear example of such.  Instead you've undermined your own case by asserting that NE content doesn't reliably indicate reality.

So, you haven't answered my prior objections, and until you do, we're going to have to consider the request for evidence for reincarnation and karma to be unfulfilled.

Already answered above.
In Cathleen NDE God clearly talk about reincarnation and reincarnation without karma in humans is impossible.  

[The Grand Nudger]

-and the cheshire cat told alice many things.......

[Angrboda]

[DELETED - Accidentally hit post instead of preview]

[Angrboda]

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.  

Ignoring for the moment that you're now introducing another unsupported concept -- free will -- I don't see how this helps you any.  As I elaborated in an earlier post, the problem here is that there doesn't appear to be any way to determine when one is in fact perceiving God 100%, rather than say 60% or 20%.  If one cannot determine for a fact what part of an NDE correlates to perceiving God 100%, then you have no basis for concluding that any specific content is truly real.  One might believe one is perceiving God 100% when in fact they are not, and vice versa.  By your own admission, some NDE content reflects an illusory experience of God where one's perception is not 100%.  As I pointed out regarding the NDE that you linked to in your last post, there is no way of knowing that her experience of a god who talked of reincarnation was a perception of the underlying, true, 100% reality, and so there is no way we can rely upon her NDE to conclude that karma and reincarnation is real.

I'll repeat the important point since you appear not to be grasping it.  If one has no way of knowing that one is perceiving God 100%, then one has no way of knowing that their experience of God is an accurate representation of reality, as opposed to being illusory.  How do you know that you are perceiving God 100% from the content of the NDE itself?  If there is no way to know, then there is no way to rely upon the testimony of any NDE as regards God and underlying reality.

Take a student that try to assimilate 100% of what is written in a book.
He may or may not assimilate 100% but even in  case he assimilate only 10% you can not say that what he has assimilate is illusory.
Why should be?
As far as the book carry the golden truth even 1% of that book carry an amount of truth therefore is foolish to say that 1% is illusory.
Can't you see how wrong you are?  

Oh joy, yet another stupid analogy. First of all, I wasn't asserting that the 10% which is accurate is illusory, but rather that his belief that the other 90% is accurate and his grasp of the material in that 90% is illusory. More to the point, I'm pointing out that if the student has no clear way of determining what part of his understanding is in the 10%, and which part belongs to the 90%, then his understanding of any specific part is unreliable, and any truth he asserts based on his mixed understanding cannot be counted upon. His having free will doesn't in any way improve that situation. But since you seem to like analogies, here's a few to counter your belief that I am wrong.

Let's suppose that you have a roommate named Bart, and that you and Bart are college students working towards a bachelors in physics. You both are taking a class in quantum mechanics, yet the two of you aren't faring very well. Out of the material that you study, you understand maybe 10%, and the other 90% is a mess of misunderstandings, misremembered formulas, and general failure to grasp the concepts. One week, your professor assigns five chapters to be completed by a week from Friday. Come that Friday, the professor administers an exam, and when you get back the results, you find that both you and Bart only got two right out of twenty questions. Another F grade. Your professor assigns another five chapters, and as a favor, gives you 20 extra credit questions on the new material to help you raise your grade. You spend a week working on the extra credit material, but are having a tough go of it. According to your analogy, given that Bart has a history of poorly understanding the material, it would make sense to turn to Bart for help with the assignment. Would you really look forward to receiving Bart's help, or would you rather depend upon a tutor who has a demonstrated grasp of the material? And how will "free will" improve the quality of Bart's help?

Next analogy. You're in the hospital, recovering from a heart attack. You feel a pain in you chest, and numbness in your left arm, and know that you are having another heart attack. Before you're able to reach the call button to summon your nurse, everything fades to black. Suddenly you find yourself in a room, seated at a table upon which are two flasks, one containing a red liquid, the other containing a blue liquid. Seated opposite you is a man wearing medieval armor and a winged helmet. He introduces himself as Odin, and explains that if you drink the blue potion, you will be extinguished from existence and exist no more. If you drink the red potion, you will be resurrected in Valhalla and celebrated as a hero. You must drink one or the other potion. You start to reach for the red flask, and suddenly a flash of lightning blinds you, accompanied by a crash of thunder. You look up, but Odin is gone. You're dumbstruck for a moment, but you shrug it off and proceed to reach for the red potion again. A commanding voice shouts "Stop!" halting you in mid motion. You look up, and there again is the figure in a winged helmet who identified himself as Odin. He explains that the red potion leads to permanent non-existence, that you should drink the blue potion, as it will deliver you to Valhalla -- the exact opposite of what you thought he had told you earlier. You tell him that, and he explains that you must have been talking to Loki, pretending to be Odin, and that you had been deceived. You start to reach again, but it occurs to you that perhaps this is Loki you're talking to now, and that you should believe the first Odin instead. You must make a choice. You know that one of the two Odin's is deceiving you, but which one? Which Odin do you choose to believe, and which potion do you drink? For bonus points, explain how free will helped you determine which potion to drink?

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.

As I explained above, your answer did not really resolve anything.  It certainly did not answer this point, in which one is unable to determine when the supposed welcome is over and thus implying that one is then accurately perceiving reality.  So, again, how does one know when the "welcome" is over?

As a rule reality is perceived according to the degree of your own awareness in consciousness.
NDEs are not given to give you more awareness to the point in which you reach a parallelism between yourself and God.
If that would be the case nobody would come back into their body and everybody would be one with God.
That gap between you and God will have to be attain by one own effort.
Again the understanding of how the system in heaven works is directly related to one own degree of consciousness.
We are all different so obviously we all perceive differently God consciousness but the day or stage that we reach a parallelism with God consciousness then there will not be any more differences.
That day where all the students will have learn 100% of the book then they all will have the same awareness of the content of the book.  

You didn't answer the question. How do you determine when the welcome is over? What exactly is a "degree of awareness in consciousness" an how does one determine whether one has a lot or a little of it? When I'm falling asleep, my consciousness is diminished, but otherwise, my awareness doesn't seem to have a greater or lesser dimension to it. How do we know what level of awareness we have? You believe that you're possessed of a greater awareness, but the evidence from this thread as well as the testimony of others seems to make it clear that you're a dimwitted twat with little actual awareness. Regardless, I think it's a truism that some people believe themselves possessed of great awareness when in fact they are not. So it's possible to be mistaken about one's level of awareness, and as a consequence overestimate the degree to which their perceptions and beliefs accord with reality. How can one reliably determine one's level of awareness and be certain that one is not deceived? How does free will assure that we are not deceived by ourselves? How can you be certain that you are not deceived?

In this case the blood is flowing and your body is alive which is not the case in an NDE.

How do you know that blood flowing and an alive body are required for clairvoyance?  Do you have any evidence that blood and life are necessary for consciousness to see remotely?  I'm suggesting that clairvoyance occurs under the same conditions as your supposed example of consciousness leaving the body, namely that we are capable of clairvoyance even when their is no blood flowing or life in the body because clairvoyance is an ability of pure consciousness, unrelated to our biology.  Do you have any way of showing that it is not?  Please present it if you do.  Until then, we have no reason for necessarily concluding that consciousness leaves the body in an OBE, as clairvoyance remains a live possibility.

As far as I understand and has been proved the consciousness only leave the body when the body die however everything is possible.
Miracles may well happen.
By the way since when atheists believe in miracles?  

It hasn't been proved that consciousness ever leaves the body, other than in the sense of ceasing to exist.
If clairvoyance is possible in the absence of blood and life, it's not necessarily a miracle, anymore than consciousness leaving the body would be. Regardless, disregarding your snark, you still have yet to provide any evidence that an OBE isn't a result of clairvoyance. Avoiding the question won't make it go away.

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

I've done that and it doesn't seem to answer the problem.  As noted above, we have no way of determining from the content of an NDE that the person's experience does not represent a case in which their perception of God is less than 100%.  "Free will" doesn't appear to offer any such method for determining when one is perceiving God at 100% and when one is not.  As far as I can see, your appeal to free will only resolved why different people make different choices in an NDE, not anything with how one would know that what one is perceiving is 100% true.  That's the question you must answer, and free will doesn't seem to do it.

Free will determine how a person is willing to get close or far from God.
The closer the person wish to be the more he-she will get not just during an NDE but even after his-her physical death.
Obviously the degree of perception depend on this factor.

Can I will myself to understand quantum mechanics? This is just a bare assertion on your part, that a person wishing themselves to be closer results in more accurate awareness. How would you have determined this in the first place? If you have no way to determine the accuracy of the content in an NDE, then you have no way of determining that this or that effort results in greater accuracy. This is just a claim you pulled from your ass and can be dismissed as such. One might will oneself to be closer and have no effect on the accuracy of one's perceptions. You haven't established squat from any evidence. And again, there is the problem of gauging the actual status of one's will? How does one determine that one is willing? How do you determine that closeness to god is being willed? One can't. And even if one could, it wouldn't distinguish cases, such as between fervent Jesus seekers and fervent Yoga seekers -- how does their fervency help decide which is perceiving things accurately and which one is not? This is just another example of you confusing your dogmatic beliefs with fact.

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.

One might be able to make this argument if you had independent evidence that the God according to yoga is the true reality.  Otherwise you're assuming the existence of God, to disprove entropy, to thereby prove the existence of God.  That's circular reasoning and thereby invalid.   Moreover, if you have evidence that the universal dimension is a mental projection of God, I'd say we've moved past the point of needing any argument based upon the universe's energy needs.  So in order to take your answer here seriously, instead of dismissing it as an unsupported assertion, you're going to have to show that God exists and that the universe is his mental projection independent of the argument about the universe needing a constant infusion of energy.  Regardless, both because of my second point as well as your needing to provide a separate foundation for believing in God, it's clear that this argument has met its end.  It isn't adequately supported, nor can one conclude from it that reincarnation and karma exist, even if it is successful.  I will also note that it's not clear that even if you manage to demonstrate that this universe is a mental projection of God that this then entails that reincarnation and karma are true, as that would depend upon knowing additional information about God beyond the fact of his mental projection.  Indeed, positing that the universe is just a mental projection of God is only the beginning of a million questions for which you must provide answers and supporting evidence.

God reality can be fully understood even without years of spiritual work.
If you follow mathematics the sums lead to a positive result.
Entropy is easily dismiss as the universe is not a close container, the universe itself can not appear as per magic and to exist for billions of years or most probably for ever it need a super mind to run it so if you take all these elements in consideration plus many other then the result indicate that God is alive and well.

Yeah, I think you're full of shit. I don't believe you. If you have any evidence from math, any evidence that the universe isn't closed, that it need a mind to run it, and so on, then bring it on. This looks like more spiritual/religious dogma. If you have any actual evidence, present it. If you're just going to make unsupported claims like the above, then forget it. You're going too have to show your work here.

I don't think anyone believes the universe pop up as per magic. That doesn't imply that your specific God exists. Your goal is to provide evidence for reincarnation and karma. Even if you establish the existence of a God for which the universe is but a mental projection, you still haven't shown that karma and reincarnation are a part of that projection.

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

Again, your answer of "free will" doesn't appear to answer anything.  (See my answer above.)  For example, in the case of Caroline's NDE, how do we know that she was perceiving God 100%, instead of say 40%, in which case her God's representations about karma and reincarnation are not reliable?

That is a load of garbo yog.
Perceiving even 1% of what God say doesn't mean that what God say is wrong.

It doesn't mean that the 1% is wrong, but it sure impugns the credibility of the other 99%. Unless one can determine which part of an NDE experience is the 1% and which part is the 99%, then one cannot rely upon any of it being true.

I will also note in passing that her NDE doesn't say anything about karma, nor even imply it.

Wrong again yog.
As far as there is reincarnation there is karma.
Why God would reincarnate people again and again if these people are free from karma?
Why punish people for nothing?  
Again you should understand why 1 + 1 = 2.

Who says that being reincarnated is a punishment? And even if it were a punishment, how do you know that God is not a sadist? Regardless, it's perfectly possible to have reincarnation without having karma. There is nothing logically contradictory about that. It is nothing more than a dogmatic belief of yours that you can't have one without the other. The fact that you consider it a necessary truth like 1 + 1 = 2 only shows that you are completely unable to distinguish between arbitrary religious beliefs and necessary truths. Your inability to distinguish between dogma and fact explains your delusional belief that you are free of dogma, because you can't tell the two apart.

It's also worth noting that after her NDE she reports that she is a Christian, which puts your bullshit about people being changed in their beliefs after an NDE to rest.  Clearly she had an NDE which contradicted the Christian God, yet she remained a Christian afterword.

It may sound very very strange but also LR is a Christian.

In fact I follow Jesus as well because Jesus reached a parallelism with God and therefore merge and become God itself.
The same God of my yoga and the same God of Shiva, Krishna, Buddha, San Francis and many other.
All of them are now part of the great ocean of consciousness.
Cathleen's Christianity must be a pure Christianity which has very little to do if any with the various Christian religions that in turn have very little to do with Jesus teachings.    

Yeah, that must be it. It couldn't be that you and she are both in error, could it? Regardless, your unjustified certainty, the appearance of reincarnation and karma in her NDE, and her unorthodox Christianity still fail to meet the bar for evidence. Your opinion that Yoga God is the one true God is noted and ignored.

In closing, no, I don't see how "free will" affects he validity of anything I said before.  If you think it does, then you're going to have to explain how free will resolves the problem of not being able to know when we are perceiving God 100%.  Until you do, the problems I explained in my prior post still remain problems.  Please also note that we are still, a week after your initial claim that NDEs entail reincarnation and you have yet to show a clear example of such.  Instead you've undermined your own case by asserting that NE content doesn't reliably indicate reality.

So, you haven't answered my prior objections, and until you do, we're going to have to consider the request for evidence for reincarnation and karma to be unfulfilled.

Already answered above.
In Cathleen NDE God clearly talk about reincarnation and reincarnation without karma in humans is impossible.  

You've yet to establish that there is anything reliable about the perception of reincarnation in her NDE. As noted already, you've asserted that both accurate and inaccurate perceptions occur in an NDE, and nothing about your answers above give us a clear way of telling which is which. And you haven't presented any evidence that reincarnation without karma is impossible. That appears to be more unsupported religious dogma that you believe but cannot demonstrate.

You claimed that wishing to be close to God influences the accuracy of one's perception, but that claim appears to be an unfounded assertion. If a Jesus God person wishes to be close to their God, and a Yoga God person wishes to be close to their God, and both experience their respective Gods in their NDEs, then on what basis do we determine that one is perceiving their God accurately and the other is not? Until you answer that question, your babbling about free will is pointless. By the way, in what units is "wishing to be close to God" measured?