Evolution

[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.