Evolution

[Angrboda]

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?

So much BS and so much confusion yog.  

When you experience an NDE all the past and all your previous state of consciousness means absolutely nothing.

Given that you previously said that a person's prior beliefs condition what they see in an NDE, you're simply contradicting yourself here.

God can lift up to the very top your awareness as he wishes taking into due account of course your free will as already been demonstrated in Cathleen NDE.

You didn't demonstrate anything with the Cathleen NDE other than that you can make unwarranted assumptions. That Cathleen perceived the same as what you believe to be true is not evidence that she was perceiving the reality accurately. You have no way of knowing what her free will wanted nor what God wants based solely on the NDE itself. You're smuggling in those assumptions from elsewhere and that invalidates any conclusion you've made.

High intellect to God means nothing so even a simple person can understand God 100%.
If however a person put his free will in between himself and God then obviously God can not be perceived in full.

"Can" and "do" are worlds apart. I could give a rat's ass what you believe God "can" do as opposed to what he has actually done. You cannot show that God was revealing an accurate picture of the afterlife to Cathleen, and that is what you need to do to claim that her account of reincarnation and karma is correct. You have no way of determining the "state" of someone's free will in relation to the truth if you cannot first demonstrate the truth without relation to their will. You don't know the truth independent of an NDE, so you can't claim that this or that exercise of will hurt or helped determine the accuracy of their NDE. These are rather obvious epistemological problems, yet you appear to be completely unaware that they even are problems.

That doesn't mean that whatever is perceived is wrong.
Why God would waste his time in letting people perceive something wrong.

In George Ritchie's NDE, he met Jesus and Jesus showed him that the afterlife consists of four kingdoms to which the person will go. There is no reincarnation in his NDE and so if what you claim about reincarnation is right, then what Ritchie perceived is wrong or inaccurate. The definition of accurate is "correct in all details," so any difference from the actual reality in any detail is therefore inaccurate. You don't get around this point by claiming unsupported things about God's motives. You claimed that what people perceive in the afterlife is a reflection of what they believed before death. If they perceive Jesus God and no reincarnation, and there is reincarnation, then their perception is NOT correct in all details. Ritchie says in the video that Jesus said that "if you've seen me [then] you've seen what follows," so unless no reincarnation follows death, then Ritchie's perceptions were wrong.

NDEs are about learning in order to progress spiritually so God give to each particular individual what is useful for him-her.
Nothing more nothing less.
Whether the person who experience the NDE perceive God 1 or 100% that is not the issue.
The issue is that what God give to the person is 100% of what the person need.
All the rest is meaningless.

No, the issue is whether the content of an NDE can be relied upon as an accurate representation of the underlying reality. According to you, George Ritchie's NDE was not accurate. You don't get around this point by muttering a bunch of mumbo jumbo about what you think God wants or what you think God is doing for the person in an NDE as those are all just guesses on your part, they are not evidence of anything. You have no evidence that what you are saying is true about NDEs, and I can equally assert something otherwise with just as much justification. Whether or not NDE content is accurate is the central issue in your being able to demonstrate the existence of karma and reincarnation with them. All this idle speculation about God and the purpose of NDEs is meaningless and quite beside the point.

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?

One thing for sure is that I never said that my awareness in consciousness is huge so avoid to say things that I never said.
All I said is that I practice the best system to progress in spiritual awareness which is the real yoga.
That's all.
As far as to know the degree in awareness that only the supreme mastermind can tell.
If however you feel more peace and happiness within then you know that you are on the correct path.

First, it doesn't follow that because one experiences peace and happiness within that it necessarily follows that they are on the correct path. Accomplished Buddhists feel peace and happiness within, yet according to you, their path does not lead to spiritual extinction as they believe. So obviously peace and happiness mean squat. Nazis in world war II felt a sense of peace and happiness and feeling of meaning as a consequence of being members of a fascist state, that doesn't in any way indicate that they were on the "correct" path. To know something is to have justified true belief about the thing. Nothing about a feeling of peace and happiness justifies your belief that you are on the correct path, so you do not in fact "know" any such thing. Some studies show that meditation by itself  leads to peace and happiness, regardless of the path that the person is on. That you believe there is a link between the two is just more evidence of your foolishness.

And you still did not answer the question of how a person knows that the welcome is over in an NDE. Given that you were the one who brought up this welcome nonsense, it's odd that you continue avoiding answering the question. I could care less what you think your feelings of peace and happiness mean as you're a deluded twat. You have no actual evidence for your belief about what it means.

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.

What garbage are you talking about?  
Who cease to exist?  

I was simply pointing out that the expression "leave the body" was ambiguous in that it could mean either consciousness ceasing to exist, or, that consciousness has physically gone elsewhere.

 

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.

1) Who said that..........clairvoyance is possible in the absence of blood and life?
2) There is enough evidence to say that an NDE happen when the consciousness leave a dead body but there is zero evidence to say that OBE may happen when the consciousness is still in the alive body it is therefore up to you that propose this topic to demonstrate that clairvoyance can create an OBE.  

You're trying to reverse the burden of proof again. You made the claim that OBEs demonstrate that consciousness leaves the body. It's up to you to demonstrate that alternative explanations like clairvoyance are impossible. I don't have to prove that it is possible. As long as it's consistent with the evidence, you have to rule it out. You haven't done so, and so your claim that the evidence necessarily shows that consciousness leaves the body has not been demonstrated. Until you demonstrate that clairvoyance is not possible, then your claim that there is enough evidence to show that consciousness leaves the body is false, because every scrap of evidence for that is fully compatible with clairvoyance.

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.

FOOL.

Even your country is sending satellites to other planets to better study those planets.
Yoga does the same thing although doesn't send satellites to God.
Yoga is all about reducing the distance that separate you from God in order to fully understand God beside the fact that the other main reason is to merge into Him and become one with it so the accuracy about God must be obtained by reducing the distance that separate us from Him.  

None of this is evidence of reincarnation or karma. That you have beliefs about what you are accomplishing through you practice of yoga is a fact of which I have no doubt. However your beliefs are not themselves evidence of anything other than that you hold such beliefs. They are not evidence that yoga brings you closer to God. Again, as with the question of will discussed above, you have to be in possession of the truth first before you can show that this or that practice correlates with discovering the truth. You keep omitting the step of first determining truth independent of yoga before you can determine that yoga is associated with truth. You have not done any such thing. This entire paragraph about "what yoga does" is just a digression which means nothing.

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.

Sure, you.........don't think anyone believes the universe pop up as per magic.........but at the same time atheists keep on believing that the universe doesn't need a God because entropy can keep the universe alive beside the fact that atheists have no idea how the universe got there in the first place.

You are full of garbage yog yet you keep on argue with people that at least use logic in their thinking.  

Your irrational opinion is noted. I also note that despite the bold claims in your last post about what math and so on show about god, you haven't bothered to present any of that evidence. Put up or shut up. This thread is not about what atheists believe, it's all about you and your claims that you have evidence of god, karma, and reincarnation. Pony up or admit defeat.

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.

Getting lost once again yog?  

Being aware about 1% of God nature doesn't mean that your NDE is only 1% accurate.

No, but the evidence from NDEs as well as your prior claims do mean that.

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?

 


It is a punishment according karma laws but is not if that imply to change body in order to evolve.
Clearly you should have understood that my reply imply the topic of karma.

I really could give a shit about what you believe to be the laws of karma, so far you haven't shown that there even are any.

And even if it were a punishment, how do you know that God is not a sadist?

A teacher fail those students that haven't learn the lesson.
This has absolutely nothing to do with being a sadist.
The karma law does the same so God has nothing to do with sadism.    

More analogies you can't substantiate and assertions you can't justify. You say God is like a teacher, I say that God is like a BDSM Dominatrix. Your asserting that God is like this or that is not evidence that God is like this or that, it is only your opinion that he is. Opinions are like assholes, everone's got one. And your opinion that "karma law" is like that is equally summarily dismissed.

Do you have any actual evidence for your opinions or is this going to become a game where you assert things without evidence and I dismiss them for lack of evidence? Ten days ago you claimed that NDEs "obviously" entail reincarnation, and what has followed is your complete inability to provide evidence for reincarnation that unambiguously entails reincarnation. You're not making any headway at all and seem content to tread water, addressing irrelevant side issues and digression to the omission of any actual evidence.

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.

 
True but that involve changing body in order to evolve which has nothing to do with the topic.

Whatever that means. Regardless, QED.

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.

More blah, blah, blah.
Bring an example or SU.

I already have. That you're a deluded twat who mistakenly believes that he is not under the influence of dogma is not a secret that you've managed to keep under your hat.

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.

The God of yoga is also yogini God.
Unfortunately you have put your strong free will in between you and God which make impossible for you to perceive Him.    

And you know what my free will has done by what method? That I disagree with you about the nature of reality is not evidence that my free will has handicapped my perception in any way. Your claim is entirely dependent upon your being correct in your beliefs about what reality actually is, and we have no indication that this is the case. Quite the contrary, despite my patient tutelage and interrogation, you haven't managed to provide any clear evidence of your beliefs about reincarnation and karma. As cornerstones of your belief, that doesn't bode well for the rest of your beliefs.

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?

Without order and justice the system would collapse.
In every country there is the police and a justice system.
Why?
You are so gullible that you never ask yourself why.
If a system of justice wouldn't be there there would be total chaos.
The universe follow the same system that is why it last and last and will last possibly for ever.

Even if I accepted your analogy at face value, that doesn't entail that a God for whom the universe is a mental projection is the only way to achieve order. There are primitive Indians in the Amazon who have no system of law and justice, yet they seem to manage fine without descending into chaos. This is accomplished largely through habit and convention. If the universe has such habits and convention in the form of natural laws, then the imposition of a universal law giver is not needed.

Regardless, the universe isn't necessarily like a country which needs laws and such to maintain order, and the chaos which results from the lack of them is a social and moral chaos, not a literal one. You have no evidence that we do not exist in a universe in which "moral chaos" is the reality; you only want the universe to demonstrate a moral order. Your desire for justice does not demonstrate that universal justice exists. So your analogy is more a wish on your part than anything. Your beliefs about what would result in a universe without justice are unfounded. Chaos, in the sense of randomness, is not a natural consequence of a universe without moral order.

Again, you're falling off the path in your attempt to prove karma and reincarnation.