The Problem with Atheists

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 372
Topic's author
#301
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
Now we know you're lying, that claim would demand you have read every single post of Et, here and ddo.
And yet another ad hominem attack coupled with an appeal to ignorance.

I will reiterate, regardless of what a person posts, only the individual themself can either confirm or deny their personal motivations.

I would like to think that you of all people would be able to understand the difference between quanta and qualia.

#302
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
I study spirituality as a whole so he is just trying to sabotage my discussions

You have promoted the ECK cult on many occasions despite the fact you were shown the cult has destroyed many lives, yet you continued to promote it. How is that not recruiting for your cult?

My foundation is the Gospels of Jesus
We've been down that road before many times and it would found that your beliefs; God worlds, Karma, Jesus and all the other nonsense you parade around these forums aligns almost perfectly with that cult. I encourage anyone to find out for themselves.


#303
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
And yet another ad hominem attack coupled with an appeal to ignorance.
No, you were just caught in a lie. Own up to it.

#304
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I would like to think that you of all people would be able to understand the difference between quanta and qualia.
Lol. One thing I certainly understand is when someone with poor reading comprehension skills pretends to act intelligent.
#305
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
Is the ego a lie?

Is ego  an illusion?

Does ego have limited degrees of freedom?

Is ego representative of the most degrees of freedom?

Why is ego associated with humans?

#306
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
What experiences?
Spiritual type/based experiences......encounters with spiritual beings, spiritual visions and observation from applying spiritual principles and practices and what those results produce.

How do you determine that any look beyond the physical gleans accurate results, rather than just imaginings produced by the brain? The ability to be able to determine such a difference is the crux of this entire discussion. It's why I ask how things would be different if the brain produced consciousness. If we can verify that the states would produce different results and then determine which result actually is, then we'd have reason to believe one over the other. So far you've presented nothing that does that.

Number one, consciousness (the soul) can be experienced outside the physical body literally, not figuratively....outside meaning outside the brain and away from the material body. You see this evidence with NDE's and spiritual experiences, it's the same every single time.....the soul is capable of leaving the body after brain death and there is a show series that has documented cases after case of NDE's with up to an hour or more after brain death. All these testimonies of people can tell you exactly what was happening and what people were saying while they are far away from their physical body and brain, physical eyes shut, no responses. Your consciousness, if it were produced by the brain, would be impossible to be away and travel from the body. However the soul can travel freely outside the body and it has been shown for thousands of years and I can show you how this works and why people have spiritual encounters. There is a science to spirituality and the soul and it fits perfectly with what we see and the extent of human experiences so there is no real reason to keep opposing it for an inferior belief.

In spirituality it's much like a deep self reflection/evaluation and cultivation and often times more than not it does not reflect what the applicants mind and brain normally produce, part of the process of spirituality is learning and observing the difference between the actual conscious soul and the physical perceptions and material body and they produce different things entirely, and that is because a spiritual reality exists outside the physical perceptions and is not dependent on our human bodies, brains or mind. There are actual realities that exist at a different frequency and vibration of energies than we perceive in human form and the bodies that correlate with these realms are called subtle bodies or spirit body. They exist at a much higher and finer vibration than the sluggish, heavy physical body but your actual consciousness and where it originated is both formless and pure conscious awareness and so you have these coverings to confine your experience to any particular universe. You believe it's this universe and that brain of yours is why you exist as a conscious being, lol it's a dirty trick but it's like this for a reason so that you can experience life anew as many times as you wish. But hen you die you're consciousness will pull away from the physical body like a suction and at that point you will know indefinitely but most people aren't aware that they don't have to wait to have experiences that transcend the body. This is what spirituality is for and why it exists.
If the brain alone produced consciousness then I believe/know that it would then be impossible that a soul or our conscious being (I call observer) could travel outside the brain and see outside our material form. And I'm not talking about dreaming or anything like that, I mean more real than what you think is real when you look outside your physical eyes. In practice you can pull your consciousness back away from the mind, body or brain literally and observe from that point of view. This observation point is nothing like would you are limited to looking out of eyes or what you perceive by the brain, it's a much larger 360 degree view point and that is because the soul is formless, it's simply aware and has no extremities and likewise the same with the Creator who is omnipresent.
What it comes down to for me, is like I already said.....I'm looking at all sides of the equation and one theory is simply superior to the other and accounts for much more of what we can observe, so I'm not going to limit myself and believe something that is a misconception. Right now, there's nothing I can "prove" to you, you will have to listen and consider what I'm saying and if it makes sense to you, there's no way I can answer that question in a way that would change your mind I can only explain how consciousness operates and what the soul is at a much deeper level than the brain. As I said, the brain itself is no more than a component on a circuit board and the only real way I can get you to understand that the brain does not produce you as a conscious being is to articulate what it is and the nature of it and I compare it to energy and electricity and this is actually pretty accurate and just like both of those they can take form or enter form and they can both exit those forms, in other words they can exist independently of any form or machinery. Again, you have to have a starting point somewhere where you allow yourself to consider spiritual sources, until you begin to have your own experiences, like learning something new that makes more sense and has more knowledge and understanding. Don't forget that conscious and the nature of it are open questions in science but they are fully understood in spirituality. So there really is no need to hold onto a fractured idea that the brain creates what you actually are. I can explain how things work but at some point you will have to give the benefit of the doubt that I know what I'm saying. You don't have to accept anything of course, but this should be about getting you to consider something and then you have something to work off of.


Topic's author
#307
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
Lol. One thing I certainly understand is when someone with poor reading comprehension skills pretends to act intelligent.
Yet another predictable personal attack from Goldtop.

#308
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah I'm going to ask about the problem, I don't want this old man following me around making false claims and slandering me for another 5 years. Hopefully we won't have to worry about it for long. This place doesn't need that kind of trashy behavior. I ignore em 99% of the time, but it looks like old habits die hard, telling other members lies about me, real mature.
#309
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Supposition, why do you assert the mind wouldn't be able to observe itself?

The mind is useless without an observer, it's not a being but a tool, a "place" and nothing more than a storage area really. It's not the mind observing itself it's YOU observing the mind that is a big difference so you will have to lean towards common sense, if the mind is not a being then it can't produce you, rather you are looking through the mind which is another subtle layer over your soul, it's like your own little dark room lol, but again it's just a room not an entity. The mind produces thoughts and categorizes things based on emotions…..it's much like a library where you can enter and you can exit, you are not the mind you are observing what the mind produces not the other way around. I'll get to these inquiries one at a time if ya don't mind, that way we don't run out of writing space.

#310
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
The question is simple. I am asking you to consider the alternative position (the key to open-mindedness I think), if the brain produced the consciousness how would what we observe be different? When you answer include how you can know this answer is correct. If you cannot know that there would be a difference, then assuming either position is true seems pointless and counter-productive to learning truth.
You don't have to get me to consider I've already said I look at all sides, examine all claims. I'm presenting you with an extension, or an alternative, there is no alternative you can give me or present me I'm already aware of it and reject it based on many things. Now, It's up to you whether or not you think my explanations and answers are worth looking into....or not. But I challenge you to remain open about this alternative and just consider it like I consider all sides. I've given you enough information for you to consider and I believe I've answered that question above so I'll let you reply on it. On another note we don't need to assume anything, because I can show you the science behind this, this is not some assumption it's based on observation and experience and a time tested wealth of knowledge.
The difference as I explained in the other post is that consciousness cannot be experienced away from the brain or the body if it were produced by the brain.That's pretty much commonsense, your experience would be confined to only your brain and there would be no conscious experience away from it....but human experience and as well as my own dictate that it is certainly true that consciousness is not produced by the brain OR the mind. There is no real reason for me to reject my own observations and logic when all things line up and fit together, that would be defeating the purpose of finding truth in all facets of it so there is nothing I'll present that is counter-productive.

#311
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Yet how does it show its answers are correct? What are the means of verification? Again how would things be different if the consciousness were the product of the brain? Also, what can you observe that transcends the physical? How do you observe it? Honestly, you seem to be either avoiding or unable to answer my questions. I've asked what your observations are, how you verify that your observations are accurate and why they would require your worldview to be true to occur, so far you haven't answered any of these questions.

That's because you haven't let me respond to those questions lol, I just posted some answers a little bit ago, goodness at least wait for me to explain somethin!! you've asked me some of these multiple times before I had time to respond to them individually. I've answered three of the above questions in another post so I'll focus on the ones that are new.

Yet how does it show its answers are correct?

I actually answered this when I mentioned cross referencing. It's also observation and experience, how does that NOT show the answers are correct. You seem to be under the impression this is all just an assumption and I've made it clear it is not.

 What are the means of verification?

Well certainly not a science experiment in a lab that is for sure, so again this is personal observation and cross-referencing which gives it strength. Spirituality is repeatable as a practice, that's because it's an actual reality that exits and can be learned from. Personally, I verify my own experiences with other sources and references and this is about the extent of what can be done with the nature of it....being "outside" or away from the physical perception so you have to follow that fact all the way down to what would apply to us and how.

Again how would things be different if the consciousness were the product of the brain?

This one I answered, it's commonsense. There would be no experience outside the physical brain and body, period.

Also, what can you observe that transcends the physical?

Many things because it's an incredibly diverse reality/realities. People, places, things or any facts pertaining to it....all the things you would observe or could observe in the physical only spirituality must be cultivated you just can't look around with your physical eyes and expect to manifest anything. You have to awaken that part of yourself through participation, nevertheless anything within the God-worlds or multiverse can be experienced, but this would be called soul travel and you have to learn how to operate outside the body. But other than that your soul will pull back to the very first reality that is beyond this one when you leave the physical body, that universe is called the astral plane. There are multiple planes or multiverses that can be experienced depending on the individual.

 How do you observe it?

It depends on what it is you want to observe or learn. There are spiritual principles that can be applied to the self, spiritual practices that you can do to help loosen the grip of your focus on squarely the physical perception. Basically you can move your attention or awareness away from your body and observe from another point of observation but the point is for you to get involved and learn from it. Since your soul has layers that cover it called subtle bodies or spirit body you are able to observe or experience through any one of those layers just like you observe through the physical layer currently.....these "layers" correlate with an existing plane or universe which exist parallel to this one. So as you leave each layer you experience with the correlating world and the first layer outside this one would be what most people pull back to which is the astral but this is only the first layer…..this is how people have spiritual experiences and why they have NDE's ect ect….because the soul can literally leave the body at any time either through death or through practice regardless of beliefs.



#312
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Mdh2000

Also ultimte can mean last in a series. In which 'God' becomes the last reality rather than the 'realiest'. This is one reason the definition seems meaningless, the other is that we've no way of knowing there are multiple degrees of reality, which means ultimate reality is pretty meaningless as a definition. It presents no traits or concepts beyond the idea that it is real (it isn't even that clear on if it's the most real or simply last in a series of real things), at least the definition: 

Yet God is not simply the last, but The First, The Last, and The Inbetween. So no, I am giving you the proper definition, the realest reality. 


1(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Gives clear traits.

The Supreme Being, which by the way means the same as Ultimate Reality if understood correctly(thats a hint), certainly is the creater and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. The hardest one here to grasp might be moral authority, but that is because people don't see that moral authority comes from truth, not personal whim.


And yes, this is how the monotheist God is understood. The Supreme Being, that is, The Ultimate Reality. Highest Existence.

And every single one of your superstitions concerning God that you have expressed melts away in realizing the identity of God. That might also be a hard one to grasp where here in recent times self declaration is seen as proof of identity. God realliy Is what God Is. The Ultimate Reality.

#313
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I will reiterate, regardless of what a person posts, only the individual themself can either confirm or deny their personal motivations.

That would be a false claim as it would demand you've read every single ET post, here and on ddo. My evidence above stands, if you've read every post then you can easily see how it aligns with the very cult ET has promoted. This is a very dangerous cult, and while ET is free to preach his beliefs and promote the cult, everyone else is free to expose it and it's adherents for the harm the cult has caused to many people.

You can see her his behavior regarding the cult and the evidence provided above in those links, ET certainly ignores the exposure of the cult but you can his reaction when it is exposed.

... this old man ... that kind of trashy behavior. I ignore em 99% of the time...
Not sure what you're defending him and his cult?
#314
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
I explained in the other post is that consciousness cannot be experienced away from the brain or the body if it were produced by the brain.That's pretty much commonsense, your experience would be confined to only your brain and there would be no conscious experience away from it....but human experience and as well as my own dictate that it is certainly true that consciousness is not produced by the brain OR the mind.
That is entirely false, human experience has never shown consciousness outside of the brain, that is what YOU dictate. Since you've claimed your experiences include visiting God Worlds and talking with Spiritual Beings and Overlords there, it's not very likely your claim of consciousness is not produced by the brain or mind has any merit.

Topic's author
#315
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
The links you posted have absolutely nothing to do with EtrnlVw.

Your demand that anyone "read every single post" is clearly an appeal to ignorance (typically identified by, "you can't prove me wrong so I must be right" which is also a burden-of-proof-fallacy).

For example, anyone might say, hypothetically, "Goldtop is a troll.  Just go back and read all of their posts and you'll certainly agree." such a statement would be an example of an ad hominem attack and an appeal to ignorance as well.  At which point someone might ask you, "Goldtop, are you a troll?" to which you may answer "no", and seeing as the definition of "troll" relies implicitly on one's internal motives, it would be practically impossible to prove you wrong since you are the only person who has virtually unfettered access to your personal internal motives.
#316
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac
Yet God is not simply the last, but The First, The Last, and The Inbetween. So no, I am giving you the proper definition, the realest reality. 
So a trait of 'God' or the 'ultimate reality' is that it predates this universe? Or that it is this universe (and that this universe is the Ultimate Reality and the first reality to ever exist)? Either way can you in any way show that it's actually the 'ultimate reality'? Or is this just supposition on your part? A meaningless definition that gives no traits or meaningful definition to the term 'god'. Can you show any means by which we can determine anything is the 'ultimate reality'? If not then this definition is pointless, where as the definition I gave offers a list of traits possessed by any entity that would fit the definition of 'god'.

The Supreme Being, which by the way means the same as Ultimate Reality if understood correctly(thats a hint), certainly is the creater and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. The hardest one here to grasp might be moral authority, but that is because people don't see that moral authority comes from truth, not personal whim.
Then you can demonstrate the universe has or necessitates a creator? Or is this simply supposition?

And yes, this is how the monotheist God is understood. The Supreme Being, that is, The Ultimate Reality. Highest Existence.

And every single one of your superstitions concerning God that you have expressed melts away in realizing the identity of God. That might also be a hard one to grasp where here in recent times self declaration is seen as proof of identity. God realliy Is what God Is. The Ultimate Reality.
What superstitions would they be? You are making assertions such as there being a reality beyond the reality we observe and that the universe was the product of an intelligent design, can you show either of these to be true. By your definition, pantheism is the most logical religious view, I see very few arguments against the existence of this universe, it is the only reality I'm aware of that has evidence for its existence, it is the best contender for 'God' by the definition of 'God'=Ultimate reality.
#317
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Spiritual type/based experiences......encounters with spiritual beings, spiritual visions and observation from applying spiritual principles and practices and what those results produce.
Care to elaborate? What were these experiences? How did you come to have them? How did you verify that they weren't the product of your brain?

Number one, consciousness (the soul) can be experienced outside the physical body literally, not figuratively....outside meaning outside the brain and away from the material body. You see this evidence with NDE's and spiritual experiences, it's the same every single time.....the soul is capable of leaving the body after brain death and there is a show series that has documented cases after case of NDE's with up to an hour or more after brain death. All these testimonies of people can tell you exactly what was happening and what people were saying while they are far away from their physical body and brain, physical eyes shut, no responses.
I take it you mean Persistent Vegetative States rather than brain death. There's a big difference for our purposes and to my knowledge no one has come back from brain death? The difference is that with brain death there is no brain activity at all. If there's any brain activity at all then it's not brain death. Can you point to any case of a brain being confirmed as having no activity and then regaining activity? I'm curious as to details on the testimonials and how close to the time of the event they were taken? I'm also curious as to how we go about verifying the integrity of these testimonials (I've read pyramid scheme websites after all)?
 
Your consciousness, if it were produced by the brain, would be impossible to be away and travel from the body. However the soul can travel freely outside the body and it has been shown for thousands of years and I can show you how this works and why people have spiritual encounters. There is a science to spirituality and the soul and it fits perfectly with what we see and the extent of human experiences so there is no real reason to keep opposing it for an inferior belief.
NDE's are argued to be a product of specific brain activity while it shuts down. I'm curious why you dismiss this as a valid explanation for the experience? As for OBE's can you point me to some that couldn't simply be the product of the brain (I'd say they'd need to be able to demonstrate real time knowledge of things happening beyond their sensory range to start)?

In spirituality it's much like a deep self reflection/evaluation and cultivation and often times more than not it does not reflect what the applicants mind and brain normally produce, part of the process of spirituality is learning and observing the difference between the actual conscious soul and the physical perceptions and material body and they produce different things entirely, and that is because a spiritual reality exists outside the physical perceptions and is not dependent on our human bodies, brains or mind. There are actual realities that exist at a different frequency and vibration of energies than we perceive in human form and the bodies that correlate with these realms are called subtle bodies or spirit body. They exist at a much higher and finer vibration than the sluggish, heavy physical body but your actual consciousness and where it originated is both formless and pure conscious awareness and so you have these coverings to confine your experience to any particular universe. You believe it's this universe and that brain of yours is why you exist as a conscious being, lol it's a dirty trick but it's like this for a reason so that you can experience life anew as many times as you wish.
How do you verify the highlighted?

But hen you die you're consciousness will pull away from the physical body like a suction and at that point you will know indefinitely but most people aren't aware that they don't have to wait to have experiences that transcend the body. This is what spirituality is for and why it exists.
If the brain alone produced consciousness then I believe/know that it would then be impossible that a soul or our conscious being (I call observer) could travel outside the brain and see outside our material form. And I'm not talking about dreaming or anything like that, I mean more real than what you think is real when you look outside your physical eyes. In practice you can pull your consciousness back away from the mind, body or brain literally and observe from that point of view. This observation point is nothing like would you are limited to looking out of eyes or what you perceive by the brain, it's a much larger 360 degree view point and that is because the soul is formless, it's simply aware and has no extremities and likewise the same with the Creator who is omnipresent.
Can you present means of verifying any of this? You speak of 'more real than real' yet why does this preclude it being the product of the brain? If the brain creates our consciousness it would also determine how and what we perceive as reality.


#318
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
What it comes down to for me, is like I already said.....I'm looking at all sides of the equation and one theory is simply superior to the other and accounts for much more of what we can observe, so I'm not going to limit myself and believe something that is a misconception. Right now, there's nothing I can "prove" to you, you will have to listen and consider what I'm saying and if it makes sense to you, there's no way I can answer that question in a way that would change your mind I can only explain how consciousness operates and what the soul is at a much deeper level than the brain. As I said, the brain itself is no more than a component on a circuit board and the only real way I can get you to understand that the brain does not produce you as a conscious being is to articulate what it is and the nature of it and I compare it to energy and electricity and this is actually pretty accurate and just like both of those they can take form or enter form and they can both exit those forms, in other words they can exist independently of any form or machinery. Again, you have to have a starting point somewhere where you allow yourself to consider spiritual sources, until you begin to have your own experiences, like learning something new that makes more sense and has more knowledge and understanding. Don't forget that conscious and the nature of it are open questions in science but they are fully understood in spirituality. So there really is no need to hold onto a fractured idea that the brain creates what you actually are. I can explain how things work but at some point you will have to give the benefit of the doubt that I know what I'm saying. You don't have to accept anything of course, but this should be about getting you to consider something and then you have something to work off of

Ok, the highlighted section is the crux here. You keep refusing to discuss this matter, but it really is the central point of this whole discussion, I fear we will get nowhere until you address it directly. Why is the consciousness existing independently of the brain more likely, or a better explanation of what we observe than the brain producing consciousness? I'm not debating if people have NDE's or OBE's I'm questioning their source. What makes the consciousness being separate from the brain more valid than the brain producing the consciousness?

For example, how do you show that your consciousness traveling to another realm is more valid than your brain simply creating the experience? This whole discussion is about getting the heart of that question. Once we can do that, then we'll begin to make headway, if you can't/haven't done that, then you're simply picking your position based on biased and I will remain unconvinced.
#319
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw


You don't have to get me to consider I've already said I look at all sides, examine all claims. I'm presenting you with an extension, or an alternative, there is no alternative you can give me or present me I'm already aware of it and reject it based on many things. Now, It's up to you whether or not you think my explanations and answers are worth looking into....or not. But I challenge you to remain open about this alternative and just consider it like I consider all sides. I've given you enough information for you to consider and I believe I've answered that question above so I'll let you reply on it. On another note we don't need to assume anything, because I can show you the science behind this, this is not some assumption it's based on observation and experience and a time tested wealth of knowledge. 
Now we get again to something that smacks of hubris. You claim to have considered all sides, yet you repeatedly discard alternative views without ever once explaining why you discard them. So I will ask again. If the brain produced the consciousness what different results could we expect to see and why? In short, what differences would occur if your position were true, to if the materialists position were true? This is an important question as it allows a means of verification.

The difference as I explained in the other post is that consciousness cannot be experienced away from the brain or the body if it were produced by the brain.That's pretty much commonsense, your experience would be confined to only your brain and there would be no conscious experience away from it....but human experience and as well as my own dictate that it is certainly true that consciousness is not produced by the brain OR the mind. There is no real reason for me to reject my own observations and logic when all things line up and fit together, that would be defeating the purpose of finding truth in all facets of it so there is nothing I'll present that is counter-productive.

When you say 'away from the body' what exactly do you mean? Where do these experiences take place and can you verify that they were actual places and not constructs of your mind?

#320
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
I actually answered this when I mentioned cross referencing. It's also observation and experience, how does that NOT show the answers are correct. You seem to be under the impression this is all just an assumption and I've made it clear it is not.
The issue here is that cross referencing with others offers little verification in this case, it could just be showing a degree of uniformity in the brain. Certain parts of be brain activate we experience similar things. Two models, two explanations how do you determine which is accurate?

Well certainly not a science experiment in a lab that is for sure, so again this is personal observation and cross-referencing which gives it strength. Spirituality is repeatable as a practice, that's because it's an actual reality that exits and can be learned from. Personally, I verify my own experiences with other sources and references and this is about the extent of what can be done with the nature of it....being "outside" or away from the physical perception so you have to follow that fact all the way down to what would apply to us and how.
Why not scientific equipment in the lab? It can show what is happening in the brain, which is useful after all. Again, how do you verify these experiences aren't products of the brain? It is certainly interesting that our experiences match, but then NDE's also have a surprising amount of variation. Ultimately it could be argued that the similarities stem from the similarities in the form and function of the human brain, while the differences stem from those factors that make one a unique personality, why isn't this a valid argument?

This one I answered, it's commonsense. There would be no experience outside the physical brain and body, period.
But it could certainly seem like the was couldn't it? The brain could certainly send signals telling us that we're experiencing something outside the body/brain couldn't it? How can we verify that this isn't the case?

Many things because it's an incredibly diverse reality/realities. People, places, things or any facts pertaining to it....all the things you would observe or could observe in the physical only spirituality must be cultivated you just can't look around with your physical eyes and expect to manifest anything. You have to awaken that part of yourself through participation, nevertheless anything within the God-worlds or multiverse can be experienced, but this would be called soul travel and you have to learn how to operate outside the body. But other than that your soul will pull back to the very first reality that is beyond this one when you leave the physical body, that universe is called the astral plane. There are multiple planes or multiverses that can be experienced depending on the individual.
What are your means of being certain this isn't constructed by the brain?

It depends on what it is you want to observe or learn. There are spiritual principles that can be applied to the self, spiritual practices that you can do to help loosen the grip of your focus on squarely the physical perception. Basically you can move your attention or awareness away from your body and observe from another point of observation but the point is for you to get involved and learn from it. Since your soul has layers that cover it called subtle bodies or spirit body you are able to observe or experience through any one of those layers just like you observe through the physical layer currently.....these "layers" correlate with an existing plane or universe which exist parallel to this one. So as you leave each layer you experience with the correlating world and the first layer outside this one would be what most people pull back to which is the astral but this is only the first layer…..this is how people have spiritual experiences and why they have NDE's ect ect….because the soul can literally leave the body at any time either through death or through practice regardless of beliefs.

Not to flog a dead horse, but why couldn't any of this be simply a construct of the brain? You don't seem to offer any form of verification other than cross referencing with others experience, which doesn't seem to show the brain can't be responsible.
#321
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Mdh2000
The Ultimate Reality is God. That is what it God means.


The Universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"

While the concept of "God" is a postulation, what it actually means is not something that is contingent on observation or postulation. Observation and postulation is contingent on it. If The Ultimate Reality is part of the universe, then it really isn't The Ultimate Reality, the universe would be. If the universe exists, it is because of Ultimate Reality.

Someone who takes the universe as being The Ultimate Reality is a pantheist. I am closer to a panentheist. Even if you take the universe as God, you still believe in God.

As far as me making claims of God being a creator or tgat there is a reality beyond what we observe, I don't see these as controversial. In fact, I find it puzzling that you would find this odd considering that things can be observed coming into being. There is clearly a reality beyond what we observe, as there are things we are not observing that exist.

Maybe you have a superstitious conception about what these things mean, because they very naturally come from what Ultimate Reality means.





#322
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Lets consolidate this to one thread since all the same questions are being asked and answered over and over. I'll meet you in the other thread as all these things you keep asking have been covered. If there is anything here I did not cover in the other thread just bring it up specifically and I'll answer it. Perhaps you could pick your very best inquiries in one post and we can go from there, as of now we have many posts all involving the same content. I'd rather stick with one inquiry until you are content with the answer. So let me know in the other thread which of these things you want to cover and finalize. So far, you have repeated the same things I've answered. The brain producing things outside itself has been thoroughly covered, you haven't accepted the answer as of yet. How can consciousness experience anything outside the body and brain even after brain death if our experience is confined to the brain? anyways you can deal with this in the other thread where I supplied a legit show series which shows this accurately. Documented cases and correlating medical facts. 
#323
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
The Ultimate Reality is God. That is what it God means.
A semantic argument as I've already said. By that definition whatever is most real is god.

The Universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"
You can demonstrate there is something real other than the universe? If we can't observe it, can't demonstrate its existence, then how can we claim it is the ultimate reality. I would point out that if you determine God=Ultimate Reality, then you need to do two things. You need to prove that something is the 'most real' can you give a means by which we can grade reality? Then you can get to work of demonstrating that such a 'most real' thing exists. Until then you've simply got another claim (that there is one thing more real than any other) can you substatiate this?

Someone who takes the universe as being The Ultimate Reality is a pantheist. I am closer to a panentheist. Even if you take the universe as God, you still believe in God.
True, though that is at most a semantic victory. You can twist definitions until anything can fit the definition of god. I would still only believe in the universe. If you started defining god as:

an implement for writing, drawing, or marking consisting of or containing a slender cylinder or strip of a solid marking substance

 I might start calling pencils God, they'd still just be pencils.

As far as me making claims of God being a creator or tgat there is a reality beyond what we observe, I don't see these as controversial. In fact, I find it puzzling that you would find this odd considering that things can be observed coming into being. There is clearly a reality beyond what we observe, as there are things we are not observing that exist.
What do you mean by things we observe coming into being?


Maybe you have a superstitious conception about what these things mean, because they very naturally come from what Ultimate Reality means.
As stated above, you still have to demonstrate that there is an 'ultimate reality' one single thing that is more real than anything else. You have supposed this, but can you prove it? Then you need to show a means we can verify what this ultimate reality is and what traits it possesses. Let's try and move passed supposition and semantics, they prove nothing I fear.
#324
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
The problem with atheist and theist refusal to follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

This stems from ego based fears of loosing their ego.

Is the ego a lie?

Is ego  an illusion?

Does ego have limited degrees of freedom?

Is ego representative of the most degrees of freedom?

Why is ego associated with humans?

When egos disintegrate are their resultant quanta?


#325
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Much like definitions for God, how you define and apply those terms (not infinite, the other two) I think determines whether such logically exists.

Topic's author
#326
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FaustianJustice
Much like definitions for God, how you define and apply those terms (not infinite, the other two) I think determines whether such logically exists.
Do you know of any logically coherent definitions of either "free will" or "objective reality"?

I only know of one logically coherent definition of "god" and that would be from Spinoza's Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata.
#327
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Free will is simply the capacity to have the will to choose freely. Objective reality is the collection of things that we are sure exist independently of us. Every person is able, in principle, to verify every aspect of it and anything that cannot be verified in this way is not part of it. Simple really.
Topic's author
#328
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Is it possible to make a decision (freely) without being influenced by previous events?

Is it possible to verify the existence of something independent of (without) (subjective) human observation?
#329
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, to the first. The second is a false premise, that is, unless you can prove verification by humans is subjective.

You'll then need to prove the Periodic Table, for example, is based on subjectivity.

Topic's author
#330
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
If someone made a decision (freely) without being influenced by previous events, how would that action be qualitatively distinct from a random event?

If a person took an action that was completely out of context (non-contextual, independent of context), and had no intent or goal, and was not related in any way to their training and experience or biological instincts, it would seem that such an action would qualify as a random event.

A random event is not something we would commonly understand as a "willful choice".

Did humans codify the Periodic Table?  If there were no humans, there would be no Periodic Table.

Does the Periodic Table exist because humans find it (subjectively) useful?  Does a chemist find the Periodic Table more (subjectively) interesting than most other people?  Is the Periodic Table understood and valued identically by all people at all times?

Human experience is fundamentally subjective.  Humans can only experience a very limited number of things at once and have a limited memory capacity and lifespan.  This creates an inescapable sample bias.  This sample bias is incompatible with the concept of objectivity as it is commonly understood (free from bias).

In order to be considered truly objective, a being, like Laplace's demon, would have to exist that had all possible knowledge and perfect memory and could examine all possible facets and implications of all possible objects and concepts simultaneously in order to eradicate any sample bias.