This man died...and returned..Heaven and Hell are real
-
Peace JK
Peace "fashli",
If the guy is a Christian and has their understandings ingrained in his brain then this is no suprise. NDE have shown that the brain switches to plesant scenarios, OF WHATEVER IT HAS STORED, and the person then experiences that. This all depends on what the person has experiences.I agree with you on this statement.
It never happened that a person coming back from an near death experience ever brought an externally verifiable proof such as stating that comet x would cross earth at such and such degree angle or that an earthquake of the order of 5.7 would occur in location y, all of which would then be considered real evidence. GOD Bless!
But i beg to differ on this. Since a person had experienced the that kind of unknown feeling in his NDE. Why would he want to find any evidence like future prophecies/events that could prove he is right? From that man words, it clearly shows that he is awed by what he sees. Not skeptic. And really asks for God's mercy since he had saw the truth. So i guess it's natural to ask forgiveness rather than being somewhat arrogant with an intention to tell others that he is right. Remember about what Quran says about worldly desires. If what he sees is heaven, then he would automatically forget or don't care anymore about this worldly desires which includes finding proofs to tell to others. If it was me i would .
In the end i guess it's either to believe that NDE is illusion/imagination or the reality/truth. If you believe the latter surely you'd agree with me. ;D
Peace handshake
-
-
Peace "Fadhli",
For anything to be true you have to present evidence. This is the most important thing of all otherwise everyone is right since Christans, Muslims(hadith followers), jews etc all make similar claims of loving GOD. BUT THOSE ARE JUST THAT, CLAIMS. Yet most of them commit idol worship in one form or another and that is the greatest sin of all. Messengers came with clear proof/evidence(bayaana) which others could compare with the real world and see if it was applicable. This is absolutely necessary otherwise the whole message remains a mere claim and vague.
Anyone can experience similar events under stres, magnetic ressonace, NDE inducing drugs, etc. It does not prove the paranormal at all ince there are perfectly natural explanations for such. To claim however that GOD communicated with one and gave a certain message/info without evidence would be arrogant. Infact thts what charlatans like Uri Geller, Peter Popoff and other frauds do. They all claim to have a direct contact wth GOD and they exploit people thereby. GOD Bless! -
Peace Jonny,
For anything to be true you have to present evidence.
Eyewitness testimony is enough evidence to convict a murderer to death. It's also enough to invoke God's curse according to 1118. So, tell me, if you weren't behind this guy's 'eyes' when he experienced whatever he experienced, how can you say it's not true?
You can argue that it's not proven scientifically - and you would be right. But you can't say it's not true. Unless you have some evidence. Also, please provide some evidence that you're not a figment of my imagination.
Peace,
Tay -
Salaam,
What I found most interesting about this mans experience is what he perceived as hell. in the clip he mentioned hell as being a void of anything or non-existence. This agrees completely with Al Quran when it says that even hell will not exist forever. I read an article, I believe by Edip Yuksel on this subject. I will have to find it again. He said that according to Al Quran hell is not eternal which debnunks the whole burning in hell eternally theory. He also said, which I agree with, that eternal damnation does not fit the concept of a just and fair God, as infinite punishment for a finite existence is not just. However, if hell itself is not eternal than those who are sent their would in the end simply cease to exist.
I find this more just than eternal punishment. If a man commits many large sins, perhaps repeted unforgivable idolatry and is sentenced to hell, invitably he, along with hell will cease to exist. For eternal punishment would be unfair. Further, it would also be unjust to not punish such a man while many others, who have tirelessly lived a righteous life of worshiping God and helping others have done so to avoid such punishment. What would be the purpose of this existence if evil deeds remained unpunished? The righteous would be equal to the evil.
It was also interesting how the man in the video described his feeling of being conscious of possible non-existence. He said that he wouldn't wish that feeling on the most evil person alive. In the end, I believe the most fitting punishment of the most evil people would be non-existence. They wouldn't suffer forever. Their only suffering would be the foreknowledge of later becoming non-existant. How horrible would it be for a conscious being to suddenly be faced with and aware of the impending and utter annialation of his consciousness? However, once his non-existence began, his suffering would cease and it would be as if he never was.
The hypocrites and idolaters will not burn in hell forever but instead simply cease to exist.
Peace and Justice to all
-
It does seem strange. But I think our fear comes from losing consciousness but retaining the sense of time passing.
-
Peace "tay"
Peace Jonny,
Eyewitness testimony is enough evidence to convict a murderer to death. It's also enough to invoke God's curse according to 1118. So, tell me, if you weren't behind this guy's 'eyes' when he experienced whatever he experienced, how can you say it's not true?
JK- NO MAN EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY IS BY NO MEANS ENOUGH. This is exactly the problem. If that were enough than trinity is perhaps also correct as people claim to have witnessed the event. Witnesses can lie or be deluded. ONLY WHEN THEIR STATEMENTS ARE CROSS EXAMINED WITH THE ADDITION OF OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND THOROUGH PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS can one be convicted of a crime. Therefore these complex emotional processes in court through which peole subconsciously reveal themselves to the jury and judge.
You can argue that it's not proven scientifically - and you would be right. But you can't say it's not true. Unless you have some evidence. Also, please provide some evidence that you're not a figment of my imagination.
Peace,
TayJK- Unless something is POSITIVE, proven true, it remains imaginary. Plain and simple. Otherwise you might say everything is true including santa clause and the tooth fairy. Your asking to disprove a -ve. Bro what is wrong with you? GOD Bless!
-
Peace Jonny,
NO MAN EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY IS BY NO MEANS ENOUGH.
Yes, it often is.
If that were enough than trinity is perhaps also correct as people claim to have witnessed the event.
I'm not sure what trinity event you're speaking of.
ONLY WHEN THEIR STATEMENTS ARE CROSS EXAMINED WITH THE ADDITION OF OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND THOROUGH PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS can one be convicted of a crime.
You sure about that? You're also ignoring 1118 - why?
Unless something is POSITIVE, proven true, it remains imaginary. Plain and simple.
You are wrong, plain and simple. If I wrote a poem, and then burned it, does that make the poem imaginary?? That's the point you're missing, Jonny. Just because there's no physical evidence of something does not make it false nor imaginary, it only makes it unproven. You cannot say, with any veracity, that anything is true or false unless you have evidence of it being true or false. No evidence means no conclusion.
Your asking to disprove a -ve. Bro what is wrong with you?
No, I wasn't. Let's try it again. Prove to me that you exist. That's positive, right?
Peace,
Tay -
Peace "tay",
Peace Jonny,
Yes, it often is.
JK- This maybe the case for backwards or shariah courts but is rationally unacceptable.
I'm not sure what trinity event you're speaking of.
JK- The father, son and holy ghost, GOD forbid, being three separete, yet essentially the same personifications of GOD.
You sure about that? You're also ignoring 1118 - why?
JK- Did you forget to read the previous verse
As for those who are given solid/clear proof(bayyinah) from their Lord, reported by a witness from Him, and before it, ...You are wrong, plain and simple. If I wrote a poem, and then burned it, does that make the poem imaginary?? That's the point you're missing, Jonny. Just because there's no physical evidence of something does not make it false nor imaginary, it only makes it unproven. You cannot say, with any veracity, that anything is true or false unless you have evidence of it being true or false. No evidence means no conclusion.
JK- 1736 makes it clear that we dont pusue things for which there is no evidence. Ofcourse ultimately everything inevitably exists in one universe or another beucase of the never ending chain of causality and hence the ongoing evolution but universes other than ours WOULD BE DEEMED AS IMAGINARY FROM OUR POINT OF REFERENCE. But i believe this is a bit too difficult to understand right now. The important point is that anything unproven should not be pursued and never be considered real unless proven. It can stay as a claim or hypothesis yes but that does not mean one should delve into it too much and waste time with it unless theres evidence.
No, I wasn't. Let's try it again. Prove to me that you exist. That's positive, right?
Peace,
TayJK- My existence can be shown by the fact of analysing my writing style and then comparing if other humans write similar. If an aceptable pattern emerges, you can consider im human. If my writing pattern could be traced back to a computer then well id be a computer writing. GOD Bless!
-
Peace bro JK,
JK- 1736 makes it clear that we dont pusue things for which there is no evidence. Ofcourse ultimately everything inevitably exists in one universe or another beucase of the never ending chain of causality and hence the ongoing evolution but universes other than ours WOULD BE DEEMED AS IMAGINARY FROM OUR POINT OF REFERENCE. But i believe this is a bit too difficult to understand right now. The important point is that anything unproven should not be pursued and never be considered real unless proven. It can stay as a claim or hypothesis yes but that does not mean one should delve into it too much and waste time with it unless theres evidence.
Seems like you define real evidence as physical huh? Think about this. Even God didn't show physical heaven/hell to us. Unless you've seen and touched one? I'm sure you don't. Also you can't prove physical real evidence that Quran comes from Prophet Muhammad's mouth right? What you can only show is only his companions writings which they say preserved for generations. Which IMHO is not solid evidence. If you believed Quran is preserved by God. Show me the solid evidence. I don't think you can't. It's just the matter of believing and rejecting that it is from God IMHO. So God is just a hypothesis for you then. Good for you. pr
For me i don't want to delve too much (thank you JK for reminding), I might got strayed or forget the main purpose because of literally focusing too much on one thing (Quran included). But i believe in His mercy. And that mercy and love is still ongoing, continuous. Just waiting and welcoming for any souls who desires it.
and according to 1118
FM And who is more wicked than one who invents lies about God? They will be displayed before their Lord, and the witnesses will say "These are the ones who lied about their Lord." Alas, God's curse will be upon the wicked.
How do we know that you are not lying when you says, that man is delusional? Of course it can't be proved scientifically because you can't. Did Muhammad proved his revelation is from God from scientific evidence? When i mean scientific it is empirically proven. I think not. They just believed. Like us, we believed because it's the word of God and no scientific evidence is capable to support that.
There is some experiments from youtube related to this thing. I think the journey beyond this physical world is gonna be the next evolution of humankind. A lot of people have been able to do this. Some who is considered as a traveler have been travelling and researching this stuff. The key is to be open minded. No negative thoughts.
For those who is interested check this out
Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment
Virtual out-of-body experience
OBE Experiment
keyword oobe, astral projection, Lucid dream, NDE, ESPPeace n thanks for your replies handshake
-
Peace Jonny,
This maybe the case for backwards or shariah courts but is rationally unacceptable.
Eyewitness testimony is one of the strongest forms of evidence in the justice system. Countless people have been convicted/acquitted because of it. I'm not sure why you're trying to deny this.
The father, son and holy ghost, GOD forbid, being three separete, yet essentially the same personifications of GOD.
Yes, I know that the trinity is, however, you mentioned an event and you said people claimed to witness it. What is this event?
Did you forget to read the previous verse
The subjects are not the same.
JK- 1736 makes it clear that we dont pusue things for which there is no evidence. Ofcourse ultimately everything inevitably exists in one universe or another beucase of the never ending chain of causality and hence the ongoing evolution but universes other than ours WOULD BE DEEMED AS IMAGINARY FROM OUR POINT OF REFERENCE. But i believe this is a bit too difficult to understand right now. The important point is that anything unproven should not be pursued and never be considered real unless proven. It can stay as a claim or hypothesis yes but that does not mean one should delve into it too much and waste time with it unless theres evidence.
This is a far cry from what you said previously
For anything to be true you have to present evidence.I hope you understand the error in this position now.
My existence can be shown by the fact of analysing my writing style and then comparing if other humans write similar. If an aceptable pattern emerges, you can consider im human. If my writing pattern could be traced back to a computer then well id be a computer writing.
Or the whole concept of JonnyK and writing styles and other humans could be a figment of my imagination during my dream. You can't really prove otherwise, can you?
Peace,
Tay -
Peace "tay",
Peace Jonny,
Eyewitness testimony is one of the strongest forms of evidence in the justice system. Countless people have been convicted/acquitted because of it. I'm not sure why you're trying to deny this.
JK- Sorry to disappoint you. Thats not true. I watch court shows very often here in Germany where realistic events are reenacted. What you maybe saying is that eye witnesses and their testimonies are an important part of the judiciary process. I never denied that. They are. BUT without their statements ending up consitently, as theyr questioned one after the other whilst the latter must not listen to the former, or them being too similar as if they had deliebrately planned an accusation, which would constitute as proof, their testimony is NOT accepted and the accused must be released until further evidence supports hisher guilt.
Yes, I know that the trinity is, however, you mentioned an event and you said people claimed to witness it. What is this event?
JK- The event is the rising of Jesus from the cross and then him coming back as a spirit and claiming to be Divine as stated in the book of revealtion in the NT.
The subjects are not the same.
JK- SURE they are related. First the evidence then the witness. They must come together
This is a far cry from what you said previously
For anything to be true you have to present evidence.I hope you understand the error in this position now.
JK- I know what you mean. And ofcourse someone may just utter jibberish or random statements and one of them may turn out to be true. The problem is your taking true in an absolute sense thus shifting the refernce point to someone/something else. However such unknown or unverified truth RELATIVE TO US is not of any use to us at the moment we dont know it. So when i said "true" i meant from OUR i.e. human refernce point. Is this too difficult to understand?
Or the whole concept of JonnyK and writing styles and other humans could be a figment of my imagination during my dream. You can't really prove otherwise, can you?
Peace,
TayJK- This shows youve even failed to understand what proof is. You can with very high probability, BUT YES, NOT with absolute certainty. Proof itself is not an absolute thing. Thats exactly my point and exactly why we can never claim to have the absolute truth. But we can definitely verify things via REPEATED comparison with our perceived external world and hence be satisfied that such and such is so if it does not change during the observation trials. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "fadhli",
Peace bro JK,
Seems like you define real evidence as physical huh? Think about this. Even God didn't show physical heaven/hell to us. Unless you've seen and touched one? I'm sure you don't. Also you can't prove physical real evidence that Quran comes from Prophet Muhammad's mouth right? What you can only show is only his companions writings which they say preserved for generations. Which IMHO is not solid evidence. If you believed Quran is preserved by God. Show me the solid evidence. I don't think you can't. It's just the matter of believing and rejecting that it is from God IMHO. So God is just a hypothesis for you then. Good for you. pr
JK- Oh man. The Quran has solid and tangable mathemtical evidence. Now whether you accept that evidence or not is another issue. I must point out at this stage that not all evidence is acceptable to everyone. This is where atheists often go wrong since they claim that proof should be accepted by everyone but this unfortunately is NOT the case mostly because of preconceived notions within those humans. Otherwise why doesnt everyone accept evolution, the big bang, age of the earth, etc for which theres strong physical proof? Further proof for the Quran is the consitency of its staments with the real world and nothing in it ever been falsified. Regarding heaven and hell theres the "omega point theory" by Frank J. Tipler which you might wanna check out. We can hence trust any yet non externally verified BUT AT THE SAME TIME UNFALSFIED atatemnt within the Quran and infact this is what would IMO lead to exponential development.
For me i don't want to delve too much (thank you JK for reminding), I might got strayed or forget the main purpose because of literally focusing too much on one thing (Quran included). But i believe in His mercy. And that mercy and love is still ongoing, continuous. Just waiting and welcoming for any souls who desires it.
and according to 1118
FM And who is more wicked than one who invents lies about God? They will be displayed before their Lord, and the witnesses will say "These are the ones who lied about their Lord." Alas, God's curse will be upon the wicked.
How do we know that you are not lying when you says, that man is delusional? Of course it can't be proved scientifically because you can't. Did Muhammad proved his revelation is from God from scientific evidence? When i mean scientific it is empirically proven. I think not. They just believed. Like us, we believed because it's the word of God and no scientific evidence is capable to support that.
JK- Ofcourse the message of the Quran had to be verified with the real world. Thats why its called "bayyinah(proof)" and theres a whole chapter named like tht in the Quran. The Quran is full of proofs and falsification tests like when GOD asked the Jews to kill themselves and simulataneously said that they will never do it. Should theyve done it the Message of Muhammad wouldve been falsified at the very instant
Say, "O you who are Jewish, if you claim that you are GOD's chosen, to the exclusion of all other people, then you should long for death if you are truthful!"
They will never long for it, because of what they have committed. GOD is fully aware of the wicked.
I say the man is delusinal because everyone who applied for any sort of paranormal test failed miserably.There is some experiments from youtube related to this thing. I think the journey beyond this physical world is gonna be the next evolution of humankind. A lot of people have been able to do this. Some who is considered as a traveler have been travelling and researching this stuff. The key is to be open minded. No negative thoughts.
JK- NOTE "physical" too is a relative term. Suppose you enter a dream from whch you never wake up. The surrounding stuff would be technically labelled as "physical". We know that ultimately all hysical stuff boils down to quantum fluctuations/vibrations. BUT GOD does not violate His Laws. Everything operates within the laws of nature. There is not gonna be a jouney beyond this physical world in our life. For this our bodies and the entire matter needs to disintegrate into quantum fluctuations. Otherwise one cannot leave this universe.
For those who is interested check this out
Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment
Virtual out-of-body experience
OBE Experiment
keyword oobe, astral projection, Lucid dream, NDE, ESPPeace n thanks for your replies handshake
JK- Thanks for the links but did you see http//youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0 ? GOD Bless!
-
Peace Jonny,
Sorry to disappoint you. Thats not true. I watch court shows very often here in Germany where realistic events are reenacted. What you maybe saying is that eye witnesses and their testimonies are an important part of the judiciary process. I never denied that. They are. BUT without their statements ending up consitently, as theyr questioned one after the other whilst the latter must not listen to the former, or them being too similar as if they had deliebrately planned an accusation, which would constitute as proof, their testimony is NOT accepted and the accused must be released until further evidence supports hisher guilt.
It seems you're disagreeing just to say you disagree, when in fact you agree. What's up with that?
The event is the rising of Jesus from the cross and then him coming back as a spirit and claiming to be Divine as stated in the book of revealtion in the NT.
I see...an event that no one can possible say that they witnessed. How is this even in the same ballpark as the video in this thread?
SURE they are related. First the evidence then the witness. They must come together
The subject in 1117 is not the same subject in 1118. Do we need to go through it in steps?
I know what you mean.
Great, but these next sentences speak otherwise...
And ofcourse someone may just utter jibberish or random statements and one of them may turn out to be true.
Random acts occasionally being true is not what's being discussed. A person's eyewitness account being neither provable nor disprovable, in this case, is what's being discussed.
The problem is your taking true in an absolute sense thus shifting the refernce point to someone/something else.
No, the problem is you fabricating an argument to try to strengthen your own. Please point out even a hint of me "taking true in an absolute sense" in this subject matter.
This shows youve even failed to understand what proof is. You can with very high probability, BUT YES, NOT with absolute certainty.
You are wrong. The probability of you being part of my dream is actually 50/50 since I'm always either awake or sleeping, and I can't tell the difference. The question was designed to illustrate that you can't bring science into every discussion, this thread included, because it's simply overmatched by things it can't explain.
A nice marriage is humility and science. This type of scientist knows where to draw the line - just as one shouldn't measure Shakespeare with a scale and a word count. You get irrelevant outcomes like .5kg and 15,000 words.
You want to try to undertsand a near-death experience, wait until you have one. Until then, you're shooting in the dark.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace "tay",
Peace Jonny,
It seems you're disagreeing just to say you disagree, when in fact you agree. What's up with that?
JK- Huh? Didnt you originally claim that eye witness testimonies ALONE, meaning without their poper evaluation, constitute evidence? That was the point i disagreed with.
I see...an event that no one can possible say that they witnessed. How is this even in the same ballpark as the video in this thread?
JK- The one in the video also makes a claim that he has witnessed something. And as i said even if he has there are perfectly natural explanations for that. This is the point.
The subject in 1117 is not the same subject in 1118. Do we need to go through it in steps?
JK- As for those who are given solid proof from their Lord, reported by a witness from Him, and before it, the book of Moses has set a precedent and a mercy, they will surely believe. As for those who disbelieve among the various groups, Hell is awaiting them. Do not harbor any doubt; this is the truth from your Lord, but most people disbelieve.
Who are more evil than those who fabricate lies about GOD? They will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses* will say, "These are the ones who lied about their Lord. GOD's condemnation has befallen the transgressors."
*Now as GOD already indicated in 1117 that witnesses report along with solid proof ofcourse we can imply this will always be the case. Besides 1118 seems to be talking about the DOJ when everything would be in the open anyways i.e. FULL PROOF, so i dont know what your point is.Random acts occasionally being true is not what's being discussed. A person's eyewitness account being neither provable nor disprovable, in this case, is what's being discussed.
JK- MAN do you know how many people claim to have witnessed Jesus in person or some other person they are mentally attached to? What should this prove IYO?
No, the problem is you fabricating an argument to try to strengthen your own. Please point out even a hint of me "taking true in an absolute sense" in this subject matter.
JK- Well i guss then the problem is as big as i originally thought. WHAT KINNA VALUE DOES THIS SO CALLED WITNESS HAVE?
You are wrong. The probability of you being part of my dream is actually 50/50 since I'm always either awake or sleeping, and I can't tell the difference. The question was designed to illustrate that you can't bring science into every discussion, this thread included, because it's simply overmatched by things it can't explain.
JK- DREAM itself is a relative term. In rare cases one may, whilst in a dream, claim that this is real whilst what is otherwise known as reality, is a dream. A constant dream in which things are stable would be defined as real by the observers within it, inclduing yourself, and youd have to live in it. Youd have to act rationally inside the domain your living. Reality is defined by a domain in which things can be repeated by observers other than yourself and you see them coming to similar conclusions. Dreams are defined as dreams in the first place exactly because they can be distinguished from reality in that theyr unstable with constant fluctuations. AND science can perfectly explain the phenomena regarding such witnesses
http//youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0A nice marriage is humility and science. This type of scientist knows where to draw the line - just as one shouldn't measure Shakespeare with a scale and a word count. You get irrelevant outcomes like .5kg and 15,000 words.
JK- As i said science DOES have very good answers for such "witnesses" as you can see in the clip above.
You want to try to undertsand a near-death experience, wait until you have one. Until then, you're shooting in the dark.
Peace,
TayJK- http//youtube.com/watch?v=LAywxhVvLU4
Anyone can have NDEs. The brain releases its own natural drugs, which have a similar efect as string drugs taken externally, and in case of extreme situations such as NDEs it releases a huge number of them causing immense feeling of pleaure and euphoria. YES this exerience is wonerful but all natural. No one ever came back from an NDE along with some verifible prophecies or knowledge of the yet unrevealed like perhaps a new star, a new planet in galaxy x which could later be discovered. GOD Bless! -
Peace Jonny,
Didnt you originally claim that eye witness testimonies ALONE, meaning without their poper evaluation, constitute evidence? That was the point i disagreed with.
I never said "without proper evaluation". An eyewitness needs to be deemed credible. If he/she is, then his/her testimony becomes credible - so credible, that it's often all that's needed to convict someone of a crime. I'm not sure why you're arguing about this - it seems pretty obvious. Everyday eyewitnesses are picking people out of line-ups whom they've witnessed commit a crime, and everyday people are locked up for those crimes.
The one in the video also makes a claim that he has witnessed something. And as i said even if he has there are perfectly natural explanations for that.
But no one can say they witnessed the trinity!!!!!
Do you understand?
Here's your sentenceIf that were enough than trinity is perhaps also correct as people claim to have witnessed the event.
There is NO event called trinity. It is a concept. Thus, no one could have witnessed it.
wow
JK- As for those who are given solid proof from their Lord, reported by a witness from Him, and before it, the book of Moses has set a precedent and a mercy, they will surely believe. As for those who disbelieve among the various groups, Hell is awaiting them. Do not harbor any doubt; this is the truth from your Lord, but most people disbelieve.
Who are more evil than those who fabricate lies about GOD? They will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses* will say, "These are the ones who lied about their Lord. GOD's condemnation has befallen the transgressors."
*Now as GOD already indicated in 1117 that witnesses report along with solid proof ofcourse we can imply this will always be the case. Besides 1118 seems to be talking about the DOJ when everything would be in the open anyways i.e. FULL PROOF, so i dont know what your point is.I really can't go on with this, bro, since it's side tracking from the thread anyway. If you want to go into it further, I would suggest researching the grammatical concept of "subject" in a sentence - pm me if you wish.
MAN do you know how many people claim to have witnessed Jesus in person or some other person they are mentally attached to? What should this prove IYO?
Every situation is different. If the witness is credible, then there may be something to it. If they're high on LSD, then thy're probably hallucinating. But I would never say something like "without evidence, it can't be true". That's just foolish.
DREAM itself is a relative term. In rare cases one may, whilst in a dream, claim that this is real whilst what is otherwise known as reality, is a dream. A constant dream in which things are stable would be defined as real by the observers within it, inclduing yourself, and youd have to live in it. Youd have to act rationally inside the domain your living. Reality is defined by a domain in which things can be repeated by observers other than yourself and you see them coming to similar conclusions. Dreams are defined as dreams in the first place exactly because they can be distinguished from reality in that theyr unstable with constant fluctuations.
It's great that you have theories about dreams. None of this is relevant, however, to the question I asked you Can you prove that you exist? Which you can't.
As i said science DOES have very good answers for such "witnesses" as you can see in the clip above.
One sentence from the video, which is the very crux of the debate which you and I keep having, illustrates exactly the fallacy in science's overstretching it's bounds "We know that all experiences derive from the brain".
Now if you can't see the fallacy in that, then I really have nothing more to say.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace "Tay",
Peace Jonny,
I never said "without proper evaluation". An eyewitness needs to be deemed credible. If he/she is, then his/her testimony becomes credible - so credible, that it's often all that's needed to convict someone of a crime. I'm not sure why you're arguing about this - it seems pretty obvious. Everyday eyewitnesses are picking people out of line-ups whom they've witnessed commit a crime, and everyday people are locked up for those crimes.
JK- Even if the accused did not have a motive? Who evlauates whether an eyewitness account is trustworthy? It needs to be done using the sicentific and rational approach otherwise we cld end up putting a hell lot of innocents in jail and allow hell lot of criminals to get free. Infact thts what happens in most religious communities and so the elite lives on.
But no one can say they witnessed the trinity!!!!!
Do you understand?
Here's your sentence
There is NO event called trinity. It is a concept. Thus, no one could have witnessed it.JK- Ok forget about trinity. I corrected tht and said the event when Jesus arose from the dead or whe people claim today that theyve actually seen Jesus. Can we trust those witnesses even if they never lied before in their life and are otherwise honest people? Think about tht one.
I really can't go on with this, bro, since it's side tracking from the thread anyway. If you want to go into it further, I would suggest researching the grammatical concept of "subject" in a sentence - pm me if you wish.
JK- Ok forget it then. I beelive i stated enough other points.
Every situation is different. If the witness is credible, then there may be something to it. If they're high on LSD, then thy're probably hallucinating. But I would never say something like "without evidence, it can't be true". That's just foolish.
JK- It can come out to be true but is not true at the moment. As an example the theory of evolution may not have been true for people 5000 years ago because probaly no one acepted it. Your defining true in an absolute sense whilst when i use the term im talking relative to the known present observers. But ok lets have it tht way. In that case id say "without evidence one cant make claims of something being true". Better?
It's great that you have theories about dreams. None of this is relevant, however, to the question I asked you Can you prove that you exist? Which you can't.
JK- You have to define what you mean a bit more. Do you want me to prove that im a human? In that case you only need to compare my pattern with those of other humans. Can i prove that your not dreaming all this. Sure to a certain extent too. Just come back 2morrow and see if the same message appears to you on the screen and repeat this over and over. Remember dreams are defined by instabilties. Infact this is how ud perform reality checks to avoid false awakenings after a lucid dream.
One sentence from the video, which is the very crux of the debate which you and I keep having, illustrates exactly the fallacy in science's overstretching it's bounds "We know that all experiences derive from the brain".
Now if you can't see the fallacy in that, then I really have nothing more to say.
Peace,
TayJK- Man what is knowledge? It is what we have acquired through observation. Thats all we have. EVERY claimant of the paranormal whilst tested under controlled conditions has been shown that he/she experieced obes/ndes in his/her brain. Scientists can actually see the neurons firing in the exact same audio/visual areas which would fire in similar patterns if people would look at similar objects in the real world through their senses. Neuroscientists have been studying this for years and hance they can very well claim that they know this. Shoudnt this tell you something? OTHERWISE the term "know" itself would become meaningless since i could do the same for any other issue. Tell me bro Tay when are we justified to say we "know" anything? How do we know that we see with our eyes and not some other mysterious stuff and the eyes are just an illusion? How do we know what causes a car's engine to start? How do we know what causes elephants to communicate with each other over huge distances? GOD Bless!
-
Peace Jonny,
It's not about whether or not we can know anything, it's about the PHd's position that he knows "all experiences derive from the brain". No matter how long one studies, or how much data they gather, if this is their premise, they are missing the point entirely. The brain is not the source of the experience, it is the vehicle through which experience occurs. I tried to explain this to you last time but you didn't take it too well. Again, if you can't see this and would rather attribute the brain as the source, then I really have nothing more to add.
A very simple parallel is stress. In some people, stress causes a rise in blood pressure. The stress is external of the body. The effects of the stress take place internally. Now if you wanted to know about the nature of stress, would you measure the person's blood pressure and say stress doesn't exist? That's what these scientists are doing. They're taking the patient back to the lab, artificially inducing a rise in blood pressure, and saying, "Look - I raised my patient's blood pressure with electrodes - all that stress he was talking about must have been imagined."
It's insane, Jonny, and so obvious that I really cannot waste another precious moment of my life trying to convince you of it. Think for yourself, bro, and don't let titles fool you into thinking these people are brighter than you. The quran assures us that we know, and will only know, very little. This is an indictment on the limits of reason and logic. Some things are just bigger than us.
Peace,
Tay -
Last night I tried to induce my self to wake my consciousness and let my body sleep, to experience out of body. I guess i got through sleep paralysis only but not managed to separate my soul and body yet. I think this thing is possible. Just the matter of getting used to. I've never felt what my body was doing when i was sleeping. Kinda fun experiencing things that we haven't experienced yet. Imagine being awake but body is numb for 2 hours i never knew i could do that ). Can't wait to try it again tonight. I wanna give JK some proof that this thing is not just imaginary but a knowing of anything that a thought could think of. ;D
I'll do my best. pr. I pray for God's guidance and protection.
Peace