Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

how do you guys think of the Creator in appearance personality and whatnot?

we have heard and seen how some visualize Emmanuel and shaitan but what about the Alpha and the Omega.

also why?

http://www.sacredspace.ie/images/latestspace/latestspace4_god_at_his_computer.jpg
Seriously as a kid I thought he looks like this

For me God = Thor, Odin, elfs etc.

Originally posted by Deadline
For me God = Thor, Odin, elfs etc.

Norse elfs qualify as gods?

Originally posted by King Castle
how do you guys think of the Creator in appearance personality and whatnot?

lol

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Norse elfs qualify as gods?

Its not common knowledge but basically they are equal to the gods and in some cases seem more powerful. Sif is an elf, the stepson of Thor (Ullr) is an elf, Skadi is mixed race, Idunn is an elf etc.

Wow you're like a homing missle...........

yes, personality.. i bn thinking about heavily due to morgan freeman..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQonlHIo1ck&feature=related

has me thinking if he has a sense of humor and whatnot.

also can you change the title to: How do you visualize The Creator instead of God pls..

You dodged the issue, Deadline. Do you actually believe in them? If not, your first post was a non-answer to the OP.

Originally posted by Digi
You dodged the issue, Deadline. Do you actually believe in them? If not, your first post was a non-answer to the OP.

I'm pretty sure he was just asking what they look like to me.

Originally posted by King Castle
yes, personality.. i bn thinking about heavily due to morgan freeman..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQonlHIo1ck&feature=related

has me thinking if he has a since of humor and whatnot.

also can you change the title to: How do you visualize The Creator instead of God pls..

Most theistic Gods are all-knowing, all-powerful, all-etc. As such, the issue of personality is a non-question. God is everything rolled into one. A singularity, if you will.

Christians may tell you he is Love, others may tell you that God is a creative force, not a person, so there's no personality to speak of. To them, he has no more personality than a coffee machine that is the "God" of the coffee it makes.

But ascribing human personality traits to God is pretty laughable. Any God who possesses human-like characteristics is limited enough to be beneath worship or the title of God. More aligned with Deadline's pantheons than any current concepts of God.

Originally posted by Digi


But ascribing human personality traits to God is pretty laughable. Any God who possesses human-like characteristics is limited enough to be beneath worship or the title of God. More aligned with Deadline's pantheons than any current concepts of God.

I don't think human characteristics are mean't to be taken literially, also it depends on interpretation.

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't think human characteristics are mean't to be taken literially, also it depends on interpretation.

He said he thought God had a sense of humor. Or was at least considering the possibility. That's what I was responding to. I wasn't talking about potentially metaphoric descriptions, but a very concrete one in this thread. Any omnipotent and all-whatever God who has a sense of humor is laughable to me, for reasons stated above. It's not impossible, but wouldn't warrant the term 'God' imo.

Yeah I was adding my 2 cents I guess. See where you're coming from.

Santa Claus.

The Big Electron

Originally posted by King Castle
how do you guys think of the Creator in appearance personality and whatnot?I don't, unless I'm having a discussion which warrants highlighting some particular aspect for discussion's sake, or I'm musing over my reality map, in which case, the quality I tend to see as "most basic" would be that "God" is Infinite.

2nd Commandment

Originally posted by Digi
He said he thought God had a sense of humor. Or was at least considering the possibility. That's what I was responding to. I wasn't talking about potentially metaphoric descriptions, but a very concrete one in this thread. Any omnipotent and all-whatever God who has a sense of humor is laughable to me, for reasons stated above. It's not impossible, but wouldn't warrant the term 'God' imo.

I agree the idea that God has human characteristics is anathema to most philosophers...then again it might be fitting to use humanize God in order to illustrate his relationship with man, as futile an attempt it may be I would suppose it still has rather effective meaning, even if it only skims the water of who or what God is...if you can really say he is anything.

Of course if we have an Incarnate God, like Jesus, things get a bit more tricky.

i often think that if god is god he is every where every when permeates every person, animal and thing...

but if he had to interact with ppl and gave itself an avatar or allowed itself to be comprehended it would be a laid back funny person cracking jokes with me... possibly teasing me.

or some zen type monk being cryptic and pissing me off..

i honestly think it would be a mirror version of my inner self and what i would consider it to be the creator. an abstract

I just look up at the night sky.

my version he be about 5'8 athletically trim.. sleeve tribal tats... long flowing hair brownish hair tied back... a beard with some highlights..

leather tanned brown pants and a white cotton shirt old school European style from the 1600 century but no sleeves..

wrist guards made of platinum..

his eyes would be grayish green..

quirky sense of humor but with a lil dark humor hidden inside of his jokes...

Originally posted by Mindship
I don't, unless I'm having a discussion which warrants highlighting some particular aspect for discussion's sake, or I'm musing over my reality map, in which case, the quality I tend to see as "most basic" would be that "God" is Infinite.

2nd Commandment

Which one was teh 2nd?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Which one was teh 2nd?

Depends on the version of the religious text/religion:

Jewey version = You shall have no other gods before me; you shall not make a false idol

Most Christian/Orthodox = The not making false idols

Catholic/Lutheran = Not taking the Lords name in vain

Originally posted by King Castle
i often think that if god is god he is every where every when permeates every person, animal and thing...

but if he had to interact with ppl and gave itself an avatar or allowed itself to be comprehended it would be a laid back funny person cracking jokes with me... possibly teasing me.

or some zen type monk being cryptic and pissing me off..

i honestly think it would be a mirror version of my inner self and what i would consider it to be the creator. an abstract

Which is pleasant to think about, but not really something with any practical value.

Originally posted by King Castle
my version he be about 5'8 athletically trim.. sleeve tribal tats... long flowing hair brownish hair tied back... a beard with some highlights..

leather tanned brown pants and a white cotton shirt old school European style from the 1600 century but no sleeves..

wrist guards made of platinum..

his eyes would be grayish green..

quirky sense of humor but with a lil dark humor hidden inside of his jokes...

Ah, now we're dressing God as well. Leather pants, 17th century garb, but with highlights in his beard. Yup, you've nailed it.

fdog

Seriously, there's a million people in the world like this (clothes notwithstanding). Don't you think God would choose to be something that might make him stand out a bit more? Or do you just want to feel like you have your own personal Morgan Freeman to talk to? As long as you're going to dream up things, might as well make it something more fun. In mine, I get super powers. Far more exciting than being chosen by God for something....less chance of crucifixtion too.

Not trying to be snarky with all this. I just think it's all pretty hilarious. Plantinum wrist guards is a nice touch...never seen anyone visualize God so specifically.

So Castle got me thinking, this isn't a bad idea.

My God is about 5'6", has short, straight, jet black hair, perky B-cups, green eyes, toned body, and a penchant for videogaming. Roleplaying and strategy games, nothing too action-y. She's nonreligious, well read, into hiking, doesn't need kids but wouldn't mind 1-2 with the right person, and lives in the same apartment complex as me. She is a Steelers fan. She works 9 months of the year as a well-paid law consultant, and takes summers off to travel.

Not God, you say? And yet I would worship her.

he is simply a reflection of myself.. when i look in the mirror i am looking at the creator...

any who the description was basically me a lil more glamorized and sporting my old color contacts.. and some pretty awesome clothes plus also a lil of Quetzalcoatl with description of what he look like from old legends..

its just an amalgam of my preference with a lil taken from my ancestral culture a lil flare with style and myself as the bases..

nothing said here has any practical value at all it is all opinion...

Originally posted by Digi
So Castle got me thinking, this isn't a bad idea.

My God is about 5'6", has short, straight, jet black hair, perky B-cups, green eyes, toned body, and a penchant for videogaming. Roleplaying and strategy games, nothing too action-y. She's nonreligious, well read, into hiking, doesn't need kids but wouldn't mind 1-2 with the right person, and lives in the same apartment complex as me. She is a Steelers fan. She works 9 months of the year as a well-paid law consultant, and takes summers off to travel.

Not God, you say? And yet I would worship her.



Is this your god, or a personal add?

its blasphemies thats what it is

Originally posted by King Castle
its blasphemies thats what it is

I don't believe in blaspheme. I'm an antiblasphemies. As a matter of fact, I have an absence of belief in blaspheme.

blasmephy i say!! jr_shakefist 6JAEbgyxDHM&feature=related

Originally posted by Robtard

Catholic/Lutheran = Not taking the Lords name in vain

For real? I didn't know that... I wonder why it's different.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
For real? I didn't know that... I wonder why it's different.

I think the numbering of the Commandments differs because some Commandments are split up into two different Commandments and/or re-wording some. Personally, I try to defer to the Torah when anything Old Testament comes up.

Which is ridiculous, considering they're supposed to be directly from God, so not sure why a re-wording and re-working was needed. Kinda like spitting in God's eye and saying "nah, you gots it wrong dawg, dis the right way."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is this your god, or a personal add?

Does it matter?! Even like 2/3 of those traits would equal the most awesome girl I've ever met. And, being an awesome dude, I've met some awesome ladies in my time. So that's no small claim.

Originally posted by Robtard
Kinda like spitting in God's eye and saying "nah, you gots it wrong dawg, dis the right way."

"I is what I is." - God, in The Black Bible.

A velociraptor

Originally posted by Robtard
I think the numbering of the Commandments differs because some Commandments are split up into two different Commandments and/or re-wording some. Personally, I try to defer to the Torah when anything Old Testament comes up.

Which is ridiculous, considering they're supposed to be directly from God, so not sure why a re-wording and re-working was needed. Kinda like spitting in God's eye and saying "nah, you gots it wrong dawg, dis the right way." Variations in translation? But I also suspect it's because each "new religion" (Judaism --> Christianity, Christianity --> splitting into sects) sought to distinguish itself by putting its own spin (the "correct" one, of course) on the commandments. Kinda like Christianity claiming Sunday as the Sabbath since those damn Jews already heisted Saturday, which left littlest brother Islam with Friday (no wonder so many Muslims always look pissed).

Originally posted by Digi


But ascribing human personality traits to God is pretty laughable. Any God who possesses human-like characteristics is limited enough to be beneath worship or the title of God.

Human traits have been applied to gods since forever. Displeased God - lets sacrifice -

Wrathful God - Lets repent -
Vengeful
Loving
Merciful
Compasionate
all these human traits and personality attributes have been applied to God since God as invented. Personally, i see him as a being - man shaped just because - but intangible as a dream person.

Originally posted by Mindship
Variations in translation? But I also suspect it's because each "new religion" (Judaism --> Christianity, Christianity --> splitting into sects) sought to distinguish itself by putting its own spin (the "correct" one, of course) on the commandments. Kinda like Christianity claiming Sunday as the Sabbath since those damn Jews already heisted Saturday, which left littlest brother Islam with Friday (no wonder so many Muslims always look pissed).

Mohammad should have been smart and just jacked both days; made the Islam sabbath Saturday and Sunday, meaning Islam is twice as good as those other religions.

Here is a part of God.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/474322main_island-universe-unlabeled.jpg

looks like a nipple or a belly button cant make it out my perspective is too limited for all i know it could be a pore

Originally posted by King Castle
looks like a nipple or a belly button cant make it out my perspective is too limited for all i know it could be a pore

I was thinking lower.

Looks like a spiral galaxy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Looks like a spiral galaxy.

You get a gold star.

http://www.istockphoto.com//file_thumbview_approve/9383021/2/istockphoto_9383021-gold-star.jpg

Shakya, thumbnails bro.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Human traits have been applied to gods since forever. Displeased God - lets sacrifice -

Wrathful God - Lets repent -
Vengeful
Loving
Merciful
Compasionate
all these human traits and personality attributes have been applied to God since God as invented. Personally, i see him as a being - man shaped just because - but intangible as a dream person.

I don't disagree with your first sentence there. Human traits HAVE always been applied to gods. My point is that they shouldn't be, or at least if they are then I don't see the point in calling it God.

Originally posted by Digi
Shakya, thumbnails bro. Sorry, but I don't know how to do that on the NASA web site. PM me with help, please.

Nah, no need for a PM. Just save an image to your cpu desktop, use imageshack or photobucket (websites) to upload the photo, then the sites will give you helpful links to post on the forums instead of the full image. Then delete the copy on your desktop. Only takes a minute or so.

I picture Clapton

Originally posted by Digi
Shakya, thumbnails bro.



I don't disagree with your first sentence there. Human traits HAVE always been applied to gods. My point is that they shouldn't be, or at least if they are then I don't see the point in calling it God.
totally agree.

Probably something like a big circle. But much more complicated. It crosses dimensions, unified field and us and well very hard to explain.

Originally posted by Digi
Shakya, thumbnails bro.



I don't disagree with your first sentence there. Human traits HAVE always been applied to gods. My point is that they shouldn't be, or at least if they are then I don't see the point in calling it God.

What about the religions that say that humans were made in God's image? In that scenario, it would only make sense that he have human traits as well as the traits of a deity, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by LLLLLink
What about the religions that say that humans were made in God's image? In that scenario, it would only make sense that he have human traits as well as the traits of a deity, wouldn't you say?

It depends on what is meant by "in the image of god". Does it mean a body and such, or is it a trinity aspect (mind body and soul)? If it is a trinity aspect, then god could look quite different, or not have an appearance at all, as long as this god has a trinity aspect.

i've been told that god is unimaginable but i used to visualize god as just a white source of bright light with alot of beam.

but that's before i believed he existed. before i knew that god is just as real as santa clause or zeus or the toof fairy..

God can take any form necessary. On different levels of awareness and alignments, vibrations, consciousness etc.

That's if we're talking about a being that is connected to everything.

He might look like Kyle MacLachlan he's awesome.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
What about the religions that say that humans were made in God's image? In that scenario, it would only make sense that he have human traits as well as the traits of a deity, wouldn't you say?

We're sentient sacks of meat with inefficient eyeballs. We're not God. Any "likeness" is metaphoric or based on likeness of our "soul" (or similarly vague concept), not our physical likeness. If someone sees it as literal likeness, then they probably don't have the cognitive nuance to actually understand the religion they follow.

bible says god is spirit and cannot be seen.

Originally posted by StarCraft2
bible says god is spirit and cannot be seen.

It also says He created Man in his likeness. Which is it?

Originally posted by Digi
It also says He created Man in his likeness. Which is it?

Both, man is practically specs to him.

Originally posted by Digi
It also says He created Man in his likeness. Which is it?

Perhaps he is like a glass statue.

Originally posted by Digi
Nor should you. I'm sure the experience was quite unique and amazing, but every common theme among OBE's has either tested and proven physical correlates or at the very least plausible physical explanations.

With OBEs defintely NDEs are much better.

Originally posted by Deadline
With OBEs defintely NDEs are much better.

Everything I said earlier about OBE's applies to NDE's as well. Don't fool yourself into thinking there's a huge difference. We can trace physical correlates to most of the phenomenon involved. And the few that we can't certainly don't point to anything except a lack of knowledge, and certainly not to a divine God just because a doctor gets spooked and can't explain some things.

Originally posted by Digi
Everything I said earlier about OBE's applies to NDE's as well. Don't fool yourself into thinking there's a huge difference. We can trace physical correlates to most of the phenomenon involved. And the few that we can't certainly don't point to anything except a lack of knowledge, and certainly not to a divine God just because a doctor gets spooked and can't explain some things.

You didn't really go into detail about the reasons. No actually there is a big enough difference. In an NDE Dr Jeffrey Long kinda described that one of the criteria for an NDE is that you need to be so messed up if you don't receive immediate medical attention you're going to die. Can't remember exactly what he said but im pretty sure part of the criteria is that you have to die.

Taking drugs, hallucinations do not refute NDEs because these take place during cardiac arrest and they don't explain how a person with no brain actvity or very little have very lucid visions.

Thats why its called near death experience. Hallucinating, meditation etc do not apply.

Originally posted by Deadline
You didn't really go into detail about the reasons. No actually there is a big enough difference. In an NDE Dr Jeffrey Long kinda described that one of the criteria for an NDE is that you need to be so messed up if you don't receive immediate medical attention you're going to die. Can't remember exactly what he said but im pretty sure part of the criteria is that you have to die.

Taking drugs, hallucinations do not refute NDEs because these take place during cardiac arrest and they don't explain how a person with no brain actvity or very little have very lucid visions.

Thats why its called near death experience. Hallucinating, meditation etc do not apply. Causes for an NDE and OBE may be different (eg, cardiac arrest vs meditation), but they both involve radical shifts of attention which yield the same effect: an experience of consciousness being outside or independent of the body. This is the common point of contention. Often, NDEs start off as OBEs, depending on whether the cause was, say, a heart attack or meditation.

Originally posted by Deadline
You didn't really go into detail about the reasons. No actually there is a big enough difference. In an NDE Dr Jeffrey Long kinda described that one of the criteria for an NDE is that you need to be so messed up if you don't receive immediate medical attention you're going to die. Can't remember exactly what he said but im pretty sure part of the criteria is that you have to die.

Taking drugs, hallucinations do not refute NDEs because these take place during cardiac arrest and they don't explain how a person with no brain actvity or very little have very lucid visions.

Thats why its called near death experience. Hallucinating, meditation etc do not apply.

Physical death =/= brain death, which actually doesn't take place until several days after a person is declared dead (with limited exceptions, of course). Your definition of death precludes the idea of brain activity, so it's a self-serving definition. If there is no brain activity but there is an experience, it only leaves a supernatural explanation, and thus becomes self-fulfilling to a believer, even without proof or evidence. In reality, it's incoherent when compared with facts.

Also, OBE's frequently happen during NDE's where there is enough physical trauma to potentially kill someone. The two experiences are not identical, but can be linked or even overlap. The affects of both have been recreated in laboratory settings by stimulating areas of the brain associated with intense trauma and terror. I didn't cite specific refutations earlier because, frankly, they're easy to find for anyone interested in finding them. I, nor anyone else, can't be expected to educate others on easily-accessed matters that the other party can't be bothered to look for. The fact that you seem to associate OBE's only with meditation or drugs suggests we're not even talking about the same things.

Originally posted by Deadline
OBEs don't disprove that there is life after death because when people have OBEs they're alive. All OBEs prove is that when a person is alive they can hallucinate.

The whole reason why NDEs prove that there if life after death is because science tells us that its not possible for people to see anything in their current state and that they are dead.

In this regard an OBE is the complete opposite of an NDE and therefore does not provide an explanation as to why NDEs happen. At best it's a plausible explanation.
I disagree, though not in principle. For Occam's sake, I would simply argue that NDEs may also be a hallucination, but one where brain activity has diminished to below what we can currently detect. In this vein, it is different from an OBE, ie, the NDEr certainly appears dead, whereas the OBEr does not.

Still, the common controversial factor with either is that consciousness seems able to exist outside/independent of the body...and this may well be what's going on, which is why I don't disagree with you in principle. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and IMHO, neither prove (thus far) any sort of transcendent reality.

((Something that would prove con'ness can exist outside/independent of the body -- and by implication, strongly suggest life after death: if, during an OBE or NDE, the person witnessed, say, a far-away friend, saw what he was doing and noted the time, then later accurately conveyed this info to that friend -- and especially if this occured a few times: that would be tough to empirically explain away.))

Originally posted by Mindship
I disagree, though not in principle. For Occam's sake, I would simply argue that NDEs may also be a hallucination, but one where brain activity has diminished to below what we can currently detect. In this vein, it is different from an OBE, ie, the NDEr certainly appears dead, whereas the OBEr does not.

I agree it may well be but the point I'm making is that it does not explain how NDEs occur all it provides is a plausible reason.

Originally posted by Mindship

Still, the common controversial factor with either is that consciousness seems able to exist outside/independent of the body...and this may well be what's going on, which is why I don't disagree with you in principle. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and IMHO, neither prove (thus far) any sort of transcendent reality.

Which is actually the point I'm trying to make. How would one go about proving life after death? One such way is for somebody to die and come back. How on earth are we going to go about proving this? We would need some way of detecting wether a person is dead or not. The problem is you can't because certain people will always assume that the person is still alive. It's not that life after death is inherently irrational people just don't want to accept it because of culture.

I'm also glad that you seemed to have pointed out that assuming they are alive is Occams razor.

Originally posted by Mindship

((Something that would prove con'ness can exist outside/independent of the body -- and by implication, strongly suggest life after death: if, during an OBE or NDE, the person witnessed, say, a far-away friend, saw what he was doing and noted the time, then later accurately conveyed this info to that friend -- and especially if this occured a few times: that would be tough to empirically explain away.))

Stuff like that has happened apparently but I'm trying to do some research into this Pim Von Lomel talks about this in a scientfic article the only problem is he didn't give enough detail. Yes even if somebody has a flatline EEG they could still be alive but what you mentioned above would clinch it.

http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf Look at page 3

According to me !! I thought the God had a sense of humor or was at least considering the possibility. That's what I was responding to. I wasn't talking about potentially metaphoric descriptions but a very concrete one in this thread. Any omnipotent and all whatever God. Who has a sense of humor is laughable to me, for reasons stated above. It's not impossible but wouldn't warrant the term 'God'. The quality, I tend to see as "most basic" would be that "God" is Infinite.

Originally posted by Deadline
I agree it may well be but the point I'm making is that it does not explain how NDEs occur all it provides is a plausible reason.I'm not sure what you're saying here, the difference between "explaining" and "plausible reason."

Which is actually the point I'm trying to make. How would one go about proving life after death? One such way is for somebody to die and come back. How on earth are we going to go about proving this? We would need some way of detecting wether a person is dead or not. The problem is you can't because certain people will always assume that the person is still alive. It is something of a catch-22: "If Jerry really had died, he couldn't've come back to tell us anything. But since he did 'come back', then he wasn't really dead." Time to go ghosthunting? This is why I posed the friend-spying situation.

Stuff like that has happened apparently but I'm trying to do some research into this Pim Von Lomel talks about this in a scientfic article the only problem is he didn't give enough detail. Yes even if somebody has a flatline EEG they could still be alive but what you mentioned above would clinch it.

http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf Look at page 3 Looks interesting...if not exactly light summer reading. But yeah, lack of details can be problematic, and in all fairness to proper scientific research and methodology, any problems would need to be properly addressed.

I would visualize God as the all-powerful consciousness that controls all possibilities.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I would visualize God as the all-powerful consciousness that controls all possibilities.

What does a consciousness look like?

Originally posted by Digi
What does a consciousness look like? A generic old man with a glowing white beard.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not sure what you're saying here, the difference between "explaining" and "plausible reason."


What I mean by explaining is that it does not explain using current science why people can have very lucid experience while clinically dead. What I mean by plausible is that it may actually be true but in this case it's not the most likely explanation.

Originally posted by Mindship

It is something of a catch-22: "If Jerry really had died, he couldn't've come back to tell us anything. But since he did 'come back', then he wasn't really dead." Time to go ghosthunting? This is why I posed the friend-spying situation.

They are doing stuff like that but its not catch 22 because you're assuming that death is irreversible.

Originally posted by Mindship

Looks interesting...if not exactly light summer reading. But yeah, lack of details can be problematic, and in all fairness to proper scientific research and methodology, any problems would need to be properly addressed.

Well Sam Parnia is doing the AWARE study which is the biggest experiment on NDEs. So far he stated that there have been verdical NDEs where people have verified real life events but the results won't be published until 2012.

Originally posted by Deadline
They are doing stuff like that but its not catch 22 because you're assuming that death is irreversible. That is the crux of the matter.

Well Sam Parnia is doing the AWARE study which is the biggest experiment on NDEs. So far he stated that there have been verdical NDEs where people have verified real life events but the results won't be published until 2012. I look forward to this.

Originally posted by Mindship
That is the crux of the matter.



Yes but you need to prove that death is irreversible. Its a state just like any other and theres no reason to think it can't be reversed. At the end of the day science has defined clinical death as death.

I would visualize god as eternity from marvel, beyond physical form or substance, all powerful and infinit knowledge and wisdom, omnipresent

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/77/149536-20195-eternity.jpg

you cant see him unless he manifest in the physical plane(avatar?), but he is truely unphysical

Originally posted by Deadline
Yes but you need to prove that death is irreversible. Its a state just like any other and theres no reason to think it can't be reversed.I think you're disregarding perhaps the most common experience in life (understandable: denial of the finality of death is perhaps the second most common experience in life). There's plenty of reason to think death is irreversible, and given the current, dominant paradigm, I believe the onus is to prove it isn't. Hoperfully (and if there ever was a place for hope, it's here), the study you're talking about will at least begin to spider-crack that paradigm.

Originally posted by Mindship
think you're disregarding perhaps the most common experience in life (understandable: denial of the finality of death is perhaps the second most common experience in life).

That doesn't mean its irreversible. That just means theres a stage that you can't come back from, no offence im not forgetting anything.

Originally posted by Mindship

There's plenty of reason to think death is irreversible, and given the current, dominant paradigm, I believe the onus is to prove it isn't. Hoperfully (and if there ever was a place for hope, it's here), the study you're talking about will at least begin to spider-crack that paradigm.

No offence but you're just making a statement and haven't really given a logical reason as to why it should'nt be reversible. You're just saying it shouldn't be. There are 100s of things that are reversible but for some reason were deciding that death is unique theres no logical reason why it shouldn't be.

Originally posted by Deadline
That doesn't mean its irreversible. That just means theres a stage that you can't come back from, no offence im not forgetting anything. Agreed, it doesn't necessarily mean it's irreversible. But the denial of the finality of death is deeply ingrained in the human psyche, so much so that one could argue this is the basis for the existence of religion, of culture, indeed of every breath, thought and action any living thing does.

No offence but you're just making a statement and haven't really given a logical reason as to why it should'nt be reversible. You're just saying it shouldn't be. There are 100s of things that are reversible but for some reason were deciding that death is unique theres no logical reason why it shouldn't be. I'm talking common experience, plain and simple. Indeed, common experience may be masking a deeper truth regarding life and death. But to deny the historic, cross-cultural, day-to-day consistency of death's apparent finality...this very neatly highlights what I'm saying above.

I appreciate your position and enthusiasm, and to an extent I share it. But I can't agree with the premise that one needs to prove death is final. Maybe it will be shown not to be in the long run. But for now, death's finality appears to be one of those things you can definitely count on, and the onus is to prove it is not as final as it appears. This is why studies like Parnia's are done: to show/suggest death is not an end, but perhaps a transition state.

I don't neccsearily disagree with you and I'm not completely satisfied with just clinical death, I'm just saying its a double standard. Not sure what you're implying about common experience, they hallucinated and saw what they wanted to see?

I don't think the AWARE study will prove anything people will just say veridcal NDEs are just a coincedence.

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't neccsearily disagree with you and I'm not completely satisfied with just clinical death, I'm just saying its a double standard. Not sure what you're implying about common experience, they hallucinated and saw what they wanted to see?By common experience, I simply mean death as is familiar to us, familiar to human beings since the dawn of our history. Death. The End. Or, maybe it really is the Road to Awe. It's certainly worth the investigation, IMO.

I don't think the AWARE study will prove anything people will just say veridcal NDEs are just a coincedence. If results are significant and survive professional review, I would think further studies would be done.

Light probably or a feeling of energy.

Originally posted by Mindship
By common experience, I simply mean death as is familiar to us, familiar to human beings since the dawn of our history. Death. The End. Or, maybe it really is the Road to Awe. It's certainly worth the investigation, IMO.

Ok but not sure how that reinforces the point that death should be irreverisble.

Originally posted by Mindship

If results are significant and survive professional review, I would think further studies would be done.

Depends on what you mean by significant but people always find something wrong sometimes they're justified but not always the case.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok but not sure how that reinforces the point that death should be irreverisble.Not that it should be irreversible. Common experience indicates death is (apparently) irreversible, and the onus, therefore, is to prove (or at least, give good cause to think) it isn't (via, eg, Parnia's study).

Depends on what you mean by significant but people always find something wrong sometimes they're justified but not always the case. Indeed, there will always be those who just will not think outside their box. But by significant, I mean statistically significant, like what's looked for in, say, physics.

Originally posted by Mindship
Not that it should be irreversible. Common experience indicates death is (apparently) irreversible, and the onus, therefore, is to prove (or at least, give good cause to think) it isn't (via, eg, Parnia's study).



Ok but common experience tells you there are no molecules and atoms, science says otherwise.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok but common experience tells you there are no molecules and atoms, science says otherwise. What science tells us about molecules and atoms becomes part of one's common experience as soon as one starts learning about molecules and atoms in school and doing experiments (eg, for Brownian movement).

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok but common experience tells you there are no molecules and atoms, science says otherwise.

Which is people had to work so hard to prove that atoms exist in the first place. Once they did that and others repeated the experiments to confirm the results scientist started making use of atomic theory and eventually is seeped down to the rest of us as common knowledge.

Now if you believe people can come back from the dead you have to prove that they can within statistical significance and let other people try the same experiments or studies themselves to confirm it.

Originally posted by Mindship
What science tells us about molecules and atoms becomes part of one's common experience as soon as one starts learning about molecules and atoms in school and doing experiments (eg, for Brownian movement).

You don't see molecules and atoms, which is my point.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is people had to work so hard to prove that atoms exist in the first place. Once they did that and others repeated the experiments to confirm the results scientist started making use of atomic theory and eventually is seeped down to the rest of us as common knowledge.


..and scientists define clinical death as death.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Now if you believe people can come back from the dead you have to prove that they can within statistical significance and let other people try the same experiments or studies themselves to confirm it.

No I don't. I didn't invent the term clinical death, therefore its up to you to prove they're not dead.

Originally posted by Deadline
You don't see molecules and atoms, which is my point.
Understood. But 'common experience' =/= only 'sensory experience'. For humans, 'common experience' also includes what we reliably know of the world through our intelligence...and one day, perhaps, that may well include the demonstrable reality that death is not an absolute end. But that reality does not exist at this time. The dominant paradigm says death is final. The onus is to prove otherwise.

Originally posted by Mindship
For humans, 'common experience' also includes what we reliably know of the world through our intelligence.

Right but you need science to tell you that bit.

Originally posted by Deadline
Right but you need science to tell you that bit. And the world as understood by science is part of our common experience, and currently, it says death is final.

Originally posted by Mindship
And the world as understood by science is part of our common experience, and currently, it says death is final.

Yea it says death is final so if we want to prove that their is life after death we have to look at the current defintion of death in science.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yea it says death is final so if we want to prove that their is life after death we have to look at the current defintion of death in science. IMO, in plainest terms, we have to show that consciousness can exist independently of the body.

Funny thing is, even if Parnia's study shows very significant, paradigm-shattering results, it still won't actually prove consciousness survives when the body no longer exists, though it will suggest so.

Originally posted by Deadline
..and scientists define clinical death as death.

No I don't. I didn't invent the term clinical death, therefore its up to you to prove they're not dead.

So you've reduced it to a purely semantic argument. Congratulations?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you've reduced it to a purely semantic argument. Congratulations?

You clearly don't seem to understand what I'm talking about. Maybe if you scroll back and read the points made you might get it instead of trying to just catch people out.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, in plainest terms, we have to show that consciousness can exist independently of the body.

Funny thing is, even if Parnia's study shows very significant, paradigm-shattering results, it still won't actually prove consciousness survives when the body no longer exists, though it will suggest so.

If you go to the beach, and look at the ocean, you will see waves. We know waves exist. However, if you remove the water from a wave, then the wave will not longer exist. The reason for that is because the wave is a product of the water in the wave. This is how the mind is. The physical brain is what makes the mind (wave) exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you go to the beach, and look at the ocean, you will see waves. We know waves exist. However, if you remove the water from a wave, then the wave will not longer exist. The reason for that is because the wave is a product of the water in the wave. This is how the mind is. The physical brain is what makes the mind (wave) exist. With 'mind', specifically, I would agree.

With the observable strict correlation between brain process and subjective experience, including the creation and recalling of memories, how can one claim any aspect of the mind can survive without the brain? Even people who remember coming back from the dead are doing so with their brains, which means those memories were created in their brains as physical patterns either during the cardiac arrest called 'clinical death', in which case it is living brain activity, altered state as it may be, or afterwards, which can easily be explained away as the brain creating a false experience as it 'recalls' it. There'd be nothing to prove with the tunnels of light and seeing people they knew.

Out of body experiences on the other hand could be proven, if someone claiming them could give exact information about events they could not know about through any way other than going through walls to see while in trance. Experiments to determine this can be easily designed if the spiritual wanderer can enter the state at will, which they either claim they can't or that the presence of skeptics is ****ing up their mojo. So far, all experiments designed to atest the existence of paranormal phenomena have turned out squat and using data from non-controlled situations is gonna lead nowhere as there is a number of variables to acount for such as cold reading, individuals learning of events after waking up (which will be virtually impossible to control for), coincidence, vague descriptions of common or easy to predict events, the want to believe commonly found among parapsychologists, etc.

Big Electron

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
The Big Electron I still stand correct from page 1

When I was younger, I thought of the archetypal old man. Think Alec Guiness as Obi-Wan Kenobi. Now? I think of something formless and intangible that communicates solely through feeling. In a weird way, kind of like how the Force is presented in Star Wars.

Man, that was nerdy.

When I was a little kid, I once asked my Dad, what color is God? He said God is all colors. For a brief time then, I used to envision God as a black man in a white painter's cap and overalls covered by different colors, usually kneeling and painting the world from a can with all colors.

When I was little my dad used the words "Colored People" But I never did see any rainbow colored people. I just didn't get it?

I was also the kind of kid that wondered why we kept passing signs that said, "DO NOT PASS."

I've always visualized God to be kind of like a giant cloud with a deep voice...

Like Mufassa.

This. Is CNN.

I kinda like how God is described in Dante's Divine Comedy: a "point of light" encircled by nine angels.

but the devil chewing traitors was way cooler

i think that you cant actually see God because he created the world but didnt create a whole of himself. when i was a kid i thought he was what you saw in pictures, i realize now that the pictures are other peoples idea of what he looks like, basically you can imagine your own God because he created you and he wants you to think of him as your best friend!!

I perceive God as a multi-dimensional harmonised being of pure data that can take any shape it needs to our limited perception.

Space and Time doesn't exist to this being. It weaves throughout it all.

The Physical Plane is but many illusions but to us a stagnant condensed ground of physics.

Consciousness amongst its inhabitants a gift but so simple yet complex at the same time....just like God.

To totally understand or perceive God is to become/join God there would be no returning back.

Originally posted by the ninjak
I perceive God as a multi-dimensional harmonised being of pure data that can take any shape it needs to our limited perception.

Ah yes, the meaningless world salad school of thought.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah yes, the meaningless world salad school of thought.

why not. You wanna believe it's all imagination. Sweet.

i dont

Originally posted by Digi
Physical death =/= brain death, which actually doesn't take place until several days after a person is declared dead (with limited exceptions, of course).

That doesn't matter just because it's not brain death doesn't mean they're not dead. During clinical death the brain shuts down within seconds and as well as everything else. Thats absolutely nothing wrong with considering somebody dead and just because it's reversible doesn't neccesarily mean anything.

Originally posted by Digi

Your definition of death precludes the idea of brain activity, so it's a self-serving definition. If there is no brain activity but there is an experience, it only leaves a supernatural explanation, and thus becomes self-fulfilling to a believer, even without proof or evidence. In reality, it's incoherent when compared with facts.

It's not a self serving defintion. The only reason why you think it's a self serving defintion is because you think there is something inherently illogical about the afterlife. Do you see what you just did there? You know damn well that in order for somebody to prove the afterlife we need to prove somebody is dead, you know that but you're basically arguing that even if we prove that somebody is dead you won't accept it. So in other words you're always going to assume that there isn't a 'supernatural' explanation because you think the concept is inherently illogical. Can you prove that the afterlife is an inherently illogical concept, no you can't. I on the other hand do not believe that this conclusively proves the afterlife, my issue with you and others is bias.




Originally posted by Digi

Also, OBE's frequently happen during NDE's where there is enough physical trauma to potentially kill someone. The two experiences are not identical, but can be linked or even overlap. The affects of both have been recreated in laboratory settings by stimulating areas of the brain associated with intense trauma and terror.

Do you not understand that these are examples with fully functioning brains? The reason why they were able to recreate the experiences was because their brains were working. During NDEs the brain has completely shut down or is a total piece of crap. This is a very simple point and I'm not sure how I can simpfly things even further.

Hell if an engine was smashed to bits and was able to run at over 100mph would you then try to explain how that was possible by using a brand new car? Of course not, common sense.


Originally posted by Digi

I didn't cite specific refutations earlier because, frankly, they're easy to find for anyone interested in finding them. I, nor anyone else, can't be expected to educate others on easily-accessed matters that the other party can't be bothered to look for.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are assuming that I haven't done reasearch in that regard you're obvoulsy making this assumption because I have different opinion. So just because I'm arguing in favour of NDEs means I haven't done enough reasearch, yes Digi I know about those examples. Not only that you're trying to gang up on me "anyone else". Assuming I don't know what I'm talking about implying that people of an athiest persuasion know more about science and they regularly have to correct me. Well you're wrong.

Are you going to stop behaving like an elitist and treating spiritual people like idiots? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Digi

The fact that you seem to associate OBE's only with meditation or drugs suggests we're not even talking about the same things.

Yes more obnoxiousness. If you're going to be arrogant at least try to read my post properly, one thing I said was etc that obvoulsy refers to all the different ways in which you can recreate OBEs. Also hallucinations, meditations and drugs pretty much covers any different methods you can use and even some you have mentioned.

i've drew a picture of god base off all the evidence we have of him now

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/154164029_590a6dc74f.jpg

Originally posted by Mindship
Variations in translation? But I also suspect it's because each "new religion" (Judaism --> Christianity, Christianity --> splitting into sects) sought to distinguish itself by putting its own spin (the "correct" one, of course) on the commandments. Kinda like Christianity claiming Sunday as the Sabbath since those damn Jews already heisted Saturday, which left littlest brother Islam with Friday (no wonder so many Muslims always look pissed).

Friday isn't a sabbath day in Islam; the sabbath would still be Saturday. Muslims are commanded to take off and go pray the Jumah congregational prayer at around noon and then go back to work. The Sabbath doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i've drew a picture of god base off all the evidence we have of him now

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/154164029_590a6dc74f.jpg

Considering God is a non-physical spirit entity, I'd use your drawing to depict Him anyway.

Originally posted by MRasheed
Friday isn't a sabbath day in Islam I stand corrected.

Originally posted by MRasheed
Considering God is a non-physical spirit entity, I'd use your drawing to depict Him anyway. what is a spirit entity?

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
The Big Electron

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Here is a part of God.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/474322main_island-universe-unlabeled.jpg god has a bad case of herpes

I imagine God is to some people...
What a donut is to Homer Simpson.

giant rainbow colored snake
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~jkoch/rainbow%20serpent.jpg