cosmic consciousness

371 posts / 0 new
Last post
xenoview's picture

What objective evidence do you have for reincarnation, karma,cosmic consciousness, and a god?
I must apply xenoview's razor to your claims.

Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence

Alain's picture
We have the evidence that

We have the evidence that strong atheists like Howard Storm and many other after their NDE became strong theists.
Ask them for evidence xen and see what they tell you.
My bet is that you wouldn't even believe him considering that you put an impassable barrier between you and the truth.

Alain's picture
Here a little comment from

Here a little comment from Storm.

Alex Tsakiris: So let me take a different angle on this Howard, the near-death experience is something we’ve looked a lot on this show. We usually try and stick pretty close to the science of it, because at this point as I’m sure you are aware, there’s a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature on this. We’ve had a lot of those people on this show, Dr. Jeff Long, somebody I know you’re familiar with; I’m really impressed with his work. Dr. Pim van Lommel is another really impressive guy from the medical community, 20 year cardiologist, and a bunch of other folks, Suzanne Gordon, Jan Holden, the list goes on and on of people who are serious academics who have published scientific literature, peer-reviewed stuff on near-death experience. I’ve never really seen much of your view or your opinion on this body of scientific work dealing with near-death experience. What do you make of that?

Howard Storm: I’m aware of some of it, and I appreciate the fact that people are trying to study this objectively, but there’s a huge limitation because the actual experience can’t be observed by any other person. So the only thing that’s observable, the only thing that’s measurable is the after effects. The interesting thing about the near-death experience that you’ve already mentioned is the near-death experiences are transformative as opposed to drug trips. There’s a bunch of quacks out there, quack scientists who say, ‘We can reproduce near-death experiences with drugs.’ And stuff like that. It’s not true, and one of the meshes of that is there isn’t any real measurable difference in terms of transforming the people. People that I know who have near-death experiences, their lives are radically changed. When I say radical, the Latin root means to go to the very root, the very core of their being is changed. And that is measurable, with not only in what they do with their lives after the experience, but also attitudes. Like for example, measuring anxiety about death. People who have near-death experiences tend to register no fear or anxiety about death whatsoever, as opposed to the general population, where death of course is the number one fear and anxiety about life.

So it’s hard stuff to scientifically measure. But there’s this huge body of evidence and what I’m referring to is millions of lives, not hundreds or thousands in the United States alone and all over the world of people whose lives are changed by these experiences. So there has to be something going on, and it’s not reproducible in any way by the scientific community. They can try electric shock and taking people with anesthetics and chemicals to the edge of death and administer hallucinogens and things like that, and none of that produces the same result.

xenoview's picture

NDE's are subjective experiences, not objective.

Do you believe in a god? If so, what objective evidence do you have a god is real?

Alain's picture
Some people try studying God

Some people try studying God in an objective way and that doesn't make sense.
Love is a subjective experience whether it is physical or spiritual love.
By studying it in an objective way all you can get is a measure of the intensity but you will never know what love is all about UNLESS you too experience love first hand so to speak.

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

I have experienced TRUE LOVE. It is called a SoulMate. Something you know nothing about. To love a figment of one's imagination is NOT love. It is a delusion. As I have said, until you can provide irrefutable OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of your deity's existence, then apply the Five Razors:

  1. Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
  4. Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
  5. Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.

As said, you need to attend a university so you can learn how to think critically, use logical and deductive reasoning, and use rational and analytical thought, and what exactly constitutes OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

Everything you have provided is nothing more than personal experience, hearsay, subjective. Completely inadmissible as evidence.

Under increasing positive g-force, blood in the body will tend to move from the head toward the feet. For higher intensity or longer duration, this can manifest progressively as:

  • Greyout - a loss of color vision
  • Tunnel vision - loss of peripheral vision, retaining only the center vision
  • Blackout - a complete loss of vision but retaining consciousness.
  • G-LOC - where consciousness is lost.

It is in the G-LOC that some pilots experience hallucinations which eerily sounded exactly like the NDEs certain persons have claimed to also suffer.

Do some research.


Alain's picture
I certainly did researches.

I certainly did researches.
A lot of them Arak and I still keep on researching.
My type of research however is not a physical one for the simple reason that God can not be understood in a physical way so I do use that type of science that is able to understand God.
Science is not one Arak.
In fact there is a science for every issue so to speak.
How can the physical science study what is not physical?
This is a concept that has been understood since old old time by the smart ones and is still not understood by the intellectual fraternity.
These blokes are convinced that through their intellect they can solve all kind of problems.
They still haven't got the fact that an infinite thirst for peace of mind and total bliss can only be satisfied by the infinity.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

My type of research however is not a physical one for the simple reason that God can not be understood in a physical way so I do use that type of science that is able to understand God

So exactly what verifiable method do you use?

Alain's picture
Simple Old Man.

Simple Old Man.

Same thing like when you try to get the love of someone that you like.
What you do?
You can do a lot of things OM.
You can be nice to that person and you can show all your interest to him-her.
Spiritual love has got some similarity however in this type of love God can not refuse your interest in Him unlike physical love.
Since the old time there has been a system that make this union easy and that is better known as yoga.
As the evidence of physical love can be verified only in the intensity also spiritual love can be verified as the glands and especially the pineal gland get more and more strong.

arakish's picture
Sorry. That is not the

Sorry. That is not the Scientific Method. Until you demonstrate with the Scientific Method and provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE anything you say is the same bullshit as spewed by the Christians.

Cognostic's Shovel applied.


Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain
So what you are saying is :

Joy is the driver of presence. The goal of bio-feedback is to plant the seeds of divinity rather than greed. We exist as morphic resonance.
The cosmos is calling to you via bio-feedback. Can you hear it?
Without knowledge, one cannot live. Yes, it is possible to eliminate the things that can sabotage us, but not without energy on our side. You must take a stand against dogma.

Am I right?

David Killens's picture


"In fact there is a science for every issue so to speak.
How can the physical science study what is not physical?"

Science is a method in determining and explaining phenomena. It is the the most consistent and effective method.
Science can not investigate something that is an act of imagination and untestable.

Alain's picture
Surely physical science can

Surely physical science can not investigate something that for her is untestable such as the consciousness.
Consciousness is not something physical.
You can not touch it, nor smell it nor see it nor ear it that is why you need a different type of science that can do that.
How would you know that there is no other science able to test it?
You put yourself inside a corral of false certainties that prevent you from looking elsewhere.
That is your problem David.

arakish's picture
And who is this "she/her" you

And who is this "she/her" you keep speaking about? If you are speaking about a deity, then the proper pronoun to apply is "IT."


Nyarlathotep's picture
Alain - Consciousness is not

Alain - Consciousness is not something physical....How would you know that there is no other science able to test it?

If it isn't physical, then it can't be measured. If it can't be measured, it isn't science. That is how we know.
That being said: consciousness might very well be physical; despite your statements to the contrary.

David Killens's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

"Surely physical science can not investigate something that for her is untestable such as the consciousness.
Consciousness is not something physical."

You are attempting to categorize "consciousness" as untestable.

I submit the hypothesis that what we define as "consciousness" can be tested. My favorite method ( I like it because it's so cool) is the mirror test. You can even do it yourself and test it on a pet. Let them see themselves in a mirror. Then gauge which of the three steps they progress through.

Step one ... they see something, but believe that what they see is on the other side of the mirror.
Step two ... they comprehend that what they see is a reflection ... of themselves.
Step three ... they comprehend that what they see is themselves and will actually look at parts of themselves they could not normally see. IMO this is when they display being self-conscious.

In summation, we can test for consciousness.

Alain's picture

David...................You are attempting to categorize "consciousness" as untestable.

Untestable by physical science David not by other sciences that can do that such as inuitional science.
All your examples have really nothing to do with what consciousness is all about.
They show that what you see in a mirror is you but in reality who is you?
Is you matter?
Is you a plant?
Is you an animal or a human being?
You see David?
As you go along the evolution scale you change and even now as a human being people wrongly think that I or me is what I see in the mirror.
I am afraid David that if you go along these faulty beliefs you will never know who you really are so consciousness will remain something unknown to you for long long time.

David Killens's picture
Look in the mirror you idiot.

Look in the mirror you idiot. The face looking back at you is YOU.

And I explained how consciousness can be tested. Now you have gone beyond bold assertions and are lying.

If you lie, in your next life do you come back as a cockroach?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Alain - Untestable by

Alain - Untestable by physical science David not by other sciences...

All science is "physical"; as science is based on measurement/experiment.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
The behavioral correlates of

The behavioral correlates of consciousness can always be problematic. There could be a dozen reasons why a conscious being will not stare at itself in the mirror. Primarily, I would assume, because consciousness is superior to all its subordinate systems like the visual system. So recognizing yourself in a mirror first requires that you are able to see yourself, and secondly that the structures for visual recognition are there. There are people that because of injury cannot recognize themselves in the mirror, yet they are clearly fully consciousness of not being able to do so.

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

"There are people that because of injury cannot recognize themselves in the mirror, yet they are clearly fully consciousness of not being able to do so."

And what percentage of the overall population do they occupy? Reaching to an extreme fringe does not reflect the general trends.

I can state that humans walk upright, but use the same lame excuse to describe those unable to walk.

John, you are grasping at straws.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I'm just pointing out that

I'm just pointing out that you may be committing a lot of type 2, false negative errors, with your mirror. Recognition is a very specific thing that brains are capable of doing, and consciousness can exist in its absence.

David Killens's picture
By referring to less than 0

By referring to less than 0.01% of the sample size?

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
You should mainly be using

You should mainly be using your mirror test on non-human organisms. So your percentage of false negatives will be a lot higher if you assume consciousness is absent whenever self-recognition is absent.

David Killens's picture
What is consciousness but

What is consciousness but self-awareness?

And why not humans? Oh wait, you belong to a cult that promotes the idea that humans are special snowflakes and distinct from all other animals.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
You can argue that

You can argue that consciousness is awareness of any experience, period; be it of yourself, of others, of vision, of sounds, or emotions, of memories; or to the exclusion of any of these (the self).

And because unless you attempt to embark down a path of solipsism, you have to assume that other people are as conscious as you. It becomes increasingly difficult to attribute consciousness to other organisms as they become more morphologically distinct from us. Most people can easily assume that apes and other mammals have a conscious experience similar to our own; but it becomes more difficult for insects and worms for example. So your mirror test is redundant for humans, and more practical for other organisms.

David Killens's picture
But you previously pointed

But you previously pointed out that some people fail the mirror test.

Are they zombies without souls? Wear a hard hat John, you don't want a falling brick disqualifying you from heaven.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
They are conscious beings

They are conscious beings with deficits in facial recognition; thus why your mirror leads to false negatives.

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

"How can the physical science study what is not physical?"

Then you are delving into the supernatural which has been proven to be demonstrably false thousands of times.


Alain's picture
What supernatural Arak?

What supernatural Arak?
Consciousness is you and you are more than natural so the consciousness is not supernatural.
Of course there are things that an average person can not understand so it is said they are supernatural but in reality nothing is supernatural.
God is natural too.
The only thing that is not understood is that God is something alien to us when in reality is us.
The sooner we understand this concept the sooner the supernatural become natural.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.