Is the Filter Theory committing the ad hoc fallacy and is it unfalsifiable?

Yeah I think anyone who has watched someone unfairly succumb to illness can make an argument against belief in the Omni-God. (Or one might just go through the news.)

And anyone who has watched someone succumb to dementia and related brain illnesses has a powerful incentive to think brain death means death period.

One can even demand a "hit" in a very controlled setting before they accept NDEs as producing OOBEs.

Where things go off the rails is the insistence that we can reject NDEs as afterlife evidence based on lack of hits in certain studies. Or that *if* souls exist they would *definitely* need brains to retain cognitive functioning. These to me are bizarre extreme positions.

On the flip side I think if Survival is true (which I believe) it paints a very strange picture of reality where communication is sparse, where multiple lines of evidence point to different kinds of afterlives that don't seem to be determined in a logical fashion, where culture influences some imagery encountered, and where an explanation has to be put forth for why Survival evidence is so difficult to obtain.

This doesn't mean the case for Survival is weak but it's fair to say that it is not so strong that it could currently be accepted in the way the oddities of QM are accepted. [Even in the case of QM the oddities are not accepted by everyone.]

It seems to me that this is most likely by design, not chance - the powers that be have decided that this plane of existence is to be a place of both joy and of suffering, presumably for learning purposes. The idea is, in order to properly challenge humans in the physical world this reality was designed so that paranormal proof of survival is either impossible or nearly so. This design makes it much harder for humans to develop a realization of spiritual reality - an intentional challenge. This of course is a bad decision from the human standpoint, but our existing physical reality obviously has a design that permits rampant injustice and innocent suffering. So obviously whoever or whatever set the system up was not a human person and didn't much have human suffering in mind, or may have even considered it important enough to have a lot of.

Of course, the system design must be exceedingly complex, meaning that there will inevitably be many conflicts between design requirements, which automatically necessitates a lot of difficult tradeoffs. We can't know what these tradeoffs were, but they may explain a lot of the "evils" of Earth life.