Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7 ... e=youtu.be

Interesting 15 minute dissertation on the NDE's and their "transmitter" effect from outside influence to brain created experience.


audie, i wouldn't no woo-woo from ye-haa in your scientific community but this video did come from the woo-woo article you just read. Imbedded in the article was this: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm selected from peer reviewed publications on Psi research. It was not a part of what you read in the first article but was used as reference ? You'll need to look at it and see... Pretty sure you'll recognize these people in peer review and video above as your kinda guys in regards to scientific community fellows. There aren't any sides taken and no claims validated, just good, honest talk on the subject.

ok thanks. much better than this sorta unsupportable claim..the best explanation for this is that the brain is a form of a receiver for consciousness , not the cause of it

Charles) Bruce Greyson (born October 1946) is Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia. He is co-author of Irreducible Mind (2007) and co-editor of The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences (2009). Greyson has written many journal articles, and has given media interviews, on the subject of near death experiences.

Academic appointments
Greyson is Chester F. Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, and the former director of The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS),[1] formerly the Division of Personality Studies, at the University of Virginia. He is also a Professor of Psychiatric Medicine in the Department of Psychiatric Medicine, Division of Outpatient Psychiatry, at the University of Virginia.

Research work
Greyson is a researcher in the field of near-death studies and has been called the father of research in near-death experiences.[2][3] Greyson, along with Kenneth Ring, Michael Sabom, and others, built on the research of Raymond Moody, Russell Noyes Jr and Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. Greyson's scale to measure the aspects of near-death experiences[4] has been widely used, being cited 95 times as of early 2010.[5] He also devised a 19-item scale to assess experience of kundalini, the Physio-Kundalini Scale.[6]

Greyson wrote the overview of Near Death Experiences for the Encyclopædia Britannica and was the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Near-Death Studies (formerly Anabiosis) from 1982 through 2007. Greyson has been interviewed or consulted many times in the press on the subject of near-death experiences.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

abelcainsbrother wrote:

1over137 wrote:This flood talk is like in every thread.

I know,sorry,but it keeps being brought up.I guess I'm just going to have to ignore it.

Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol. 14, pp. 4684-4696. JournalofCosmology.com, 2011
Cosmological Implications of Near-Death Experiences
Bruce Greyson
University of Virginia, University of Virginia Health System, 210 10th Street, NE, Suite 100, Charlottesville, VA 22902-4754
Abstract
"Near-death experiences" include phenomena that challenge materialist reductionism, such as enhanced mentation and memory during cerebral impairment, accurate perceptions from a perspective outside the body, and reported visions of deceased persons, including those not previously known to be deceased.

Complex consciousness, including cognition, perception, and memory, under conditions such as cardiac arrest and general anesthesia, when it cannot be associated with normal brain function, requires a revised cosmology anchored not in 19th-century classical physics but rather in 21st-century quantum physics that includes consciousness in its conceptual formulation. Classical physics, anchored in materialist reductionism, offered adequate descriptions of everyday mechanics but ultimately proved insufficient for describing the mechanics of extremely high speeds or small sizes, and was supplemented a century ago by quantum physics.

Materialist psychology, modeled on the reductionism of classical physics, likewise offered adequate descriptions of everyday mental functioning but ultimately proved insufficient for describing mentation under extreme conditions, such as the continuation of mental function when the brain is inactive or impaired, such as occurs near death.

One major clue to the nature of the mind-brain relationship may be found in descriptions of near-death, or after death experiences. If the mind, if consciousness is retained during clinical death, this would indicate the mind may only be dependent on the brain much as a radio transmission is dependent upon a receiver and broadcast unit.

considerable research in the past several decades has delineated parameters of what have come to be called "near-death experiences", where those who appear to have died report dissociative experiences where they are separate from their bodies and can observe and are conscious of their surroundings. These profound subjective experiences that many people report when they are near death pose challenges to the materialist mind-brain production model (Greyson, 2003; Parnia et al., 2001; Schwartz et al., 2005; van Lommel et al., 2001).


Experiences of heightened or mystical consciousness on the threshold of death have been described sporadically in the Western medical literature since the 19th century and have been studied systematically for the past 30 years (Holden et al., 2009). Recent research suggests that near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by 12% to 18% of cardiac arrest survivors (Parnia et al., 2001; Greyson, 2003; van Lommel et al., 2001).

These near-death experiences include feelings of peace and joy; a sense of being out of one’s physical body and watching events from an out-of-body perspective; a cessation of pain; seeing an unusually bright light, sometimes experienced as a "Being of Light" that radiates love and may speak or otherwise communicate with the person; encountering other beings, often deceased people; experiencing a revival of memories or even a full life review, seeing some "other realm," often of great beauty; sensing a barrier or border beyond which the person cannot go; and returning to the physical body, often reluctantly.

RickD wrote:All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

That is the whole issue Rick and why Materialist keep looking for a way out like saying things like "maybe there is some undetectable activity" and they say this with no evidence at all.
Fact is that we are able to read brain activity very well, we are able to read even the most minuscule of electrical impulses in the brain.
In short, when a person is declared brain dead it means there is NO brain activity at all,period.
To question that with no evidence of the contrary is to question and insult neuroscience.
See science is very simple:
It comments on what can be OBSERVED, what can be evidenced in some form or another.

When a person says that someone that had a nde when brain dead MUST have some sort of undetectable brain activity they are basically saying that they do NOT want to follow the evidence presented and prefer to speculate based on their personal belief and not what science has evidence for.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

That is the whole issue Rick and why Materialist keep looking for a way out like saying things like "maybe there is some undetectable activity" and they say this with no evidence at all.
Fact is that we are able to read brain activity very well, we are able to read even the most minuscule of electrical impulses in the brain.
In short, when a person is declared brain dead it means there is NO brain activity at all,period.
To question that with no evidence of the contrary is to question and insult neuroscience.
See science is very simple:
It comments on what can be OBSERVED, what can be evidenced in some form or another.

When a person says that someone that had a nde when brain dead MUST have some sort of undetectable brain activity they are basically saying that they do NOT want to follow the evidence presented and prefer to speculate based on their personal belief and not what science has evidence for.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

That is the whole issue Rick and why Materialist keep looking for a way out like saying things like "maybe there is some undetectable activity" and they say this with no evidence at all.
Fact is that we are able to read brain activity very well, we are able to read even the most minuscule of electrical impulses in the brain.
In short, when a person is declared brain dead it means there is NO brain activity at all,period.
To question that with no evidence of the contrary is to question and insult neuroscience.
See science is very simple:
It comments on what can be OBSERVED, what can be evidenced in some form or another.

When a person says that someone that had a nde when brain dead MUST have some sort of undetectable brain activity they are basically saying that they do NOT want to follow the evidence presented and prefer to speculate based on their personal belief and not what science has evidence for.

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie,
I assume you have SOME sort of evidence for your view of these "undetectable" brain activities?

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

That is the whole issue Rick and why Materialist keep looking for a way out like saying things like "maybe there is some undetectable activity" and they say this with no evidence at all.
Fact is that we are able to read brain activity very well, we are able to read even the most minuscule of electrical impulses in the brain.
In short, when a person is declared brain dead it means there is NO brain activity at all,period.
To question that with no evidence of the contrary is to question and insult neuroscience.
See science is very simple:
It comments on what can be OBSERVED, what can be evidenced in some form or another.

When a person says that someone that had a nde when brain dead MUST have some sort of undetectable brain activity they are basically saying that they do NOT want to follow the evidence presented and prefer to speculate based on their personal belief and not what science has evidence for.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:All the rabbit trails aside, I think Audie makes a good point. And I haven't seen it addressed yet(I may have missed it).

If someone's brain is dead in a NDE, then how can they have memories of the NDE?

Audie,

Sorry if I misrepresented your point, but that's what I got from what you said.

That is the whole issue Rick and why Materialist keep looking for a way out like saying things like "maybe there is some undetectable activity" and they say this with no evidence at all.
Fact is that we are able to read brain activity very well, we are able to read even the most minuscule of electrical impulses in the brain.
In short, when a person is declared brain dead it means there is NO brain activity at all,period.
To question that with no evidence of the contrary is to question and insult neuroscience.
See science is very simple:
It comments on what can be OBSERVED, what can be evidenced in some form or another.

When a person says that someone that had a nde when brain dead MUST have some sort of undetectable brain activity they are basically saying that they do NOT want to follow the evidence presented and prefer to speculate based on their personal belief and not what science has evidence for.

I did not say "must" but apparently it fashionable to make things up, unfashionable to comment on it.

I am not looking for a way out, but hey thats the code here, just say things, so why do I bother to even note such things.
If its your "truth", good enough.

Prefer to speculate based on personal belief, wont follow evidence.

Absolutely; there could not be any other possibility, still less that ndes might
not be a supernatural experiences, impossible that the intellectual shortcomings
described could involve anything like "projection" going on.

In late 2013 scientists found a deep brain surge in dying rats that wasn't detected by regular eeg's but was detected by electrodes placed deeper in the rats brains. Atheists screamed "we won, see there is a brain based explanation for ndes"
Never mind that they learned in school that correlation doesn't equal causation.

But these atheist neuroscientists ignored this anyways and kept using this study as evidence for their brain based explanation. This is not science but dogmatism. But a deeper look at the study showed why it was overblowned .
Every rat that was given anesthetics experienced no brain activity deep or otherwise and nde researchers know that many of their nde experiencers had nde's even when they were given anesthetics.

PaulSacramento wrote:

In late 2013 scientists found a deep brain surge in dying rats that wasn't detected by regular eeg's but was detected by electrodes placed deeper in the rats brains. Atheists screamed "we won, see there is a brain based explanation for ndes"
Never mind that they learned in school that correlation doesn't equal causation.

But these atheist neuroscientists ignored this anyways and kept using this study as evidence for their brain based explanation. This is not science but dogmatism. But a deeper look at the study showed why it was overblowned .
Every rat that was given anesthetics experienced no brain activity deep or otherwise and nde researchers know that many of their nde experiencers had nde's even when they were given anesthetics.

I am not a neuroscientist BUT I do recall this study being brought up and it was dismissed as a possible explanation also because the very areas that were found to be active were not really active per ( there was residula electrical activity) say AND they were not areas that would account for NDE's at all.

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie,
I assume you have SOME sort of evidence for your view of these "undetectable" brain activities?

PaulSacramento wrote:

In late 2013 scientists found a deep brain surge in dying rats that wasn't detected by regular eeg's but was detected by electrodes placed deeper in the rats brains. Atheists screamed "we won, see there is a brain based explanation for ndes"
Never mind that they learned in school that correlation doesn't equal causation.

But these atheist neuroscientists ignored this anyways and kept using this study as evidence for their brain based explanation. This is not science but dogmatism. But a deeper look at the study showed why it was overblowned .
Every rat that was given anesthetics experienced no brain activity deep or otherwise and nde researchers know that many of their nde experiencers had nde's even when they were given anesthetics.

I am not a neuroscientist BUT I do recall this study being brought up and it was dismissed as a possible explanation also because the very areas that were found to be active were not really active per ( there was residula electrical activity) say AND they were not areas that would account for NDE's at all.