Evidence for God from Science

Audie: So why is it so important to insist someone was "dead"?

Min, I'm not sure why you ask that. It's not a matter of insisting, it's a matter of what do the facts show. Was or was not a person clinically dead when they had a NDE? Was there NO detectable brain activity, no heartbeat, etc? If they were NOT brain dead/totally lacking in brain function, etc., then there is something going on that is beyond what the mere physical can explain. If they still had brain activity, heartbeat, etc. - then the validity of some experience they subsequently describe should make everyone far more skeptical.

Philip wrote:

Audie: So why is it so important to insist someone was "dead"?

Min, I'm not sure why you ask that. It's not a matter of insisting, it's a matter of what do the facts show. Was or was not a person clinically dead when they had a NDE? Was there NO detectable brain activity, no heartbeat, etc? If they were NOT brain dead/totally lacking in brain function, etc., If they still had brain activity, heartbeat, etc. - then the validity of some experience they subsequently describe should make everyone far more skeptical.

If not "insisting" then, what word would yo use?

Facts? As a rule, a scientist wont even use the word, except to say something like:

It is a fact that this is my data".

Data: no heart beat detected by (fill in whatever means)
no brain activity detected by (fill in name or instrument, how it was used)

Ok, so in some cases people will recover after a short period of time with
no detectable brain activity or pulse.

then there is something going on that is beyond what the mere physical can explain.

"The mere physical" is one of those phrases from woo wooville. I think one is well advised to avoid them, especially when speaking to someone who is not in their camp.

Much is implied, nothing is delivered by such talk. As "physical" describes the universe, the word "mere" seems oddly inept.

"can explain"? Much implied there. A certainty that is unwarranted, evidently that
science, "physical" is simply barred, can never venture there.

Glance back at what people would say with great certitude that the "mere physical cannot explain" in years past which would include such as disease, especially mental illness.

And of course, some aspects of these still are beyond present understanding.

I do not agree that it is just a matter of "facts". Maybe it is an emotional issue.
Others in these NDE talks have been so adamant that the NDEist absolutely must have been
dead dead dead, I would like to know exactly why that is so important.


You didnt say, at all.

Audie, as so often, when what can be known shows there is no known explanation, mechanism or cause, that points to something beyond us, beyond our physical beings and universe, you are quick to grab onto your "who knows what is possible that we don't yet know about" response that moves into you hinting at currently not understood metaphysics. But you refuse to see a spiritual world or God within those metaphysics. All things are possible, but not THAT???!!! And with these NDEs, you have two huge problems: 1) If the brain has ceased functioning, there is no blood flow or heartbeat, then the brain could not have produced the experience; 2) The brain also could not RETAIN an experience that occurred while it was not functioning - despite where it might come from. And of all the "dreamlike" experiences one clinically dead might have, we're to believe so many experience something about an afterlife? Let's not forget how many return to also perfectly tell of select events going on while their brain activity and heartbeat had ceased. So, during this brain-dead period, what could have possibly have produced the experience and what recorded it?

I think you keep asking about why it is so important to determine if someone was actually dead because you are willing to entertain some metaphysical explanation that stands in contradiction to the actual experience - just not what the experiences themselves indicate. So, to you, as to whether a person was actually dead matters very little. So, metaphysics is your default fall back explanation from the Big Bang to NDEs. Don't you think it's more than a little weird that, of all the experiences people might have in a NDE, they consistently come back with testimonies about things existing beyond our physical reality? That should make you strongly consider that there is very likely a reality beyond death!

Audie wrote:So why is it so important to insist someone was "dead"?

Because you will not believe even if God tapped danced on upon the top of you head

here is the answer: watch the sunrise from a remote mountain top on a clear day - you notice the beauty of nature but fail to note the creator who made it.

It would not matter to you.

Has medical science ever resuscitated anyone back from the dead?

Even if there was proof - pride still refuses truth...

Jesus died for your sins and rose on the third day...that is why it is important
-
-
-

Morny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:Why is it so important to insist that a doctor's call that
a person is clinically dead be determined to be really-really
squashed possum on the highway-dead?

Even if a really-really squashed possum on the highway-dead was healed made whole, many-many folks would not acknowledge God at all involved in it.

If this happened, it would be touted like this: probably caused by random chance. You see, the atoms and molecules all came back together and formed and wham a whole perfect possum emerged, thus, amazing proof for evolution- finally at last!

I know of no one in the science-thinking world, who would even remotely hint at such a thing. Also, Audie's point is correct.

A doctor's proclamation of death is irrelevant to the poor evidence for NDEs, in which the "near dead" person often claims extraordinary knowledge, e.g., from an OBE.

This was a joke...Morny
-
-
-

Philip wrote:Audie, as so often, when what can be known shows there is no known explanation, mechanism or cause, that points to something beyond us, beyond our physical beings and universe, you are quick to grab onto your "who knows what is possible that we don't yet know about" response that moves into you hinting at currently not understood metaphysics. But you refuse to see a spiritual world or God within those metaphysics. All things are possible, but not THAT???!!! And with these NDEs, you have two huge problems: 1) If the brain has ceased functioning, there is no blood flow or heartbeat, then the brain could not have produced the experience; 2) The brain also could not RETAIN an experience that occurred while it was not functioning - despite where it might come from. And of all the "dreamlike" experiences one clinically dead might have, we're to believe so many experience something about an afterlife? Let's not forget how many return to also perfectly tell of select events going on while their brain activity and heartbeat had ceased. So, during this brain-dead period, what could have possibly have produced the experience and what recorded it?

I think you keep asking about why it is so important to determine if someone was actually dead because you are willing to entertain some metaphysical explanation that stands in contradiction to the actual experience - just not what the experiences themselves indicate. So, to you, as to whether a person was actually dead matters very little. So, metaphysics is your default fall back explanation from the Big Bang to NDEs. Don't you think it's more than a little weird that, of all the experiences people might have in a NDE, they consistently come back with testimonies about things existing beyond our physical reality? That should make you strongly consider that there is very likely a reality beyond death!

Yep Philip and in addition I think we will find that in the next 10-20 years the term near death experience will not be used anymore .
Parnia himself is starting to insist that they should be correctly called actual death experiences or ADE's cause of these specific ndes that are happening after cardiac arrest .

Parnia started out on the other side of the fence on this and as you can see here in 2010 he even stated that in his opinion they are most likely hallucination caused. Y the dying brain which infuriated skeptiko host Alex tsakiris

http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-clai ... -illusion/

It's important to note gets that Parnia is a self admitted agnostic who stayed he had no religious beliefs what so ever .

Fast forward to 2014 and here we see Parnia is quoted again . Let's see what he says ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... study.html

""Many people have assumed that these were hallucinations or illusions but they do seem to corresponded to actual events.""

What we have here is a self admitted sceptic that changed his mind and not from any bias or previous belief but on the evidence from his own study

At least he was honest enough to follow the evidence where ever it lead him

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:So why is it so important to insist someone was "dead"?

Because you will not believe even if God tapped danced on upon the top of you head

here is the answer: watch the sunrise from a remote mountain top on a clear day - you notice the beauty of nature but fail to note the creator who made it.

It would not matter to you.

Has medical science ever resuscitated anyone back from the dead?

Even if there was proof - pride still refuses truth...

Jesus died for your sins and rose on the third day...that is why it is important
-
-
-

This is the problem BW, atheists want death to be defined as the meprobamate damaged beyond repair and turned into dust , which is ridiculous .
If a brain is non functional or if it's turned to dust there is no difference between the 2 states in the state the brain is . It's in a state of non functionality . In a materialistic worldview these experiences are impossible .

But if the brain like a TV set is a filter or receiver for consciousness then not only is this experience possible but it's actually expected .

When Parnia was asked in a conference whether the aware study proved there is an afterlife he answered that all it proves is that conscious awareness can continue up to 3 mi Utes without a functional brain , the study doesn't say what happens after that .as you can see Parnia is a tough sceptic and yet he had excited the reality of ndes .

When it comes to proving whether ndes show evidence that consciousness lasts beyond the 3 minutes in the aware study Nde, we need to turn to peak in Darien ndes where as eben Alexander saw a beautiful angelic guide who he later found out was his biological sister that he never knew about that died many years before .

The evidence all points to the soul and an eternal afterlife and it seems to keep getting stronger each year .

This was why famed atheist philosopher john beloff is begging his fellow atheists says to just accept the Nde evidence for the soul and afterlife before they are left behind by the text of the world .

B. W. wrote:

Morny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:Why is it so important to insist that a doctor's call that
a person is clinically dead be determined to be really-really
squashed possum on the highway-dead?

Even if a really-really squashed possum on the highway-dead was healed made whole, many-many folks would not acknowledge God at all involved in it.

If this happened, it would be touted like this: probably caused by random chance. You see, the atoms and molecules all came back together and formed and wham a whole perfect possum emerged, thus, amazing proof for evolution- finally at last!

I know of no one in the science-thinking world, who would even remotely hint at such a thing. Also, Audie's point is correct.

A doctor's proclamation of death is irrelevant to the poor evidence for NDEs, in which the "near dead" person often claims extraordinary knowledge, e.g., from an OBE.

This was a joke...Morny

I understand your comments - you're confusing "joke" with "sarcasm". My response addressed the intent of your sarcasm, viz., that science won't acknowledge NDE evidence.

For example, I said, "A doctor's proclamation of death is irrelevant to the poor evidence for NDEs, in which the "near dead" person often claims extraordinary knowledge, e.g., from an OBE."

And the reason is that the evidence itself for the claimed extraordinary knowledge during the NDE is poor.

Philip wrote: But as for OUR understanding of such a reported experience, a cessation of brain activity and heart function mean that any suggestion that a non-functioning brain created - much less later accessed and retained such an incredible experience, or that during this lifeless/brain-dead state that a person could reveal events going on that would have been impossible for the person to know - well, that these experiences have occurred without a functioning brain rule out the usual physical/psychological/dream explanations.

Which clinical "brain dead" tests did these patients pass?

Effects, such as drugs and very low blood pressure, have fooled more than one well-meaning doctor into believing their patient was brain dead.

And even assuming some kind of very short span of "brain deadness", what evidence could possibly show that their mental revelations did not come from brain activity just before or just after their supposed brain dead period?

And after all that, as I've shown in previous posts, the evidence of extraordinary knowledge during NDE, e.g., from OBE, is of embarrassingly low quality.

Philip wrote: Hank Hanegraaff's organization, Christian Research Institute, has some fascinating things to say about near death experiences and research related to them:
[Hank's apologetic links omitted]

You do realize Hank and the "Christian Research Institute", in spite of such an impressive sounding name, have less in common with science, than I have with Beyonce, right?

For example, for some incomprehensible reason, Hank Hanegraaff needed years of "research" before finally coming out in the last few years with a book supporting the monumental conclusion the Earth is old, i.e., not 6000 years old.

Morny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Morny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:Why is it so important to insist that a doctor's call that
a person is clinically dead be determined to be really-really
squashed possum on the highway-dead?

Even if a really-really squashed possum on the highway-dead was healed made whole, many-many folks would not acknowledge God at all involved in it.

If this happened, it would be touted like this: probably caused by random chance. You see, the atoms and molecules all came back together and formed and wham a whole perfect possum emerged, thus, amazing proof for evolution- finally at last!

I know of no one in the science-thinking world, who would even remotely hint at such a thing. Also, Audie's point is correct.

A doctor's proclamation of death is irrelevant to the poor evidence for NDEs, in which the "near dead" person often claims extraordinary knowledge, e.g., from an OBE.

This was a joke...Morny

I understand your comments - you're confusing "joke" with "sarcasm". My response addressed the intent of your sarcasm, viz., that science won't acknowledge NDE evidence.

For example, I said, "A doctor's proclamation of death is irrelevant to the poor evidence for NDEs,e in which the "near dead" person often claims extraordinary knowledge, e.g., from an OBE."

And the reason is that the evidence itself for the claimed extraordinary knowledge during the NDE is poor.

Morny I'm sorry that the aware study obe patient didn't describe the microscopic bacterial stain on the inside of the doctors underwear .
Why is it that I totally disagree with you on this ?

And while your at it please tell us how Doctor eben Alexander's peak in Darien nde happened and he gained knowledge in the next realm of a sister he never knew he had ?
Oh yea even must be lying , that's it!!!

A known atheist that was force by the evidence to change his worldview and now attends church every week .

But I'm sure you will find a way to wiggle out if this one . Like I said its a heart thing here not s head thing .

Morny why not join the skeptiko forum and try these arguments there .
I would love to see this
But we both know that this won't happen .

Dr Parnia is a tescusiyatiib specialist . He is in the best position to know if the brain is working or not .

He doesn't say we think the brain stops functioning after cardiac arrest , he says we know it .

Philip wrote:Audie, as so often, when what can be known shows there is no known explanation, mechanism or cause, that points to something beyond us, beyond our physical beings and universe, you are quick to grab onto your "who knows what is possible that we don't yet know about" response that moves into you hinting at currently not understood metaphysics. But you refuse to see a spiritual world or God within those metaphysics. All things are possible, but not THAT???!!! And with these NDEs, you have two huge problems: 1) If the brain has ceased functioning, there is no blood flow or heartbeat, then the brain could not have produced the experience; 2) The brain also could not RETAIN an experience that occurred while it was not functioning - despite where it might come from. And of all the "dreamlike" experiences one clinically dead might have, we're to believe so many experience something about an afterlife? Let's not forget how many return to also perfectly tell of select events going on while their brain activity and heartbeat had ceased. So, during this brain-dead period, what could have possibly have produced the experience and what recorded it?

I think you keep asking about why it is so important to determine if someone was actually dead because you are willing to entertain some metaphysical explanation that stands in contradiction to the actual experience - just not what the experiences themselves indicate. So, to you, as to whether a person was actually dead matters very little. So, metaphysics is your default fall back explanation from the Big Bang to NDEs. Don't you think it's more than a little weird that, of all the experiences people might have in a NDE, they consistently come back with testimonies about things existing beyond our physical reality? That should make you strongly consider that there is very likely a reality beyond death!

There are various issues, real or your fantasies about me personally, that I might address.

Off topic, and not of much interest to me to discuss here how I think, defend myself from
your stereotypes, or talk about the big bang. I could make some guesses as to why you'd choose to go down that sorry path,, but perhaps to no more point than your discursions and condescending statements of facts not in evidence about me.


Deep in the text you sort of addressed the q.
Clearly, you will not or cannot answer more than that, nor speak for those who are so invested
in how the person must be dead.

Obviously, it is of make or break importance to some; the cheap snarks from such lesser lights as grace the forum speaking in response to a simple question show how emotional
they are about this.

So I guess I got my answer, however indirectly.

Audie is back.

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote: But as for OUR understanding of such a reported experience, a cessation of brain activity and heart function mean that any suggestion that a non-functioning brain created - much less later accessed and retained such an incredible experience, or that during this lifeless/brain-dead state that a person could reveal events going on that would have been impossible for the person to know - well, that these experiences have occurred without a functioning brain rule out the usual physical/psychological/dream explanations.

Which clinical "brain dead" tests did these patients pass?

Effects, such as drugs and very low blood pressure, have fooled more than one well-meaning doctor into believing their patient was brain dead.

And even assuming some kind of very short span of "brain deadness", what evidence could possibly show that their mental revelations did not come from brain activity just before or just after their supposed brain dead period?

And after all that, as I've shown in previous posts, the evidence of extraordinary knowledge during NDE, e.g., from OBE, is of embarrassingly low quality.

Philip wrote: Hank Hanegraaff's organization, Christian Research Institute, has some fascinating things to say about near death experiences and research related to them:
[Hank's apologetic links omitted]

You do realize Hank and the "Christian Research Institute", in spite of such an impressive sounding name, have less in common with science, than I have with Beyonce, right?

For example, for some incomprehensible reason, Hank Hanegraaff needed years of "research" before finally coming out in the last few years with a book supporting the monumental conclusion the Earth is old, i.e., not 6000 years old.

How can a prrson with any sense be fascinated by material coming from as institute that
features such as a distinguished professor holding forth on how many animals noah took on his ark?
How many years of research for that?

Show me an article in Lancet, or the AMA Journal for info on medical issues, not "The Watchtower".

Morny: You do realize Hank and the "Christian Research Institute", in spite of such an impressive sounding name, have less in common with science, than I have with Beyonce, right?

And Morny, you do realize that one doesn't have to be a scientist to reference scientific data, analysis or research? Is a newspaper staff all experts on every subject that it reports on? Isn't that why expert witnesses are called in for testimony? What matters is the expertise of the researchers and accuracy of the data a source reports. It's obviously the source, its expertise, the quality of the data and analysis being reported. Are YOU an expert on every fact, research or information you reference? Of course not! Do you have to be? No! Does the validity or analysis of the sources you report have anything to do with you? Absolutely not - they fall or stand upon their own merits. But nice try, Morny, nice try!

Audie wrote:

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote: But as for OUR understanding of such a reported experience, a cessation of brain activity and heart function mean that any suggestion that a non-functioning brain created - much less later accessed and retained such an incredible experience, or that during this lifeless/brain-dead state that a person could reveal events going on that would have been impossible for the person to know - well, that these experiences have occurred without a functioning brain rule out the usual physical/psychological/dream explanations.

Which clinical "brain dead" tests did these patients pass?

Effects, such as drugs and very low blood pressure, have fooled more than one well-meaning doctor into believing their patient was brain dead.

And even assuming some kind of very short span of "brain deadness", what evidence could possibly show that their mental revelations did not come from brain activity just before or just after their supposed brain dead period?

And after all that, as I've shown in previous posts, the evidence of extraordinary knowledge during NDE, e.g., from OBE, is of embarrassingly low quality.

Philip wrote: Hank Hanegraaff's organization, Christian Research Institute, has some fascinating things to say about near death experiences and research related to them:
[Hank's apologetic links omitted]

You do realize Hank and the "Christian Research Institute", in spite of such an impressive sounding name, have less in common with science, than I have with Beyonce, right?

For example, for some incomprehensible reason, Hank Hanegraaff needed years of "research" before finally coming out in the last few years with a book supporting the monumental conclusion the Earth is old, i.e., not 6000 years old.

How can a prrson with any sense be fascinated by material coming from as institute that
features such as a distinguished professor holding forth on how many animals noah took on his ark?
How many years of research for that?

Show me an article in Lancet, or the AMA Journal for info on medical issues, not "The Watchtower".

Yep. Audie is definitely back. Insulting Christians, and all.