Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Check it out:http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html
But we should probably not turn this thread into a NDE thread. I think there is one already.
Nothing new is it? Except to remind us how much is out there we don't know. The most interesting NDE cases I've read were those of blind from birth people who've experienced full sight in their ND experience.
Originally posted by The MISTER
I was referring to the spirit of a creature be it human or not. The existence of spirits has not been and cannot be unproven. Science understandably does not spend as much energy delving into the spirit world but you'd be hard pressed to find people who find the idea of a spirit impossible.
Originally posted by Allankles
Why? Transitioning into another state of being is too implausible an idea? Life itself is sought of a transition, you were not, and then you became.
If something like that happens, then it must have a natural mechanism that allows it to happen. Until such natural mechanism is discovered, I will say there is no such thing as a soul, as described by Christianity.
Originally posted by King Kandy
If they "died" then it would be a near death experience, it would just be being dead, period. IDK what definition of death you use, but them coming back is pretty strong evidence they never died.
Not at al,l science has already defined that clincal death is death. NDEers did not create that defintion, the only reason why you have a problem with it is because its proof for life after death. You will accept other scientific defintions but for this you apply a double standard.
Originally posted by Deadline
Then why is it called that?
because clinical death is when we cannot detect signs of life, and often is the "point of no return" for people
Originally posted by Deadline
Also you never said this to me before, last time you said they just might be alive for a split second.
you must have misunderstood me. the point is, because we have no way to say someone is dead, as in, not going to come back to life, there will always be a difference between the sort of "conceptual death" and "clinical death"
Originally posted by Deadline
Also what do you mean they haven't proven it?
I was refuting what you were saying, there is no reason to, nor do any scientists, believe that clinical death represents the abstract concept of death, it, like all models in science, represents the best evidence we have, but is incomplete
Originally posted by King KandyOur best understanding? You're implying that "we" agree with you and the scientific communities best understanding and that the scientific method is the only way to uncover truth. Our belief as a group (Humans) is that there is a spirit. I'm sure that the scientific method is useful in all physical investigation but dismissing the spirit world because you can't explain it is arrogance, especially when science concludes that we are only animals that will die in short time spans. You put to much faith in science and just as the theory that we were the center of the universe changed so will many other things that you claim as facts now. Dead areas of study... Is there truly any such thing? Maybe for those who have absolute faith in the instruction of men. 😮💨
Science can't "unprove" anything, and you implying that doing so is necessary to abandon dead areas of study shows you really have no understanding of how the scientific method works. I already described what, based on our best understanding, happens after death--you positing that there's something else waiting to be explored is guesswork.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Our best understanding? You're implying that "we" agree with you and the scientific communities best understanding and that the scientific method is the only way to uncover truth. Our belief as a group (Humans) is that there is a spirit. I'm sure that the scientific method is useful in all physical investigation but dismissing the spirit world because you can't explain it is arrogance, especially when science concludes that we are only animals that will die in short time spans. You put to much faith in science and just as the theory that we were the center of the universe changed so will many other things that you claim as facts now. Dead areas of study... Is there truly any such thing? Maybe for those who have absolute faith in the instruction of men. 😮💨
So, you only proof of a spirit world is popularity?
Originally posted by The MISTER
Our best understanding? You're implying that "we" agree with you and the scientific communities best understanding and that the scientific method is the only way to uncover truth. Our belief as a group (Humans) is that there is a spirit. I'm sure that the scientific method is useful in all physical investigation but dismissing the spirit world because you can't explain it is arrogance, especially when science concludes that we are only animals that will die in short time spans. You put to much faith in science and just as the theory that we were the center of the universe changed so will many other things that you claim as facts now. Dead areas of study... Is there truly any such thing? Maybe for those who have absolute faith in the instruction of men. 😮💨
actually, all qualities of what people would call the "spirit" are explainable in clearly empirical and material terms. The feeling that there is a "spirit" inside us, as if there is a being sitting behind our eyes viewing the world, is an illusion created by the brain, and is manipulable through entirely material means.
What part of the "spirit" do you take as being non-material?
Originally posted by The MISTER
Our best understanding? You're implying that "we" agree with you and the scientific communities best understanding and that the scientific method is the only way to uncover truth. Our belief as a group (Humans) is that there is a spirit. I'm sure that the scientific method is useful in all physical investigation but dismissing the spirit world because you can't explain it is arrogance, especially when science concludes that we are only animals that will die in short time spans. You put to much faith in science and just as the theory that we were the center of the universe changed so will many other things that you claim as facts now. Dead areas of study... Is there truly any such thing? Maybe for those who have absolute faith in the instruction of men. 😮💨
Can you give me any reasons for a spirit to exist, other than lots of people think it does?
Originally posted by inimalist
because clinical death is when we cannot detect signs of life, and often is the "point of no return" for people
Right and I'm saying its called that because it fits the defintion of death.
Originally posted by inimalist
you must have misunderstood me. the point is, because we have no way to say someone is dead, as in, not going to come back to life, there will always be a difference between the sort of "conceptual death" and "clinical death"
Ok I got that, at any rate I didn't really express what I was getting at, nevermind.
Originally posted by inimalist
I was refuting what you were saying, there is no reason to, nor do any scientists, believe that clinical death represents the abstract concept of death, it, like all models in science, represents the best evidence we have, but is incomplete
I know it was sort of a rhetorical question. I'm not sure what you mean by abstract but I'm pretty sure alot of people accept that a person is actually dead during clinical death. Theres every reason in the world to accept that a person is actually dead during clinical death. Just because we don't fully understand an aspect of science does not mean that something is disproven because you can always make that argument.
Like you said the best evidence we have suggests that people are dead during clinical death. We know that the brain and heart is needed to keep somebody alive, if they stop working its logical to think that they are dead. If the instruments used to measure life indicate that there is no actvity don't you actually need to prove that there is? Just because there is a possibility that they are not dead does not mean they are alive, you need to actually prove it.
People accept the big bang because it's the best explanation, it's plauisble that a sentient being could have created the universe but until theres proof we wil go with the big bang. This is a double standard.
Originally posted by Deadline
Right and I'm saying its called that because it fits the defintion of death.Ok I got that, at any rate I didn't really express what I was getting at, nevermind.
I know it was sort of a rhetorical question. I'm not sure what you mean by abstract but I'm pretty sure alot of people accept that a person is actually dead during clinical death. Theres every reason in the world to accept that a person is actually dead during clinical death. Just because we don't fully understand an aspect of science does not mean that something is disproven because you can always make that argument.
Like you said the best evidence we have suggests that people are dead during clinical death. We know that the brain and heart is needed to keep somebody alive, if they stop working its logical to think that they are dead. If the instruments used to measure life indicate that there is no actvity don't you actually need to prove that there is? Just because there is a possibility that they are not dead does not mean they are alive, you need to actually prove it.
People accept the big bang because it's the best explanation, it's plauisble that a sentient being could have created the universe but until theres proof we wil go with the big bang. This is a double standard.
look, the problem is, you are taking what is known simply to be a model used in an applied clinical setting, something nobody who knows about such things would accept as being equivalent to actual "organism death", a concept that itself becomes more philosophical than scientific, and trying to make it into an absolute statment of alive/dead, which it is not and nobody has ever argued for in the first place.
The problem with this, is that there is no reason to suppose "clinical death" is the same type of death where a soul, if it existed, would leave the physical body. Clinical death simply indicates that there are no signs normally associated with human life, not that, in any absolute sense, an organism is truly dead.
The burden of proof, in fact, would lie with you to prove that there is a point during the loss of the functions of life in which the soul would leave. Simply pointing to strange experiences someone has while their brain is shutting down doesn't really indicate anything, barring the fact that people experience weird things as their brain shuts down.
Not to sound glib, but the most logical explanation for NDE is not that there is a soul that travels to a transcendent place, for the same reason that people experiencing the optical illusion of train tracks converging in the distance is not evidence that train track all eventually converge. Subjective experience is a VERY poor indication of what is true.
You put way too much faith in our abilities to measure brain activity and you seem to ignore the fact that anything beyond the most rudimentary EEG scan would be considered clinically neglegent if applied to a person undergoing death. It seems far more likely that you are working from the conclusion that there is a soul, and trying to find evidence that fills that theory.
Else, you are proposing that all scientists are either stupid or intentionally trying not to make the most significant discovery of the past hundred years. Trust me, if there was even an iota of evidence that, in real or empirical terms, showed that a soul leaves the body, even at the actual time of death (ignoring the question of "what is death"😉, there would be so many people doing that work. Proof of a soul would be an instantanious nobel prize, international fame the likes of which scientists rarely achieve, and millions of dollars.
Originally posted by King Kandy
AKA, "There may be no evidence for unicorns, but that's just because we haven't discovered it yet".Can you give me any reasons for a spirit to exist, other than lots of people think it does?
Billions upon Billions have been spent searching for alien life. It's not new for people to search tirelessly for evidence despite the lack of having found it. Scientists don't even unanimously agree about the Big Bang "Theory". So lots of people agreeing on something does give that something more merit, yes.
You must believe that there can't be any information that is purposely concealed from mortal creatures. The majority of the world disagrees with that idea. Mainly because we are as limited as we are. Many sane people have had to leave homes that they lived in due to spirit activity. The same house can continue to eject sane people and that can be documented. It is immediately dismissed by the science community as hogwash. No scientific method, just dismissal as a waste of time. Humans can't do everything. Catching spirits may be something that we can't do. I guess that equals them not existing in the science book. And that I should then apply said science book as holy unchangable gospel. Ridiculous, I just saw somewhere on the internet that they just solved the MYSTERY of how CATS DRINK!!! 😆 😆 😮💨
Originally posted by The MISTER
Billions upon Billions have been spent searching for alien life. It's not new for people to search tirelessly for evidence despite the lack of having found it. Scientists don't even unanimously agree about the Big Bang "Theory". So lots of people agreeing on something does give that something more merit, yes.You must believe that there can't be any information that is purposely concealed from mortal creatures. The majority of the world disagrees with that idea. Mainly because we are as limited as we are. Many sane people have had to leave homes that they lived in due to spirit activity. The same house can continue to eject sane people and that can be documented. It is immediately dismissed by the science community as hogwash. No scientific method, just dismissal as a waste of time. Humans can't do everything. Catching spirits may be something that we can't do. I guess that equals them not existing in the science book. And that I should then apply said science book as holy unchangable gospel. Ridiculous, I just saw somewhere on the internet that they just solved the MYSTERY of how CATS DRINK!!! 😆 😆 😮💨
Should we spend time looking for unicorns?