Jump to content

Are Near Death Experiences Proof Of An Afterlife?


Recommended Posts

there's nothing relative about it at all. NDE's are either factual experiences indicating there is an afterlife that everyone is subject to or they are the result of psychosis, and the only way to differentiate is to use objective science.
Do you think that there's anything science will never be able to fully explain?
LOL, of course, why can anyone think they can know what happened to them, without the help of modern science to tell them what it was.
So you're going with the "perception is reality" argument...which is fine as long as you understand that perception is most definitely not always reality.Somehow I'm pretty sure you're all wrong about this one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you think that there's anything science will never be able to fully explain?
in principal, no. constraints on human technology due to unavailable resources is a limiting factor, but there is nothing fundamental about science that is self-limiting.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes I think you are pulling our legs. You want to use science to determine whether or not someone had a personal experience? You might as well make the claim that all truth will have to pass through you before it can be truth.I'll let you in on a secret, we don't care if somethings happen that we can't explain, makes life kind of fun. We don't have to worry that the whole world will think less of us for not really knowing something. And when I say 'we' I mean the rest of the world, not just Christians.LOL, of course, why can anyone think they can know what happened to them, without the help of modern science to tell them what it was.
And this,,,Only useful tool if you base all of life in scientific meathods maybe, not it's not even remotely all we have for those of us that let a little wonder fill our lives.Can't wait to see if this is your opinion when your 15 year old daughter stays out all night and tells you it's none of your business since it was HER personal experience and only she can know about it.This is a low blow and I apologize in advance but it's easy for you to ignore being realistic if it fits your side of the argument but the reality is that we all have wonder in our lives. It obviously has nothing to do with whether there are NDE's or whether someone under trauma can deduce what factually happened to them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And this,,,Only useful tool if you base all of life in scientific meathods maybe, not it's not even remotely all we have for those of us that let a little wonder fill our lives.Can't wait to see if this is your opinion when your 15 year old daughter stays out all night and tells you it's none of your business since it was HER personal experience and only she can know about it.
Sorry, my youngest is 18, so it can't happen, plus that doesn't have anyhing to do with anything, but that's par for the course around here.
This is a low blow and I apologize in advance but it's easy for you to ignore being realistic if it fits your side of the argument but the reality is that we all have wonder in our lives. It obviously has nothing to do with whether there are NDE's or whether someone under trauma can deduce what factually happened to them.
If you look at my first post I said that any NDE would not be useful for anyone else except the person that had it. Because we can't rely on the reality of it, so therefore if you have one then it will not prove anything to me. That's all, in reference to NDEs, that was said.Crow cannot ever agree with anyone that isn't an athiest, so he had to tell me why that only science can tell us what happened, which is funny. So now it has turned into another "Christians don't think rationally about anything because they base everything on experiences" direction. Which is really nothing more than a case of "I can't accept that someone would think different than me" form of narcism laced with " My understanding of science if the only one there is" thrown in for a full conceit factor.Fine, I love how the athiest arrogance is so easily brought up to the surface. The covering is very thin.
Link to post
Share on other sites
while letting wonder fill your life might help you learn a lot about your own personal fulfillment or similar subjective issues, it is utterly useless in helping you determine whether NDE's are objective factual experiences or the result of psychosis.
You mean they woldn't help anyone else determine what they mean?Doesn't that make them private then.And the opposite of private is...
the truth to you of your feelings about NDE's is not a public matter. the truth of the actual NDE's themselves is.
Not to me it isn'tIf you have a NDE I will not chnge my opinion of them nor my world view on life. If I have one, I wouldn't ask you to change your views because of them either.That makes them private, which again is the opposit of?
Link to post
Share on other sites
it's where you stand on all things not related to christianity.
Sorry crow, I had a very long look at things before I accepted Christ and just because you can't understand how anyone could think different than you, doesn't make you right.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that there's anything science will never be able to fully explain?
Besides the beginning of the universe you mean?
So you're going with the "perception is reality" argument...which is fine as long as you understand that perception is most definitely not always reality.
Yes, perception is reality in reference to NDEs for the individual, it will not have any bearing on anything for anyone else. It's a private event that only means something to them, exactly like a dream. If anyone wants to take my explanation of NDEs and apply that to anything else, that is their thing, not mine.
Somehow I'm pretty sure you're all wrong about this one.
You're half right
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look at my first post I said that any NDE would not be useful for anyone else except the person that had it. Because we can't rely on the reality of it, so therefore if you have one then it will not prove anything to me. That's all, in reference to NDEs, that was said.
you never responded to the original question. how specifically is an NDE "useful" for the person that had it in terms of confidently determining what is objective reality? (see thread title).
Crow cannot ever agree with anyone that isn't an athiest, so he had to tell me why that only science can tell us what happened, which is funny.
this has nothing to do with atheism. you're saying irrational things.
So now it has turned into another "Christians don't think rationally about anything because they base everything on experiences" direction. Which is really nothing more than a case of "I can't accept that someone would think different than me" form of narcism laced with " My understanding of science if the only one there is" thrown in for a full conceit factor.Fine, I love how the athiest arrogance is so easily brought up to the surface. The covering is very thin.
the only arrogance here is you holding internal "experiences" that might support christianity to a different standard than you hold internal experiences that support anything else.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean they woldn't help anyone else determine what they mean?
i said a "sense of wonder" isn't useful in helping anyone determine anything about objective reality.
If you have a NDE I will not chnge my opinion of them nor my world view on life. If I have one, I wouldn't ask you to change your views because of them either.
you lost me. nobody is talking about world views (again see thread title).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry crow, I had a very long look at things before I accepted Christ and just because you can't understand how anyone could think different than you, doesn't make you right.
"where i stand" is someone's internal experiences are not a reliable indicator of what is external objective reality for them or anyone else. it is certainly also where you stand on anything not related to christianity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides the beginning of the universe you mean?
there is nothing intrinsic keeping science from explaining the beginning of our universe. it may well happen in your lifetime.
Yes, perception is reality in reference to NDEs for the individual, it will not have any bearing on anything for anyone else. It's a private event that only means something to them, exactly like a dream. If anyone wants to take my explanation of NDEs and apply that to anything else, that is their thing, not mine.
nobody is talking about personal meaning (read thread title!!!!)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Crow cannot ever agree with anyone that isn't an athiest, so he had to tell me why that only science can tell us what happened, which is funny. So now it has turned into another "Christians don't think rationally about anything because they base everything on experiences" direction. Which is really nothing more than a case of "I can't accept that someone would think different than me" form of narcism laced with " My understanding of science if the only one there is" thrown in for a full conceit factor.
Sorry crow, I had a very long look at things before I accepted Christ and just because you can't understand how anyone could think different than you, doesn't make you right.
Besides the beginning of the universe you mean?Yes, perception is reality in reference to NDEs for the individual, it will not have any bearing on anything for anyone else. It's a private event that only means something to them, exactly like a dream. If anyone wants to take my explanation of NDEs and apply that to anything else, that is their thing, not mine.You're half right
Okay, so you except that scientifically there is probably no basis for NDE'S only a person's perception that it was and it's irrelevent to there being an afterlife.But if they want to believe it is then so be it.Lot's of people wish something to be true. That doesn't make it true. You wish for there to be an afterlife, again that doesn't make it true.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so you except that scientifically there is probably no basis for NDE'S only a person's perception that it was and it's irrelevent to there being an afterlife.But if they want to believe it is then so be it.Lot's of people wish something to be true. That doesn't make it true. You wish for there to be an afterlife, again that doesn't make it true.
I guess I didn't explain it right, although after reading it I didn't think it was that hard to see my point.In context of NDEs, the OP asked if they prove anything about an afterlife. I pointed out that many drugs have been found actively causing these, but rather than completely say everyone of them means nothing, because many people have had life changing experiences from them, I feel that if a person has an NDE, it isn't proof of anything, but it could be a meaningful experience for that single person. One that isn't for anyone else.crow saying that without a scientist to tell the person what happened, than it has no meaning is the equivalent of saying that your choosing to be impacted by a Rush song is completely void of meaning because more scientist like Radio Head, whoever they are.I found his clear explanation that science must explain everything including the metaphysical, to be sadly funny. In a sad way.Now if this is what you guys thought I said, and you still want to say these things, than let me know, because I have lots of room on my "people to be pitied" list.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I didn't explain it right, although after reading it I didn't think it was that hard to see my point.In context of NDEs, the OP asked if they prove anything about an afterlife. I pointed out that many drugs have been found actively causing these, but rather than completely say everyone of them means nothing, because many people have had life changing experiences from them, I feel that if a person has an NDE, it isn't proof of anything, but it could be a meaningful experience for that single person. One that isn't for anyone else.crow saying that without a scientist to tell the person what happened, than it has no meaning is the equivalent of saying that your choosing to be impacted by a Rush song is completely void of meaning because more scientist like Radio Head, whoever they are.
Crow's not saying what you think he's saying. I believe (and I could be wrong) that his only point is that just because they think they had an out-of-body NDE doesn't mean they actually did (according to the definition of the term). I'm not sure he ever said that this means it's any less meaningful to the person in question.
I found his clear explanation that science must explain everything including the metaphysical, to be sadly funny. In a sad way.
To be fair to him, there are almost certainly things that you think science will never explain that it eventually will. But that's neither here nor there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
crow saying that without a scientist to tell the person what happened, than it has no meaning is the equivalent of saying that your choosing to be impacted by a Rush song is completely void of meaning because more scientist like Radio Head, whoever they are.
nobody is talking about personal meaning (read thread title!!!!)
Link to post
Share on other sites
I found his clear explanation that science must explain everything including the metaphysical, to be sadly funny. In a sad way.
i never said anything about the metaphysical. i'm not sure that the concept of metaphysics even has any real meaning when you break it down to specifics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i never said anything about the metaphysical. i'm not sure that the concept of metaphysics even has any real meaning when you break it down to specifics.
Metaphysics has nothing to do with any kind of applied science, from what I understand...and from what the dictionary tells me.1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. 2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches. 3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry. 4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I didn't explain it right, although after reading it I didn't think it was that hard to see my point.In context of NDEs, the OP asked if they prove anything about an afterlife. I pointed out that many drugs have been found actively causing these, but rather than completely say everyone of them means nothing, because many people have had life changing experiences from them, I feel that if a person has an NDE, it isn't proof of anything, but it could be a meaningful experience for that single person. One that isn't for anyone else.crow saying that without a scientist to tell the person what happened, than it has no meaning is the equivalent of saying that your choosing to be impacted by a Rush song is completely void of meaning because more scientist like Radio Head, whoever they are.I found his clear explanation that science must explain everything including the metaphysical, to be sadly funny. In a sad way.Now if this is what you guys thought I said, and you still want to say these things, than let me know, because I have lots of room on my "people to be pitied" list.
That's it in a nutshell, right? We agree, near death experiences are not proof of an afterlife. Thank you.I'd hate to be on your pitied list.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Metaphysics has nothing to do with any kind of applied science, from what I understand...and from what the dictionary tells me.1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. 2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches. 3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry. 4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.
i'm assuming by metaphysical BG is just referring to stuff that transcends scientific testing of any kind, not the practice of the philosophy of metaphysics. i'm not sure the concept of something transcending the physical world (in the sense of being fundamentally outside the boundaries of science-like testing) has any real meaning. for practical purposes for something to exist it pretty much definitionally has to have physical components or be related to or the product of physical components in some way. again, there are technological/resourse limitations that prevent us from detecting/testing many things in practice, but in principal the concept of something being fundamentally outside the boundaries of science or science-like reasoning seems nonsensical. certainly whether we have souls or not, or whether an afterlife exists or not are absolutely scientific questions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've gathered after reading three or four threads in this forum in their entirety:Balloon guy is religious and funny, and has a good grasp on how to use metaphorical arguments. Sometimes discussion of his beliefs is taken as aggressive missionary action, to which many just get angry at.Crow, understandably, needs science to prove everything.Speedz and Randy share crow's mindset for the most part.But pretty much all of the threads have this in common:contentcontentcontentconfusion, misinterpretationNO GOD, YES GOD, NO GOD, YES GODagree to disagreesnide commentssnide commentssnide comments

Link to post
Share on other sites
Crow, understandably, needs science to prove everything.
not everything. i don't need science to prove art or music appreciation or any other value judgement that is of a subjective nature.however science is the only thing we have that has proven the least bit useful in answering questions about external objective reality, such as the one asked in the thread title.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's it in a nutshell, right? We agree, near death experiences are not proof of an afterlife. Thank you.I'd hate to be on your pitied list.
You do still live in Ohio...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...