Evidence Of Life After Death

[timwakefield 68]

near death experience. Some can be more accurately called deathe experiences.

Yes I know what it stands for, I was making a point. Also, they aren't called death experiences because they are not that; they are near death. Death is not what happens when your brain stops functioning temporarily, death is what happens when your brain stops functioning forever.

[zzz 0]

Yes I know what it stands for, I was making a point. Also, they aren't called death experiences because they are not that; they are near death. Death is not what happens when your brain stops functioning temporarily, death is what happens when your brain stops functioning forever.

Some reported consciousness while dead. Eventhough it was reversed, they were still dead. Have a nice day!

[Loismustdie 0]

Yes I know what it stands for, I was making a point. Also, they aren't called death experiences because they are not that; they are near death. Death is not what happens when your brain stops functioning temporarily, death is what happens when your brain stops functioning forever.

17 pages of nothing but arguing with an idiot. Awesome. Good point, Tim.

[Nacho Libre 0]

Bruce Greyson... Melvin Morse, Karl Popper, Wilder Penfield, John Eccles.Have a nice day!

Nacho think that Bruce Greyson not even real name. It is mix between Bruce Wayne and **** Greyson, which Nacho knows is Batman and Robin. They have nice stretchy pants, too.

[crowTrobot 2]

17 pages of nothing but arguing with an idiot. Awesome.

so zzz broke your record?

[zzz 0]

Crow, You haven't shown me any neurologist who believes you can have no detectable brain function yet be able to accurately see and hear things. ............Still waiting..........Have a nice day!

[brvheart 1,752]

Yes I know what it stands for, I was making a point. Also, they aren't called death experiences because they are not that; they are near death. Death is not what happens when your brain stops functioning temporarily, death is what happens when your brain stops functioning forever.

[crowTrobot 2]

Crow, You haven't shown me any neurologist who believes you can have no detectable brain function yet be able to accurately see and hear things. ............Still waiting..........Have a nice day!

since the scientists who did the study on REM sleep disorders i referenced earlier in this thread would be familiar with your study, you can infer they either think some brain function isn't necessarily detectable, or they think your study is flawed and offers no scientific proof of anything, or most likely both.rest assured most working neurologists don't waste their time taking studies like yours that promote an afterlife seriously, because it's rather obvious to anyone objectively using their brain that they are virtually all unscientific and done by biased people with an agenda to sell books. you of course are self-admittedly not objective, so you are self-blinded to that fact.it's a very similar situation to creationism, which scientists could easily crush completely out of existence if they had the available time and manpower to mount a political information campaign against it. unfortunately they don't.

[zzz 0]

since the scientists who did the study on REM sleep disorders i referenced earlier in this thread would be familiar with your study, you can infer they either think some brain function isn't necessarily detectable, or they think your study is flawed and offers no scientific proof of anything, or most likely both.rest assured most working neurologists don't waste their time taking studies like yours that promote an afterlife seriously, because it's rather obvious to anyone objectively using their brain that they are virtually all unscientific and done by biased people with an agenda to sell books. you of course are self-admittedly not objective, so you are self-blinded to that fact.it's a very similar situation to creationism, which scientists could easily crush completely out of existence if they had the available time and manpower to mount a political information campaign against it. unfortunately they don't.

Either your scientists believe: 1. You can accurately see and hear things with no detectable brain function.2. You can't accurately see and hear things with no detectable brain function.I think it is close to 100% of neurologists believe in #2. It has been well documented that Pam Reynolds accurately saw and heard things with no detectable brain function. Therefore, it is more likely than not that there is life after physical death. Having an open mind is fun. Have a nice day!

[crowTrobot 2]

Either your scientists believe: 1. You can accurately see and hear things with no detectable brain function.2. You can't accurately see and hear things with no detectable brain function.

3. they think your study is subjective pseudo-science propaganda, which it is.

I think it is close to 100% of neurologists believe in #2

yes - because a couple non-neurologists who want to sell you sensationalist books promoting an afterlife say so, which appeases your self-admitted fear that there might not be an afterlife. no need to actually poll the neurologists themselves. good for you.

[brvheart 1,752]

it's a very similar situation to creationism, which scientists could easily crush completely out of existence if they had the available time and manpower to mount a political information campaign against it. unfortunately they don't.

This is funny. How much money and time would scientists need to prove that there is no God?

[crowTrobot 2]

This is funny. How much money and time would scientists need to prove that there is no God?

i was talking about educating the general public on how science has disproven genesis-literal creationism, not about disproving god.

[solderz 0]

This is funny. How much money and time would scientists need to prove that there is no God?

Well said as usual. Such a great contributer. We are all better people just for having known you."No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything. The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional concept of God. For a more complete review of them, see Theodore Drange, "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" in Philo (Fall/Winter 1998). Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.

[zzz 0]

3. they think your study is subjective pseudo-science propaganda, which it is.yes - because a couple non-neurologists who want to sell you sensationalist books promoting an afterlife say so, which appeases your self-admitted fear that there might not be an afterlife. no need to actually poll the neurologists themselves. good for you.

I'm sorry there is no 3. It's either 1 or 2, yes or no. It wasn't a difficult question. Most people are convinced that you can't physically hear and see accurately without using your eyes and ears.Again, There are many neurologists that believe in the after life based soley on the objective scientifc evidence supporting their belief. Have a nice day!

[brvheart 1,752]

i was talking about educating the general public on how science has disproven genesis-literal creationism, not about disproving god.

Touche on the red part.You are incorrect on the blue part, of course, why rehash either of our faiths.

Well said as usual. Such a great contributer. We are all better people just for having known you."No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything. The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional concept of God. For a more complete review of them, see Theodore Drange, "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" in Philo (Fall/Winter 1998). Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.

Do you have any thoughts of your own on the topic? I tend to ignore propaganda that wasn't written by or credit given to the actual author. You, of course, aren't capable of writing this. But at least you are still 'ethical' by giving due credit to the author... so that we can all quickly ignore it.

[crowTrobot 2]

You are incorrect on the blue part, of course, why rehash either of our faiths.

fortunately the education & judicial systems that are aware that, unlike creationism, science is an objective search for the truth with no faith involved, and that creationism violates church and state seem to be fighting off the creationist agenda at this point without government help.of course you presumably think that's all a left-wing conspiracy to cover up "scientific" evidence for young earth, flood, etc.woooo! thread hijack. eat it zzz.

[brvheart 1,752]

fortunately the education & judicial systems that are aware that, unlike creationism, science is an objective search for the truth with no faith involved, and that creationism violates church and state seem to be fighting off the creationist agenda at this point without government help.of course you presumably think that's all a left-wing conspiracy to cover up "scientific" evidence for young earth, flood, etc.woooo! thread hijack. eat it zzz.

This is the only thing that would make debating Genesis worth it.

[zzz 0]

3. they think your study is subjective pseudo-science propaganda, which it is.yes - because a couple non-neurologists who want to sell you sensationalist books promoting an afterlife say so, which appeases your self-admitted fear that there might not be an afterlife. no need to actually poll the neurologists themselves. good for you.

Lol, I'm sorry there is no 3. It's either 1 or 2, yes or no. Either you can physically hear and see with no detectable brain function or you can't. It isn't a difficult question.Again, There are many neurologists that believe in the after life based soley on the objective scientifc evidence supporting their belief. Have a nice day!

[crowTrobot 2]

Lol, I'm sorry there is no 3. It's either 1 or 2, yes or no. Either you can physically hear and see with no detectable brain function or you can't. It isn't a difficult question.Again, There are many neurologists that believe in the after life based soley on the objective scientifc evidence supporting their belief. Have a nice day!

hmm. if everyone here was laughing at me every time i posted i'd probably stop.

[zzz 0]

hmm. if everyone here was laughing at me every time i posted i'd probably stop.

I'm sorry you are so easily offended. Have a nice day!

[zzz 0]

Crow, You haven't shown me any neurologist who believes you can have no detectable brain function yet be able to accurately see and hear things. ............Still waiting..........Have a nice day!

[crowTrobot 2]

Crow, You haven't shown me any neurologist who believes you can have no detectable brain function yet be able to accurately see and hear things. ............Still waiting..........Have a nice day!

yawn

[zzz 0]

yawn

You haven't shown me any neurologist who believes you can have no detectable brain function yet be able to accurately see and hear things. ............Still waiting..........Have a nice day!

[copernicus 0]

Does this really go on for 18 pages? zzz, give it up, you are so owned you dont even know which way is up any longer.

[zzz 0]

Does this really go on for 18 pages? zzz, give it up, you are so owned you dont even know which way is up any longer.

Maybe you should learn how to read then. Have a nice day!