lekatt, a constrictive definitions for what a “real” NDE must include make your examples highly self-selecting affairs, undercutting your case, not helping it.
If I flip a coin a hundred times, and claim that I can magically make it come up heads, and then toss out all the times I flipped tails by claiming that “well, my power wasn’t really quite working that time,” I think people would rightly have some pretty severe doubts about my power. PD is essentially pointing out the same things in your examples: all the amazing ones are counted, all the conventional ones are rejected. But sheer chance alone would demand that SOME people have neat coincidences related to a deeply affecting experience (heck: they’ll even seek harder for them, increasing the normal likelihood). Carefully selecting out “hits” while filtering out “misses” is just what John Edward does.
Please tell me how you can justify dispensing with Occam’s Razor, and posit an undetectable source that magically beams brain waves into the brain, with no evidence whatsoever. Until you can do so, we are finished with this topic.
Your posts have a multitude of “what if’s” . It is not relative material. We need to deal with “what is” in order to find truth.
I offer you over 170 NDEs to read. In them you will answer all of the questions you have about experiences. Please read. I say again no one has replicated a real NDE until Pam Reynolds surgery. It takes dying to do that.
There have never been reported changes in life styles due to the things you listed above. I am talking about enduring changes that last the rest of the person natural life.
If you think I am wrong: cite.
I like John Edwards, yes he misses occasionally. No one can be completely accurate in this kind of thing. If you understood metaphysics you would know this.
NDEers usually read a great deal after their experience. In metaphysics and in science. Metaphysics is not taught in school anywhere due to the closed minds of scientists. It is the largest and oldest field of study known to mankind.
Religions and scientists both ban metaphysics because it does not echo their belief systems. That’s why many call science just another religion.
If you want a well rounded education you will learn everything you can about everything. then pick what seems right to you.
The undetectable source of brain waves is you. Your spiritual energy.
I assume, of course, that you have absolute conclusive proof of this, since you aren’t dealing with “what ifs?” And no, NDE’s don’t count as conclusive proof. The best that can be said right now is that they’re visions by people that might be something other than biological in nature. Pretty inconclusive one way or the other. But since you refuse to offer anything against the strictly biological sources of similar “visions,” your whole argument is resting on a “what if.”
I sure don’t see answers to the questions I posted. Since you’re so familiar with all those cases, how about you present the information here. And correct me if I’m wrong, but none of them seem to even get into similar experiences due to other sources. I didn’t see anything addressing the possibility of forming such visions while the brain is shutting down or starting up again. And I believe someone has already mentioned that some of them have been debunked, as well. So instead of just waving at the NDEs and saying they explain anything, how about you show how they explain anything.
What? You’ve never heard of someone nearly overdosing on drugs and then dramaticly changing, from giving up the drugs to abrupt changes in personality? People have massive livestyle changes over much lesser things than nearly dying. It isn’t like NDEs have exclusive ground on life changes.
What seems right? That’s a pretty low standard for trying to present an argument.
If these NDEs are so true, surely you can deal with some “what ifs,” anyway. If not, I think your “proof” isn’t all that solid, is it?
There was a discussion of consciousness showing we don’t know what it is backed up by a world renown physicist.
There was a Near Death Experience proving the individual was live after her body died. Backed up by doctors and other professional in attendance. I could not get a copy of the tape shown on A&E where the main surgeon collaborated it nor the book written about it.
Then I provided two real scientific studies demonstrating life after death was proved.
I provided collaborating NDEs and Pam Reynolds web site.
When the ancient skeptical objections started showing up I pointed to 20 pages of answers to them.
Then I pointed to 170 real near death experiences for study.
You ask me to do your home work and tell you all about them, no thanks.
I have received no real scientific proof of anything.
I think I have done enough for those really interested, if you can’t read the material then don’t tell me I am wrong.
Right you are. Jesus told his disciples that if a town didn’t accept the message to “… depart out of that city, shake off the dust of your feet. (Matt 10:14)” The disciples were also told not to “cast your pearls before swine.”
What are you talking about? It’s called Philosophy, and I studied plenty of Metaphysics in college. What philosophy student hasn’t read the works of Kant or Aristotle? Or are you suggesting that we should teach Metaphysics in grade school, along with Evolution? The answer to that is easy. One is a science (based on facts) and the other is a philosophy. Same reason that it makes no sense to teach Creationism as an alternative to Evolution. It’s not an alternative, because Creationism is not based on fact. It is a philosophy and should be treated as such.
Hrrmmm…, it looks to me like plenty of us have read the material and found it rather lacking. So is it OK that I tell you that you are wrong, since I read everything?
You have come across as an apologist for the world of the super-natural, who refuses to consider anything that might jeopardize your preconceptions. You do realize that John Edwards is not psychic, don’t you? He uses well known methods to make it look like he has some ability to talk to spirits. This has been thoroughly debunked many times over. Read up on “The Amazing Randy” - a magician who has a passion for debunking those that would pass of these “parlor tricks” as psychic phenomenon. If after reading up on his exploits, you still think John Edwards and his ilk are for real, then you are living in a dream world and NEDs are the least of your worries.
I appreciate that you have hung in there lekatt. Between last night and this morning I finally had a chance to catch up with the discussion here.
I can’t count the number of times this argument has been made which is held up as the authority for everything:
I have a question for those who support this. Do you recognize the limitations you confine yourself to? This is not to suggest that science itself is an unworthy tool. Not for a moment.
I ran across something while reading last night that I think is important to discussion such as this. I’ll summarize it as my ability will allow me to do so.
Science has enlarged our senses through all the tools we have developed (telescopes, etc.) and it has systematized our five-sense observations with reasoning, mathematics, and tests of repeatability. We all agree on this, correct? So basically the testimony of science and reason is built upon our five senses (the eye, the ear, the nose, touch, and the tongue). In other words, the senses are only measuring themselves. The following points then must be made.
[ul]
[li]The instruments (so far) that our senses created have shown us how imperfect they (senses) in fact are. [/li][li]Radio waves, radio activity, atomic energy, etc., have demonstrated beyond doubt that we are surrounded by “invisible” waves and pulsations of energy.[/li][/ul]
To illustrate these points further, remember that animals have enlarged senses that we do not. Our vibration sensitivity narrows us from hearing all vibrations of sound, all vibrations of light and all energy vibrations. Dogs, birds and insects, for example, have a different range of seeing, hearing and smelling which provides them a universe containing much which we cannot and do not perceive.
Imagine the impact upon us, as humans, if our vibratory sensitivity of senses were enlarged even only slightly. Would we not be aware of objects previously unavailable to us?
Let’s take this a step further… do we all have the same senses, equal in their availability to detect vibrations? No, of course not. I might be slightly color-blind while someone else is not. My hearing may be poorer than yours. Agreed? It cannot then be unreasonable to suggest that others may have a heightened sense to vibrations that the rest of us do not.
If all of this is true (I think that it is), what of this “sixth sense” that has been recognized by many throughout the centuries? Someone once said flesh is born of flesh, spirit is born of spirit. Those of us who have experienced “spirit” know that it exists and our sensitivity to that of a spiritual nature can also be heightened. Science using our physical senses cannot detect or measure that of spirit. It can only deal with the physical or material.
Well, maybe this point has already been made, but I atleast don’t remember it being made.
Even if NDE’s are real, and it “proves” that a spiritual realm exists, an underlying question still exists. Which God is the right one? My own mother enjoys buying books about personal life after death stories. One of which was a Christian woman who was released from her body because of an OD, Jesus took her on the fringe of hell and showed it to her. Anyways, she returned to her body and wrote this book. I’ve also heard of a NDE where a Muslim sees Allah.
Was one of them mistaken? Which God is the right one? Can multiple gods exist?
Also, I don’t want to imply that what happened to you didn’t happen, but sometimes things that seem very real, are in reality very different. I think the movie “A Beautiful Mind” would be a good reference (the movie depicts what I’m talking about very well).
proofs exist in mathematics, in reality you often have to deal with probabilities.
in metaphysical reality things get even more uncertain.
i give reincarnation a 90% probability and God and 80% probability. i don’t see why the system couldn’t possibly work on reincarnation and there still be no God.
OLD SOULS by Tom Shroder is the most convincing single book that i have seen on reincarnation, but i have read stuff on Edgar Cacey, Bridey Murphy, SEAT OF THE SOUL, and other stuff.
To Vertigo, if you ever decide to learn about metaphysics try reading the “Seth” books by Jane Roberts. There are about 7 or 8 of them over a 1000 pages each one. Not funny that philosophy is metaphysics.
Thanks for the advice David, I know you are right.
Edlyn, you are great, explain things well. I just waiver from leaving to staying. People like you are a breath of fresh air.
Now we get to what the debate started out to be. What about God? The NDEers seldom see what they call God. I have read that one saw a pair of lips. Most feel His presence like I did and even talk to Him but do not see a physical body representation. I think that is very interesting. In my experiences I have felt Him in the Light and talked to Him but never saw Him either.
Why do you think that is?
Love
Leroy
To answer part of BHB’s question. I was attending a lecture on forgiveness in the spirit realms. The teacher was a master whose light was very bright. I saw Him as Jesus, but as the class ended and questions were asked, I noticed others called Him by different names. I think we see the Light Being as a part of our religion, some as Jesus, some as Allah. We see the spirit world through the filters of our physical teaching because we are still in the physical. When we leave the physical at death, we will see more clearly. As Paul said in 1 Cor. 13.
Um, not meant to be funny, it was meant to be factual:
meta•phys•ics / noun the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of existence, truth and knowledge.
(bolding mine)
Here, let me try that strategy.
“Since we have shown that there is no real reason to believe that NDEs are anything more than a brain fart, let’s assume that there is no God”.
Seems ludicrous to say something like that, huh? Same goes for your blatant assumption. You have done nothing to further your position on any issue presented on this topic. Now you want to just move on making baseless assumptions. Your tendency to accept the things that you want to believe as fact and to dismiss anything that challenges your position as incomplete or wrong is dangerous. If you want to believe your theory on NDEs and keep your fingers stuck in your ears, fine. More power to you. Just don’t have the audacity to come here and insinuate that many of the rest of us are ignorant and unchanging. You have created a careful and protective world around you and you seem to piously chide anyone who doesn’t see the validity of that world. Well, I for one, don’t see the validity of your world. It is a close minded and stringent one that seems totalitarian in its views. And you have the arrogance to use flaky information to suit your needs and to back up your claims, attempting to pass them off as fact or scientifically valid.
I only regret that I have been suckered into following the thread this far. I was hoping that we could move on to something that could be discussed, but every time it hits one of your buttons you seem to either cry martyr and threaten to leave, or you play the bemused expert that has to coddle the ignorant. Sheesh.
Metaphysics literally means above or beyond the physical.
The definition in the dictionary is a very old one. I took a lot of philosophy in college and the word metaphysics never came up.
If you are troubled by the word just change it to spiritual. The study of the spiritual world.
You are repeating yourself and attacking me. I showed real studies and real proof. I did not see any real proof from you.
If I used the word ignorant anywhere please show it to me.
How do you consider your views open and nontotalitarian when you insist that only science can reveal fact (or truth)? Please understand that I ask this in a kind manner. I’ve read your post that asked a number of good questions, but if you insist on scientific data for answers given, I don’t see how such discussion could take place. If my observation is incorrect about you, I apologize.
lekatt:
I have not had the personal experience of seeing His light. This may be frivilous to add, but I’ll share a story relayed to me by a mother (Stacy) I became acquainted with through Children’s Mercy Hospital. Young children has seen this light, too.
Heather was a 9 year old on the oncology floor who had leukemia. When she woke up one morning she told her mom what happened the night before; that she was feeling tired because she had been up most of the night playing with Shelby in Shelby’s room and that God had been there playing with them, too. She told her mom that He was this bright warm light coming from the upper corner of the room shining down and remained like that while He was with them. She said they had a wonderful time together and she enjoyed it very much.
That same morning, Shelby (5 years old), who was in PICU, briefy woke up to see her mom and told her how tired she was because she had been playing all night. Shelby then went back to sleep. Stacy (Shelby’s mom) just chalked it up at the time as one of those curious things that Shelby says from time-to-time.
Heather and Shelby had never met one another and did not know of each other, so Heather’s mom started inquiring if anyone knew of a Shelby and found out that a Shelby was in PICU. That’s when Heather’s mom and Stacy met and exchanged what their daughters had said to them that morning.
In my reading I have come across two possible explanations of God’s “form” (for lack of a better word!) I’d have to look up those two sources again to provide their comments concerning this. I must admit I only have a very passing curosity about it.
Thank you for your kind words.
dal_timgar:
Where did spirit come from to reincarnate and if there were no God, why would there be reincarnation?
Yes, I realize that believing only rational things is limiting. That’s the whole point. I understand that I am missing out on believing in the Easter Bunny and Peter Pan and the joy of giving a bunch of money to bogus “psychics” to tell me some vague generalities about my “future”. I’m missing the delight of attending UFO conventions in New Mexico, and the “channeling of energy” that occurs from wearing a copper bracelet. Yes, I miss out on a lot of foolishness by believing only that which is demonstrably true. Sorry if I don’t sound too upset about it.
Ahh, very good idea. Then you do believe in life afer death which has been demonstrated to be true through near death experiences and independent scientific studies.
Oh, really? Someone demonstrated it to be true? So far, you have just pointed us to your website that demonstrates nothing.
By the way, since you are still sticking to the “brain as receptor for waves” theory (and I use the term “theory” very loosely), I have a question:
Assuming, ONLY for the sake of argument, that brain waves travel INTO the brain, rather than originate from the brain, how is it that damage to the physical structure of the brain very often results in changes in the brain waves as measured electrically? To use your tv antenna analogy, damaging the television would have no effect on the signal that is coming in - it would only affect the reception. If indeed the brain waves are coming from another source, they would remain unchanged no matter what the condition of the brain. That is demonstrably untrue.
Give me a break. “Metaphysics” and “Spiritual” are not synonyms. It may be a matter of semantics for you, but if we go back to all your posts and change metaphysics to spiritual, it changes the context of what you wrote.
And of course I am repeating myself. I am making the same criticism of you because you keep going back to the well. What would you expect? You are blaming everyone else that they are close minded and I was throwing that back in your face. You are guilty of that which you accuse us (me) of doing. Also, I am not attacking you personally. I am attacking your methods. I don’t think anyone is attacking you personally.
The “real” studies that you are hiding behind are really just a bunch of anecdotal evidence at best. There is no real proof to anything you have stated or linked to yet. Perhaps that is because what you are talking about has no proof yet. That’s what we are here to discuss. How do we go about getting the proof? I think by open discussion. But in the process of asking these questions you are ducking and weaving behind your beliefs and shooting down any challenges.
Believe it or not, I think I am the one here with the open mind, as I have not decided that NDE aren’t real. So far the evidence points to a biological cause, but I am open to discussing how it might be something else altogether. You seem to have a closed mind (but you are acting like you don’t) as you won’t even entertain the idea that NDEs are biological in nature and that your wonderful experience can be explained in any other fashion. I keep harping on this fact and you keep ignoring it or addressing it indirectly by saying I am attacking you or that I am the one with the problem. Can you see my frustration with that behavior? It’s like arguing with a two year old who only knows how to say “no”.
Oh, and I never said you used the word “ignorant”. I said “Just don’t have the audacity to come here and insinuate that many of the rest of us are ignorant and unchanging”. I still stand by that statement.
I would rephrase that to read “scientific method” can reveal fact or truth. What is the alternative? How else can we objectively arrive at a conclusion that is balanced? If we all just said “I believe that little elves control our thoughts” and I tried to have a discussion on this topic based on that assumption, how far would we get? lekatt (and assumably you as well) are making a similar assumption. If I told you that you are right about NDEs, except that you missed the part about the elves, you would say I was wrong. If I said you were right and agreed that it was God, you would slap me on the back and say “welcome aboard”. To me that makes no sense. You obviously have a bias for assuming this has something to do with God (not elves or anything else) and a Christian God at that. I implore both of you to step back and start at a point that does not assume anything like that yet. Deal with what we actually know as fact and go from there. I don’t dismiss anecdotal evidence, but it should be weighed appropriately and taken with a grain of salt. You two are all too willing to take it as gospel.
So instead of switching the subject, deflecting criticism, or blaming me for attacking you, start an open dialog. I’m glad you two believe something so strongly, but open yourselves up to being challenged. You might learn something in the process.
The studies you call anecdotal were done by real scientists using the real scientific method. I think they would be very unhappy at you trashing their research without knowing anything about it.
It doesn’t matter how much evidence or proof there is, some just decide not to believe. That is their choice and I respect it.
I always thought people would really like to know they were eternal. That the higher power, whatever you call it, cares about them and will not harm them in any way. I am not saying this is the case with you. Some become angry due to bad experiences with religion and churches. Unrealistic, illogical rules of belief. Constant threats of hell fire or worse sends them into full rebellion against anything spiritual. I was such a person. Near death experiences are different, they show a wider picture of spirit. A gentle, loving Creator, who harms no one. They are logical, believable and meaningful. But most of all the senario is real.