Life continues beyond physical death. Is this proof of God's existance.

[Apos]

—The evidence and proof are overwhelming in the favor of life after death.—

Again, nothing in any of the proof you have offered is inconsistent with the possibilities I suggested, none of which count as life after death.

You have not deigned to descend and actually discuss the substantive issues. Instead, you simply point to studies that don’t even prove what you assume they must, simply because they jump to the same conclusions you do.

—This article, written by me, uses the surgery to describe the proof of life after death.—

As people who have, indeed, read it, have said, your arguement is not convincing. The proper course of action then would then go down and argue the specific points of contention. But with you, the discussion has simply ended there. You refuse to discuss the substantive issues, and instead simply call people names, say that they are closeminded, and refuse to consider other possibilities. Stop it, and maybe we can have a productive discussion.

[UncleBeer]

Here is the Press Release and a Summary of Findings.

Actually, those are neither. The linked pages are interpretations of the press release and the summary of findings written by a third party - a third party who holds a preformed belief in a) the existence of NDE’s and b) NDE’s actually are proof of a supernatural event. In fact, some of the commentary we find there appears to be rebuttal to the findings published in Lancet.

And even then we have this statement, “One of the glaring problems in NDE research is that there is no “one” definition that is agreed upon by all researchers. It should be noted that the definition was changed during the study to account for the observed data. Moreover, van Lommel admitted that this was a possible bias in the study.” So, van Lommel changed the definition of what would constitute an NDE during the course of the study? And you claim these kinds of shenanigans are compliant with the Scientific Method? I assure you, they are not. In fact, this is a favorite tactic of the proponents of ESP and astrology and all other varieties of quackery.

Additionally, the only patients studied are those whose “deaths” occurred due to cardiac arrest. I see nothing in either of these reviews of the report that would indicate this factor has been isolated and controlled for.

In short, if these reviews are the best evidence you can offer of NDE’s, their significance, and as evidence for a supernatural origin, I can only say, they fall far short of being the scientific evidence you claim.

And finally, I’d like to quote this from one of those pages:

Although, Van Lommel could not find any medically explicable explanation for why NDEs occur, he did acknowledge that the neurological processes had to play a part in the NDE, noting similarities between various other phenomena such as electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe of the brain. However, he also commented on the fragmented and randomness of the memories derived by these other mechanisms.

Read this carefully. Van Lommel found no medical explanation. This does not say what you are implying, that “because he found no medical explanation, there must be a supernatural explanation.” Van Lommel also tells us that the same events he used to define an NDE may be caused by various neurological phenomena, although they happen in a more random order. However, no place in your cites is the inevitable chronology of events delineated. In fact, we have this

The reported memory of all impressions during a special state of consciousness, (awareness of being dead 50%) including specific elements such as out of body experience (24%), pleasant feelings (56%), and seeing a tunnel(31%), a light (communication with the light 14%, described the colors 14%), deceased relatives(32%), or a life review(13%).

which seems strongly to indicate randomness of the occurrence of specific phenomena even among those events defined as NDE’s.

And since you have repeatedly asked us to examine your evidence “proving” the existence and cause of NDE’s, I like you take a more a critical look at the issue. I suggest you consult, Dying to Live, by Susan Blackmore.

[Zakalwe]

lekatt said
I think more than enough material has been offered to show that Near Death Experiences are real spiritual experiences.

Ummm…checking in late, but I’m curious:
What is the definition of a “real spiritual experience”?
How does that definition offer support to the “theory” of God’s existence?
Please distinguish between “real” spiritual experiences (which support God’s existence) and “false” spiritual experiences which do not.

While you’re at it, I think Vinryk has an outstanding question with regard to NDEs involving an other than Judeo-Christian framework.

[blowero]

I think this Netherlands study has been sufficiently shot down by UncleBeer and others, but let me add my 2 cents as well:

One of the glaring problems in NDE research is that there is no “one” definition that is agreed upon by all researchers. It should be noted that the definition was changed during the study to account for the observed data. Moreover, van Lommel admitted that this was a possible bias in the study.

This paragraph is enough to shoot down the whole “study”, but let’s look at some of the findings anyway.

This study can be cited for major NDE scientific findings, the largest being that NDEs are not medically explicable. Id. at 2039. Van Lommel proved under rigid methodology that the occurrence of the NDE was not associated with “duration of cardiac arrest or unconsciousness, medication, or fear of death prior to the cardiac arrest.” Id.

So we are arbitrarily picking 3 things (duration, medication, and fear), and saying that since the occurrence of NDE’s doesn’t correspond exactly to these 3 things, we can conclusively rule out ANY physiological explanation. And then, presumably, that gets us to the conclusion that “it must be God”. I’m getting dizzy from all the leaps in logic. But no matter - let’s look at this “rigid methodology”:

Given the similarity in physiological make-up of the sample population, one would expect that most of the 344 patients should experience an NDE. Id. This would take into account the skeptic argument of cerebral anoxia (dying brain cells). However, that is not the case. The findings were that 18% of the 344 cardiac arrest patients had an NDE, with 12% of the 18% reporting a “core experience.” Id. Therefore, NDE is not correlated with physiological causes of death.

Here the argument seems to be that a physiological cause is ruled out because NDE’s don’t happen every time. This is preposterous. When the brain is deprived of oxygen, and begins firing randomly, why would we expect the exact same subjective experience every time? This seems tantamount to expecting to have the exact same dream every night, and to always remember every dream, or to have the exact same “trip” every time you drop acid. If anything, this argument is MORE damning to the religion-based explanation. If indeed these are experiences of God, why would He make an appearance only SOME of the time? And why would there be different levels of NDE’s? You would either see God or you wouldn’t. How would it be possible to only “slightly” see God?

The same argument pertaining to physiological make-up could be made for those in the sample population who were psychologically afraid of death right before the cardiac arrest. However, there was no difference between those who were afraid and reported an NDE as opposed to those who were afraid and did not report an NDE. Id. at 2039. Therefore, NDE doesn’t appear to be caused by emotional make-up such as fear.

Well that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why would they use fear as a delimiting factor? In the majority of NDE cases, fear is not part of the description - NDE’ers more often describe feelings of joy or peace. It would have made a lot more sense to check the spiritual beliefs of the subjects - I suspect that would have a lot more to do with it than fear. For example, lekatt has said that he was disillusioned and angry with religion before the experience. I would suspect that this had an impact on how he interpreted his experience, i.e. perhaps if a person subconsciously wants to believe in God, they will interpret the experience this way. But that’s just conjecture on my part, and there’s no evidence since the study apparently didn’t check for this.

And I notice noone has touched my question of: if the brain is the receiver for brain waves rather than the source, why then would damage or change to the structure of the brain itself change the brain waves?

[UncleBeer]

If indeed these are experiences of God, why would He make an appearance only SOME of the time?

Obviously, He only appears to true believers. And how come this study doesn’t appear to be controlled for religious belief? Or lack of it? I’d think that would be one of the most obvious variables you’d wanna control.

[blowero]

More:

"With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?

This reasoning rests on one assumption: that the time frame of the NDE as remembered by the patient is equivalent to the time frame in the external world. I have yet to see any justification for making this assumption. Each of us knows from personal experience that the time frame in our dreams is severely distorted, yet it seems logical in our memory after waking. And a NDE is arguably even more dissociated from reality than a dream. So how can this person make the assumption that the NDE is occurring at the same time that the brain activity ceases, and not before, or after? Answer: he can’t.

[UncleBeer]

And just for the hell of it, New Scientist has a rather different interpretation of the findings of this study. They, too, find this study provides no conclusive evidence.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991693

Ditto for ABC News:

The study does not provide a way to scientifically measure whether or not there is life after death, however.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/GMA020108Near_death_experiences.html
Here’s a link to the study as published:
http://profezie3millennio.tripod.com/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

And one more nagging question. This study used, as a definition of clinically dead, " a period of unconsciousness caused by insufficient blood supply to the brain." Is this the medically accepted defintion clinically dead? Or has van Lommel picked his own? Isn’t “clinically dead” generally agreed to be an absence of neural activity in the cerebral cortex? I don’t think simple lack of blood for a specified duration is enough.

[blowero]

From the New Scientist article:

If researchers could prove that clinically dead patients, with no electrical activity in their cortex, can be aware of events around them and form memories, this would suggest that the brain does not generate consciousness, French and Van Lommel think.

I’m noticing a big, glaring “if” at the beginning of that sentence. Which says to me that it has not been proven.

If I could prove that the moon were made of green cheese, this would suggest that the moon was made of green cheese.

From the ABC article:

Most had excellent recall of the events, which undermines the theory that the memories are false, the study said

Huh? They can’t be false memories because they remembered them? Does that make sense to anyone else?

[lekatt]

All these studies ignore the ability of NDEers to see and hear events happening during their death. If life did not continue after death there would be no dead relatives for them to talk to. They would not be able to explain the happenings during surgery, the conversations and instruments used.

I just learned my opponents have gone to the pit, to get down and dirty with their personal attacks.

Having no good answers for the data presented, personal attacks are all that’s left to them.

The points made here stand: consciousness is not biological, there is no proof to show it is. NDEers do know that they will live after death because they been there. First hand, eye-witness testimony is permissible in courts of law, but not here.

I declare this debate ended by the one who started it.
The preponderance of proof has not been refuted.

Leroy

[CarnalK]

So you don’t believe that the biological brain has anything to do with conciousness, hmmm?

Do you believe that our biological eyes have something to do with vision? If so, what new system is relaying the visions of doctors working on you or the vision of your long dead cousin?

Maybe you should play around with Astral Projection and Lucid Dreaming and see if it widens your perspective. Though many followers of those passtimes really believe they are actually leaving their body, the extent and direction of belief varies widely. Many people who have these kinds of experience do not take it for proof of God.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
All these studies ignore the ability of NDEers to see and hear events happening during their death. If life did not continue after death there would be no dead relatives for them to talk to. They would not be able to explain the happenings during surgery, the conversations and instruments used.

More backpedalling.

Here is my characterization of the argument thus far:

Lekatt: You must read the material, the proof is all in there.

Opponents: O.K., we read the studies, and they are flawed for the reasons x, y, and z.

Lekatt: Oh, did I say the studies proved it? I meant that the studies are wrong and you just have to take the NDE’ers word for it.

You say that the mere fact that people have NDE’s PROVES that they are real encounters with God. By your reasoning, dreams and hallucinations must all be real, simply by the fact that they were experienced. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.

The points made here stand: consciousness is not biological, there is no proof to show it is. NDEers do know that they will live after death because they been there. First hand, eye-witness testimony is permissible in courts of law, but not here.

I declare this debate ended by the one who started it.
The preponderance of proof has not been refuted.
Leroy

And now, in spite of having had all of your points soundly refuted, and having ignored all the specific criticisms, you nevertheless declare yourself the winner and storm out. How sad.

[Mtgman]

You don’t mind if we continue to discuss this subject, even though you’ve declared it “ended” do you?

I recall having a conversation with my mother about an out-of-body experience she had when she was young. The result of an alergic reaction to a penicillin shot IIRC. She described floating above her body, watching the medical staff trying to revive her. I’ll have to hit her up for some more info or to refresh my memory. I don’t recall her saying anything about a light or conversations with dead people. As I recall she just mentioned being extremely curious about what the medical staff was doing, but she did not attach any feelings of being close to a deity with it.

I’ve read a good bit of your site and remain unconvinced. I understand reluctance to publish personally identifying information, but I can’t base a belief system, or abolish one, on hearsay. I’ve got a person handy I can chat with about such things that I trust explicitly. I’ll get her take on the deal and maybe check back in here later.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Edlyn]

Thanks for the link to the Lancet report, UncleBeer. I’m going to read the report and also the article in New Scientist. I draw the line on ABC News, however. Personal preference, you understand.

As this is lekatt’s thread that he started, I will respect his wish concerning it. I can’t blame him for his decision. The atmosphere in this thread has been nearly intolerable at times and Apos is correct that no meaningful discussion is possible when that is happening. Personally I think both sides have fault to accept for this.

I think it’s a shame that any discussion that touches upon beliefs or those of a spiritual matter are practically impossible at SDMB. FWIW, I am gaining respect for Apos; he can ask good questions without being insulting.

lekatt: Thank you!

Mtgman: I think the point of this discussion was to consider evidence (scientific or not) and decide for yourself. I would not ask you to make a decision strictly based on what had been discussed here.

The above, of course are my personal opinions.

[Mtgman]

Actually I find this discussion has been very interesting. I agree that neither side seems to be making much headway in getting the other to accept their arguments/refutations, so you may think it’s stalled. That doesn’t mean myself, and other lurkers perhaps, don’t find value in it.

Here would be my summary.

Near Death Experiences are real. The ability of NDE survivors to accurately identify sequences of events that happened after they had gone into a state of unconsiousness, or even near death, shows that some ability to percieve the world remains alert.

What does this mean?

There are two viewpoints, one says it means that the consiousness is not biological. The second says they don’t know what it means, but that assuming it to mean consiousness is not biological is too big a step. We could simply not understand the process of death. Perhaps it takes a lot longer than we think and the “point of no return” isn’t what we thought it was. When someone says Pam Reynolds was dead, they are basing that on our current definition of “dead”. Why couldn’t we be wrong and she was simply in a different state of consiousness, one the equipment was unable to monitor? Just because so few people historically recovered from a physical state like the one she was in doesn’t mean they were dead at that state, just that they died after that state.

Both sides agree more research should be done, although those in lekatt’s camp seem to think the answer is already determined and regard further research as unnecessary. Luckily they’re willing to allow and somewhat encourage more research simply because they believe it will further prove their point. I wonder what would happen to this willingness/support if it started to prove our current monitoring techniques for brain activity were inadequate and people in NDEs actually DID have brain activity.

Anyway, the synopsis of the arguement/thread.

So here’s how the various possibilities for the meaning of NDEs break down. NDE’s are real. What does that mean? It means one of several things.

1. There are biological states of consiousness that medical science is not aware of and can not adequately monitor.
   a. Biological death is currently misunderstood. All our terms for “clinical” or “brain death” are inaccurate and humans are indeed still alive beyond those states although few recover once at those points.

2. Consiousness is not tied to biological functions.
   a. It is not tied to biology because a diety designed humans that way.
   i. The Christian diety made humans that way. This implies the afterlife as described in The Bible.
   ii. Some other diety made humans that way. This implies the afterlife as described in some other way.
   iii. Some unknown diety made humans that way. This implies the afterlife is a complete mystery to humans at this point.
   b. Human consiousness is non-biological for natural reasons(not related to a diety) yet unexplained.
   i. Consiousness continues eternally after death in a manner which can not exert observable influence in the material world.
   ii. Consiousness fades after biological death, just not immediately.

lekatt says that NDE’s exist and this means 2.a.i is true. Given the framework I sketched above, and please let me know if you see any possible cases that I have overlooked, I feel the jump from the truth of NDE existance to the conclusion 2.a.i is illogical.

Why did I bring up my mother’s OBE/NDE?(although you could arbitrarially re-define NDE/OBE to exclude her experience if you wish. I wouldn’t consider it a valid debating tactic, much less a good scientific basis for a proof of life after death.) Simply because I don’t recall her tying a religious experience with her NDE. The experience happened in the mid-late 50’s. I’m not sure what to make of this data point. Given some earlier evidence that various individuals who experienced ND saw different things, sometimes tied to their own belief systems(the Muslim seeing Allah in particular) it would seem to point towards our life experiences/beliefs being able to influence the content of an NDE. I fail to see how this could happen if, A) the person truly is dead and experiencing an afterlife B) the afterlife is, as the Christian belief propounds, the same for everyone (ie judgement, book of life, etc).

I don’t think it’s an answered question, but I am saddened at the lack of flexibility on the part of either party. lekatt refuses to admit his experience, and the experiences of others, may have been less than a taste of the Christian afterlife and his opposites hhave been equally inflexible in demanding he renounce his belief oof the meaning of his experience.

Steven

[Mtgman]

grr, forgot VBcode does not respect indentation. That possibility table was originally in outline form. Sorry about that.

Steven

[Edlyn]

Mtgman

After reading through your wonderful outline concerning NDE’s I’d like to take you up on your offer concerning a few points. Congratulations, btw, for a job well done!

1. I had re-read lekatt’s posts and no where does he claim to be a Christian. A belief in God and of spiritual life he does, but his mention of Jesus was only once when he discussed who a NDE’r may have seen. I, however have stated that I am a Christian. Perhaps he is, but either way, it would be best to let him say he would follow 2a_.

2. I’m wondering if 2a should include one more category, or not. In the case of some is a belief in reincarnation in which various prophets were in fact one and that the afterlife is described in various sources. For instance both (i) and (ii) would be blended together. Let me know what you think.

3. In light of 1. above, you might reconsider a portion of your very last paragraph. In honesty, if I had already experienced what lekatt has, I wouldn’t be less certain than he is. If I never had any spiritual experiences, I’d feel as Apos, etc. does.

And, just one last comment to add. While I read through lekatt’s posts again, clearly it was not lekatt’s intent to debate NDE’s, but thoughts about God, what God is. Unfortunately, that never had a chance.

Perhaps a discussion could continue, but only within the example of tone you have just demonstrated.

[lekatt]

Mtgman

I am not a Christain and what I experienced was not a Christain doctrine type of “God”. There is a site for Christian NDEs, but not many are posted. I think you will find most NDEers are not calling themselves Christian and most, like me, do not go to any church.

Now, as for agreeing that the experience maybe biological.
It would be very difficult for me to do so. I have experienced the spirit world many times. Talked to my passed parents and other relatives. They have given me information about the physical I didn’t know, but found to be true. I have felt the light and love of our Creator. Right after the experience, when the energy was very high, I could not wear a watch, when I touched someone that had physical problems, those problems were amelorated. It is like I would be questioning where I work in the physical and what I do there. I can not even begin to write about all the happenings. I am sure this post will be decended upon and torn apart like the rest. I am posting this to you only and will not answer the detractors.

Love
Leroy

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Talked to my passed parents and other relatives. They have given me information about the physical I didn’t know, but found to be true. *

You made a number of claims in your post. If any of them are verifiable -and it seems to me some of them would be if they were valid- there is a cash grant available to those who can demonstrate them. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Specifically, if the spirit world could tell us something that 1) We don’t currently know but 2) was verifiably true, that might be interesting.

Alternatively, if you could “heal by touch” in a well-defined way, that might also be interesting.

I apologize if somebody else has made this point before: I skipped pages 2 and 3.

[lekatt]

It is interesting that you talk about Randi.

http://www.victorzammit.com/

At the above address there is a clock ticking away the time that Randi refuses to ingauge in a fair trial of psychic ability.

I don’t know all the details. The reading may be interesting.
It has nothing to do with NDEs.

[Papermache_Prince]

Lekatt

Maybe, just maybe, before you make a charge it would be your responsibility to “know all the details.”

You are unhappy when people, in your opinion, attack you but don’t show the same courtesy to others, particularly someone who isn’t even posting here.