I am. Unfortunately you keep retreating to a position without evidence, and making this point as if it’s a great revelation. It’s not.
Totally irrelevant: if you want to prove something exists, usually you have to show it actually exists, not just say it could exist.
I would agree with you if gathered all accurate information. Without all info, in toto, you cannot necessarily draw accruate conclusions.
I agree it could be nothing more than that, but unlike you, I do believe it was an objectively real experience. Again, the operative word is believe.
Has anyone actually seen a photo of an atom? Can we put one under a miscroscope and see it with the naked eye?
You know exactly what I mean when I say “life force”. Whatever “it” is that animates us, gives us personality, cognition, awareness, consciousness, etc. Whatever name you want to give “it” is irrelevant. When you get shot dead and all that’s there is an inanimate chunk of meat, bone and fluids, something is missing…animation, essence, life force, etc.
Would you like to at least offer a theory on what you think did happen, jakesteele?
What’s missing, to best of humanity’s knowledge, is functional chemistry. What gives us personality, cognition, awareness, consciousness, etc, is our brains. If you have evidence of anything more than this, please present it.
Can this force be measured? Detected? Does it affect anything in the material world? Is it affected by gravity?
No such thing exists. There is no animating “force.” Life is just a chemical process. When the process ends, the life ends. A living organism is not matter occupied by a “life force.” It’s an interaction of chemicals. Nothing is “missing” from a dead organism. The chemical process has just ended.
Midichlorians?
That’s arguable, but even granting it’s true for the sake of argument, that doesn’t justify the substitution of an even more inadequate method of explanation, aka “making shit up because it sounds good,” which is what you’re doing. Even with its limitations, it’s still better than every other alternative.
Occam’s Razor says that you don’t multiply entities beyond their neccessity. Thisoften gets paraphrased as “the simplest explanation is best,” but that’s not really what it means. What it means is that you don’t hypothesize without need. If you have an explanation that works, there’s no reason to consider anything more complicated unless there’s a need for it.
If you see paw prints leading from your kitchen table to the dog house n your backyard, and you see your dog eating your missing steak, you can assume that the dog took youyr steak. You don’t need toassume that somebody snuck into your house, planted fake pawprints and gave the dog your steak.
Occam is especially applicable when youi’re talking about hypotheses which are pr5ima facie impossible. It is impossible to “leave” your own body. Consciousness is produced by the brain and can no more exist outside of it than the light from a lightbulb can be segregated from the bulb. Therefore tany literal interpretation of an OBE sensation can be safely dismissed out of hand. The impossible should always be presumed to be impossible until proven otherwise.
I’m not retreating to a position without evidence, I am holding the door open to all possibilities. If you only accept things in terms of what you already understand, then your science is no longer an open system. The Scientific Method is only as all knowing and far seeing as its current limitations and boundaries will allow it to be. It is an instrument, like OR, that is continually sharpening its blade, but for many things it is still like doing brain surgery with a butter knife
To say, “the absence of proof is not proof of absence” is totally valid. This has gone on since time immemorial. Copernicus made observations with his naked eye about the heliocentric nature of the universe which, of course, were proven later by Galileo. Obviously, Galileo was not the type to say, “Let’s see some proof, Mr. Copernicus.”
There’s not much point in holding a door open to all possibilities without cause.
Why is that true in this case?
Galileo provided proof. Meanwhile I’ve asked you to at least offer a theory, but so far, you haven’t.
You don’t have to be able to see something with the naked eye to be able to empirically prove it exists. We can prove atoms exist through careful inference (and indirect observation). There isn’t the slightest bit of even indirect evidence for the soul. nor is there any explanatory necessity for them.
Also, they’re impossible.
Sure, my theory, my belief, my conclusion is that I had an honest to god, for real NDE. I died, had an ineffable experience and came back. Doctors told me that I was dead for a short period of time based on their scientific definition of dead.
I know that and I believe you had the experience you described. I want an explanation of how the NDE happened.
That is nothing more than what you believe. You don’t know any more about what happens when someone dies than any other swinging dick out there.
I find that statement arrogant and assumptive and I must ask you: Were you born omniscient or did you go to school to learn it?
I’ve heard that some emergency room doctors have put pieces of paper on top of high cabinets with a letter, number, or symbol drawn on them to ask someone who claimed to have an above-the-body NDE what was on the paper. I wonder if that’s an urban legend, or if not, how common it is.
Sure. I’ve already replied but it didn’t seem to work. What I believe, think, know is that I died, had a NDE and came back. According to the doctors, by their standards and interpretations, I was officially dead.