Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist

[haribol]

Afterlife? It is there and in fact when one dies the decomposition of a being results in the composition of something else, animation or in-animation. Death is a sheer illusion, and we better it transmutation

 

[LuisDantas]

Man of Faith, he has every right to believe.

No one has to agree, however. Just because he is a scientist it does not at all follow that we should take his word for it.

And on this kind of matter, there is simply no way to prove anything about God's eventual existence.

 

[haribol]

Man of Faith, he has every right to believe.

No one has to agree, however. Just because he is a scientist it does not at all follow that we should take his word for it.

And on this kind of matter, there is simply no way to prove anything about God's eventual existence.

You are absolutely right since science and faith are two different directions and paths. I forget science when it comes to meditation. Faith does not need proof y

 

[Magic Man]

Two atheists, both scientists and doctors, as described in this thread didn't need soil samples to believe.

You're misquoting the facts. Dr. Alexander wasn't really an atheist. He was pretty much looking to believe in a god. It wasn't like Richard Dawkins having such an experience.

The world’s most famous atheist and top philosopher, Anthony Flew didn't need soil samples from another existence to believe.

I'm not sure what he has to do with anything. Flew has nothing to do with NDEs. And that's besides the fact that his "conversion" was so controversial.

You seem to be saying "Hey, look, a couple of atheists converted to theism, so obviously that gives it credibility". That's an obvious fallacy.

The bottom line is there is no actual evidence for any NDEs or OBEs.

 

[haribol]

Atheism is disbelief in a fictionalized form of God. God is formless, beyond description and worldly attribution.
I do not believe in the biblical god or a wrathful god or a mythological god and atheism is against such ideas

 

[PolyHedral]

God is formless, beyond description and worldly attribution.

Looks like a description to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheism is disbelief in a fictionalized form of God.

It's always fun to watch folks warp definitions to serve their presuppositions.

 

[lunakilo]

Now that we are getting evidence that there is an afterlife, through NDEs and through interaction with the spirit world, the only questions now is which religion is correct. I know, but do you?

"Dr Eben Alexander, a Harvard-educated neurosurgeon... ...says he had heard stories from patients who spoke of outer body experiences but had disregarded them as "wishful thinking" but has reconsidered his opinion"... Afterlife exists says top brain surgeon - Telegraph

How come so many doctors are so arrogant?

from his story...

"I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself."

"I know full well how extraordinary, how frankly unbelievable, all this sounds. Had someone—even a doctor—told me a story like this in the old days, I would have been quite certain that they were under the spell of some delusion."


And now for the conclusion:

"I’ve spent decades as a neurosurgeon at some of the most prestigious medical institutions in our country. I know that many of my peers hold—as I myself did—to the theory that the brain, and in particular the cortex, generates consciousness and that we live in a universe devoid of any kind of emotion, much less the unconditional love that I now know God and the universe have toward us. But that belief, that theory, now lies broken at our feet. What happened to me destroyed it, and I intend to spend the rest of my life investigating the true nature of consciousness and making the fact that we are more, much more, than our physical brains as clear as I can, both to my fellow scientists and to people at large."

In other words: "I am a very smart man since I worked in all those fancy places. I am a doctor and so you must trust that I know stuff.
What I experienced proves that what I thought I knew before was wrong, but now I know I am right and so should you. I know there is an afterlife and a God/loving universe."

He knew better before his near death experience, and now he again knows better

There is of course also the possibility that the theory that it is simply the theory about what consciousness is and where it comes from is wrong.

 

[haribol]

God is a human manifestation of climax and the greatest truth and yet man sees a mirage in search of substance but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no substance

 

[Revoltingest]

In other words: "I am a very smart man since I worked in all those fancy places. I am a doctor and so you must trust that I know stuff.
What I experienced proves that what I thought I knew before was wrong, but now I know I am right and so should you. I know there is an afterlife and a God/loving universe."

You are a wicked wicked woman with a skewering wit!

 

[Twilight Hue]

A blue eyed woman......pink fluffy clouds. ........

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Man of Faith,

Again I ask, how do you know Dr. Alexander's NDE occurred while there was no brain activity? Clearly the man has had some brain activity since he went into his coma, or he would not be alive to tell us about it. What evidence rules out the simple explanation that his NDE occurred during brain activity?

The entire case that this is evidence for an afterlife hinges on this question.

 

[Riverwolf]

It wasn't that difficult, it took me 5 minutes or less to create the OP.

I didn't see any evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Even if Richard Dawkins suddenly became a theist, that alone wouldn't be evidence, regardless of the reason.

Evidence is repeatable, and independently verifiable. By its very nature, personal experience is neither of these, and so is not evidence.

In addition, personal opinions are not evidence. I have faith that God and Gods exist, but that's a personal opinion. Even if everyone else in the world shared it, that wouldn't be evidence. The fact that the vast majority of the population believes in some form of Supreme Being, whether God or not, is definitely something worth exploring, but from a psychological perspective.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Evidence is repeatable, and independently verifiable. By its very nature, personal experience is neither of these, and so is not evidence.

If I may slightly disagree: personal experience can be repeatable and independently verifiable. Otherwise trials in court, eye exams, etc. wouldn't work. The problem with Dr. Alexander's personal experience is that it is not incompatible with the hypothesis that NDEs are dreams that occur in brains which are on the brink of death. If Dr. Alexander brought back information from heaven which we could verify, then we would have something interesting.

 

[Riverwolf]

If I may slightly disagree: personal experience can be repeatable and independently verifiable. Otherwise trials in court, eye exams, etc. wouldn't work. The problem with Dr. Alexander's personal experience is that it is not incompatible with the hypothesis that NDEs are dreams that occur in brains which are on the brink of death. If Dr. Alexander brought back information from heaven which we could verify, then we would have something interesting.

Ah. Not so much a disagreement, as a clarification/slight correction. :yes:

EDIT: Then again, in court, the eyewitness testimony has to be consistent with other, more concrete pieces of evidence to be reliable. (...at least, I'd hope.)

 

[Man of Faith]

Man of Faith,

Again I ask, how do you know Dr. Alexander's NDE occurred while there was no brain activity? Clearly the man has had some brain activity since he went into his coma, or he would not be alive to tell us about it. What evidence rules out the simple explanation that his NDE occurred during brain activity?

The entire case that this is evidence for an afterlife hinges on this question.

I wouldn’t focus too much on him, that’s like putting your entire eggs in one basket. He is a mere microcosm in the big picture, a spoke in the wheel so to speak of NDEs, OBDs and scientific data that point to the afterlife and a creator. What we have is atheists demanding proof of the afterlife and God and we have God providing it. We also have the cases of Dr Maurice Rawlings and Dr Richard Kent who are believers after listening to their dead patients, after being brought back to life recount their heaven and hell experiences. Man this stuff is everywhere.

We have dead people, dead as any dead person living in another existence, in another world, experiencing pain, hopelessness, love, joy, warmth, cold, all the human emotions and experiences that we have on this earth. Doctors should know dead after many years of seeing it. The brain is a complicated thing and if it is merely the chemicals in a dying brain, we wouldn’t expect to be fully human and fully aware of our surroundings in another world. It’s like the brain is operating normally and if that was the case then the people would be alive, not dead, flat lined on all monitors.

 

[HonestJoe]

I wouldn’t focus too much on him, that’s like putting your entire eggs in one basket.

Your eggs in your basket. You presented his case as evidence of an afterlife and only now that evidence has been shown to be unclear and uncertain do you want to reduce it's significance.

He is a mere microcosm in the big picture, a spoke in the wheel so to speak of NDEs, OBDs and scientific data that point to the afterlife and a creator.

NDEs and the like are not evidence of anything. They are unexplained phenomena, with cause (or causes) unknown. They provide no more evidence of an afterlife than they provide evidence that we're really all living in the Matrix. I'd suggest that the "scientific data" for an afterlife and creator actually falls in to the same unexplained area.

The simple fact is that we don't know. Maybe there is some kind of life after death and maybe there isn't. Maybe NDEs offer an insight on that and maybe they're totally unconnected. Maybe one or more religion presents an accurate impression of life after death and maybe they're all wrong. This thread has provided zero evidence, just another maybe and your faith in it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference in it's likelihood of being in any way a reality.

 

[Magic Man]

I wouldn’t focus too much on him, that’s like putting your entire eggs in one basket. He is a mere microcosm in the big picture, a spoke in the wheel so to speak of NDEs, OBDs and scientific data that point to the afterlife and a creator.

Then show us some of these other examples. The only other examples I've seen have problems similar to Dr. Alexander's.

What we have is atheists demanding proof of the afterlife and God and we have God providing it.

We do? Can you point me to this "proof"?

We also have the cases of Dr Maurice Rawlings and Dr Richard Kent who are believers after listening to their dead patients, after being brought back to life recount their heaven and hell experiences. Man this stuff is everywhere.

Yes, there are a lot of NDE stories and OBE stories out there. Can you point me to any that are actually evidence of NDEs or OBEs? What does it matter to me that a couple of doctors bought into NDEs?

We have dead people, dead as any dead person living in another existence, in another world, experiencing pain, hopelessness, love, joy, warmth, cold, all the human emotions and experiences that we have on this earth. Doctors should know dead after many years of seeing it. The brain is a complicated thing and if it is merely the chemicals in a dying brain, we wouldn’t expect to be fully human and fully aware of our surroundings in another world. It’s like the brain is operating normally and if that was the case then the people would be alive, not dead, flat lined on all monitors.

Do you have an example where we know without a doubt that the experience happens while the person's brain is fully dead? That's as opposed to instances like Dr. Alexander where the experience could just as easily have happened before or after his brain activity ceased. There's no reason to believe the experience he had happened while his brain was dead.

The problem with believing these stories is that you're assuming too much. There are much more normal, easier explanations than that they're actually NDEs. In Dr. Alexander's case, it fits the description of a DMT trip precisely.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Man of Faith,

Again I ask, how do you know Dr. Alexander's NDE occurred while there was no brain activity? Clearly the man has had some brain activity since he went into his coma, or he would not be alive to tell us about it. What evidence rules out the simple explanation that his NDE occurred during brain activity?

The entire case that this is evidence for an afterlife hinges on this question.

I wouldn’t focus too much on him, that’s like putting your entire eggs in one basket. He is a mere microcosm in the big picture, a spoke in the wheel so to speak of NDEs, OBDs and scientific data that point to the afterlife and a creator. What we have is atheists demanding proof of the afterlife and God and we have God providing it. We also have the cases of Dr Maurice Rawlings and Dr Richard Kent who are believers after listening to their dead patients, after being brought back to life recount their heaven and hell experiences. Man this stuff is everywhere.

We have dead people, dead as any dead person living in another existence, in another world, experiencing pain, hopelessness, love, joy, warmth, cold, all the human emotions and experiences that we have on this earth. Doctors should know dead after many years of seeing it. The brain is a complicated thing and if it is merely the chemicals in a dying brain, we wouldn’t expect to be fully human and fully aware of our surroundings in another world. It’s like the brain is operating normally and if that was the case then the people would be alive, not dead, flat lined on all monitors.

I rest my case.

 

[George-ananda]

That isn't true. Most phenomena involve the limitations of human senses in their observation yet there are lots of things that have been, to all intents and purpose, proven. That is primarily because actual mechanisms for the phenomena were identified.

The key sticking point for establishing a scientific context for this kind of thing is that there is never a coherent identification of the physical mechanisms involved.

Maybe there's no "coherent identification of the physical mechanisms involved" because the mechanisms are super-physical (spiritual) in the NDE.

The continuation of life after death would require some form of structured energy to be transferred from the brain to somewhere else. I'm not aware of any viable hypothesis for this, let alone any proof.

Here's the viable hypothesis. Consciousness is not a product of the physical brain. Consciousness only expresses itself through the physical brain during physical life. After physical death consciousness moves back to where it was previously 'focused'; super-physical realms/dimensions.

For the alternative explanations of dreams or false memory, the mechanisms are identified and have been studied and understood to some extent. We know people can dream and we know people can be convinced of their recollection of an event but be completely wrong. All else being equal, that makes the latter a more reasonable explanation for NDEs and the like.

Dreams and false memories are not spiritual phenomena and we can find physical mechanisms. The NDE's require super-physical mechanisms.

The fact that 'physical mechanisms' are not found with the NDE, actually argues more in favor of NDE's being genuine.