• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hoover Institute video on Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I don't mind having a subjective view that you call an argument from ignorance. And views on this topic are arguments from ignorance really if mine is.
But really my argument is not that a natural explanation has not been found so a consciousness outside the body is correct.
My argument is that consciousness outside the body is obviously correct if we accept the evidence we have.
That a natural explanation has not been found is just icing on the cake.
Several times now, I've given you evidence that indicates that minds are tied to brains. You've pretty much ignored it.
You seem to be drawing unwarranted conclusions based on your preconceived religious beliefs.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Several times now, I've given you evidence that indicates that minds are tied to brains. You've pretty much ignored it.
You seem to be drawing unwarranted conclusions based on your preconceived religious beliefs.
I do sometimes wonder from personal experience about my own. My mother told us we would lose our heads if they weren't attached.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
Responding on my phone...so I've skipped a bit through posts. In reading some above I wonder...does brain activity mean consciousness even if that activity comes from the right parts of the brain?
I'm asking because of the comment about brain activity research in the first few moment after death.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I don’t doubt people who are clinically dead, can revive after period of time, but what they supposedly saw or hear in their otherworldly experiences, are what I have doubts about their experience being real.

I am quite sure there have been a number of people who died and revived, and experiences nothing of the sorts, eg OBE, visitations of dead family members or other entities, etc.

I used to be interested in the whole NDE & OBE, back in the days when I was in my late teens & in my 20s, when I believe in all sorts of nonsense.

Anyway, don’t claim you have evidence, when you don’t have any to present, because otherwise we would consider that you are lying to us.

So you have doubts about the experiences being real, even the ones where verification has been sought and found for the claims in those experiences.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No, that's not what a controlled study is.

But even if it was, describing what happened in the room one is in, is not all that remarkable. Why do you think it is? And why do you think that such a thing indicates that "disembodied minds" can exist?

I'm curious as to what you think about actual controlled studies on this subject matter in which notes were placed in the room, out of the view of the patient to see if they could read them while supposedly "out of body." No one was able to recall any of it.

Some OBEers are verified for things they saw/heard in other rooms.
It is interesting that supposed OBEers could not report on the notes left around. It does not show that verifications that have happened are not true however.
I have heard of someone actually knowing a number that was on the top of a machine in the operating theatre.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Let's not play games here. You have a very specific God in mind.


What you did was an exercise in cherry-picking and confirmation bias. There is nothing sound about that reasoning.

How do you account for my grandfather's "near-death experience?" His heart stopped on the operating table. What did he see? Nothing. He said it was just like being asleep. So, how do you account for his account, and those like it?

Of course I believe in a specific God but this is not about belief in any God really, it is just about resistance to belief in the supernatural.
Not everyone has or remembers NDEs or OBEs during their NDEs.
What can I say, does this rebut all the others who claim to have NDEs and OBEs during NDEs.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
So you have doubts about the experiences being real, even the ones where verification has been sought and found for the claims in those experiences.

You still cannot grasp that the only real verification in sciences, are testable and verifiable OBSERVATIONS & DATA, which are either:
A) evidence

B) experiments​

...or both, evidence & experiments.

Data include any information from the evidence and experiments, such as detection, quantities, measurements, comparison of evidence.

Anecdotes of OBE are merely stories and claims, which cannot be detected, quantified, measured, compared.

When scientists talk of verification, they are talking about being able to test hypotheses or scientific theories. And tests can only come from evidence or experiments (or both). How many times must I say that before you get in your head, that OBE have never been verified, as there are no evidence?

I don't deny people who have been near-dead or been clinically dead, and reviving. What I find doubtful of, are stories of floating consciousness or spirits.

A person who suffer from oxygen starvation, do hallucinate. And the same would be people in NDE where the brains are not getting oxygen, because the blood are circulating.

Plus, you are forgetting there have been number of people who revived after being clinically dead, and seen nothing.

Do you only accept people with stories of OBE, and ignored those who have no such experienced when they were dead?

If you ignored those who experienced no such visions, then you are cherry-picking only anecdotes that you believe in. That's just simply confirmation bias.

You don't have any physical evidence of OBE, just as you have no evidence of disembodied consciousness or mind. They are merely claims and stories that cannot be verified.

OBE falls under pseudoscience, as it is utterly unfalsifiable, and most important of all, you cannot test these anecdotes.

OBE is no better than anecdotes of alien abductions. It's flimsy and it's absurd, and it is something that you cannot test.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Do you only accept people with stories of OBE, and ignored those who have no such experienced when they were dead?

I only see those who claim OBEs in their NDEs, and these OBE experiences have been verified by independent witnesses, as evidence of consciousness outside bodies.
This evidence is stronger when the confirmed claim was what happened in another place, such as an adjacent room.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I only see those who claim OBEs in their NDEs, and these OBE experiences have been verified by independent witnesses, as evidence of consciousness outside bodies.

Independent witnesses?

Are you saying people, eg medics or doctors, actually saw the OBE of a near-dead person?

This is a load of BS!

You just making up more claims?

Stop making up stories, yourself.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Some OBEers are verified for things they saw/heard in other rooms.
Let's see some examples. The ones I've given in the past were presented this way, but turned out to be quite different.

It is interesting that supposed OBEers could not report on the notes left around. It does not show that verifications that have happened are not true however.
I have heard of someone actually knowing a number that was on the top of a machine in the operating theatre.
It certainly is, if, in fact, their minds are leaving their brains, isn't it? How do you account for that? "Hearing about" someone isn't evidence, remember. That's an anecdote.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Of course I believe in a specific God but this is not about belief in any God really, it is just about resistance to belief in the supernatural.
The "resistance" as you call, will end when someone, anyone, can demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural. In the same way we don't posit universe-spitting pixies as the creators of the universe until we have some evidence to actually believe that. Until then, you're just making stuff up and drawing unwarranted conclusions where none can be drawn. And the evidence isn't "some guy saw a universe-spitting pixie as his brain was shutting down."



Not everyone has or remembers NDEs or OBEs during their NDEs.
What can I say, does this rebut all the others who claim to have NDEs and OBEs during NDEs.
I'm not saying they "rebut all the others who claim to have NDEs and OBEs", though it certainly doesn't reinforce them. But we're talking about evidence here, and you don't just get to cherry pick the NDEs that you "like" and throw out the ones that you don't or that don't follow the specific pattern you expect to find.
You have to account for such people in your "data" about OBE and NDEs, right? So when you add their data to the mix, what do you find?
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I only see those who claim OBEs in their NDEs, and these OBE experiences have been verified by independent witnesses, as evidence of consciousness outside bodies.
This evidence is stronger when the confirmed claim was what happened in another place, such as an adjacent room.
Again I have to ask, how does confirmation that say, somebody heard something while unconscious and was able to report it when conscious, demonstrate in ANY WAY that minds are capable of leaving brains/bodies?? That such a thing is "evidence of consciousness outside bodies?" Please demonstrate that connection.

And let me ask you this, if you're fast asleep at night, and you're awakened by a siren outside in the distance, do you think your mind had to leave your body in order for you to sense and become aware of that sound while you were sleeping? Why or why not?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Independent witnesses?

Are you saying people, eg medics or doctors, actually saw the OBE of a near-dead person?

This is a load of BS!

You just making up more claims?

Stop making up stories, yourself.

What I mean by "independent witnesses" is people who were there are confirm the things that the OBEers say happened in their stories. It is what I have been saying all along.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Let's see some examples. The ones I've given in the past were presented this way, but turned out to be quite different.

I don't have examples that aren't anecdotes.

It certainly is, if, in fact, their minds are leaving their brains, isn't it? How do you account for that? "Hearing about" someone isn't evidence, remember. That's an anecdote.

I cannot account for it except that they did not see or notice the signs. But of course I imagine that not all reported OBEs can be verified. If these OBEs are verified in other ways then they are verified. If they were not verified in any way then they have not been verified.
What is "hearsay" to you and what is anecdotal? In the context of these reported OBEs and verification of the stories by others and recording these findings and telling others about them, what do you call "hearsay" and what do you call "anecdotal" and what is acceptable as evidence?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
The "resistance" as you call, will end when someone, anyone, can demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural. In the same way we don't posit universe-spitting pixies as the creators of the universe until we have some evidence to actually believe that. Until then, you're just making stuff up and drawing unwarranted conclusions where none can be drawn. And the evidence isn't "some guy saw a universe-spitting pixie as his brain was shutting down."

"Universe spitting pixies" ay. Maybe if the person who has an OBE sees a universe spitting pixie and that story is verified by someone else who was there, that might be evidence for universe spitting pixies, especially if there was another universe there also.

I'm not saying they "rebut all the others who claim to have NDEs and OBEs", though it certainly doesn't reinforce them. But we're talking about evidence here, and you don't just get to cherry pick the NDEs that you "like" and throw out the ones that you don't or that don't follow the specific pattern you expect to find.
You have to account for such people in your "data" about OBE and NDEs, right? So when you add their data to the mix, what do you find?

It's all a matter of percentages of patients in the data I have seen. Some experience such and such and others experience something else and a percentage of those can be verified,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, stuff like that.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Again I have to ask, how does confirmation that say, somebody heard something while unconscious and was able to report it when conscious, demonstrate in ANY WAY that minds are capable of leaving brains/bodies?? That such a thing is "evidence of consciousness outside bodies?" Please demonstrate that connection.

And let me ask you this, if you're fast asleep at night, and you're awakened by a siren outside in the distance, do you think your mind had to leave your body in order for you to sense and become aware of that sound while you were sleeping? Why or why not?

It is not just hearing stuff that is reported, it is seeing also.
No I don't think we need to leave our body to hear a siren while we sleep.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"Universe spitting pixies" ay. Maybe if the person who has an OBE sees a universe spitting pixie and that story is verified by someone else who was there, that might be evidence for universe spitting pixies, especially if there was another universe there also.



It's all a matter of percentages of patients in the data I have seen. Some experience such and such and others experience something else and a percentage of those can be verified,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, stuff like that.
When a claim that is made without reliable evidence, and there is a natural explanation for a claimed phenomenon then a rational person will go with the naturalistic explanation and not the magical one.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
When a claim that is made without reliable evidence, and there is a natural explanation for a claimed phenomenon then a rational person will go with the naturalistic explanation and not the magical one.

So are you saying that there is a natural explanation for unconscious people being able to hear and see events in a room and sometimes in another room.
And why do you call the OBEs magical. All it is is a phenomena that can be shown to be true in the real world and so must be natural, or so I am told.
Are you saying that all evidence for things outside the parameters of current scientific understanding is called magic and just ignored even if there is no explanation in those parameters, until an explanation in those parameters can be found?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So are you saying that there is a natural explanation for unconscious people being able to hear and see events in a room and sometimes in another room.
And why do you call the OBEs magical. All it is is a phenomena that can be shown to be true in the real world and so must be natural, or so I am told.
Are you saying that all evidence for things outside the parameters of current scientific understanding is called magic and just ignored even if there is no explanation in those parameters, until an explanation in those parameters can be found?
But that has never been verified. There are only stories about that.

Let's say a person has an event of some sort and collapses. He is with his family at that time. He is probably aware that he is being brought to the hospital. He could "remember" see his family in the ER waiting room. He could even "remember" conversations. That could have just been a dream based on logic. That sort of event is not reliable evidence. Also people's memories change very easily. If his vision was better than what actually happened their memory could easily change to match his vision. You need something a lot more substantial than that.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
But that has never been verified. There are only stories about that.

Let's say a person has an event of some sort and collapses. He is with his family at that time. He is probably aware that he is being brought to the hospital. He could "remember" see his family in the ER waiting room. He could even "remember" conversations. That could have just been a dream based on logic. That sort of event is not reliable evidence. Also people's memories change very easily. If his vision was better than what actually happened their memory could easily change to match his vision. You need something a lot more substantial than that.

There of course needs to be control to make sure that the questioner is not manipulating the answers of those who verify the OBE accounts.
Do you remember reading that those with OBEs could describe their resuscitation much more accurately than those without OBEs.
Is that more substantial?
 
Top