General anesthesia and consciousness

[All Becomes New]

Well, that didn't take long.

A guy had been in hospital for a week, recovering. Presumably he'd been fed during that time. And the guy didn't have his dentures, so obviously would have asked for them. I'm pretty certain that he would have been told that they were taken out when he was being seen to originally. And quite possibly, whoever he asked might have said 'the nurse over there was in attendence. She would have left them on the cart in the emergency room. I'll check with her.' And sometime later, still without his dentures, he sees the nurse and says 'Hey, you know where my dentures are. You took them out when you were looking after me'.

Not much supernatural there.

And he described the room? Well yeah, I'll bet I can describe it too. And I've never been in one. But I've watched plenty of medical dramas on TV. It had the guy on a bed. It was a small room (obviously). There was medical equipment along the wall (obviously) and there were people in there helping him (obviously). They wore white (obviously). And there was a cart and you put the dentures on them (someone had told him that). It had bottles on there and had a tray (most trays in a hospital will match that description).

Not much supernatural there.

Now the guy probably had a vivid experience at some point during the emergency. And then when he'd recovered he associated that experience with what he knew and his mind made up a story that strung all the information into a meaningful sequence. It's something we all do. It's incredibly common.

Now I specifically asked you for an event that was the best example that you had of an NDE being a supernatural experience. And apart from some minor descriptions of a room in a hospital that contained medical personnel, we are to determine this as being a supernatural event because he knew which nurse had taken out his dentures?

So with your new found determination to address evidence with an open mind, I am certain beyond any reasonable doubt that you will consider this a good example of reasonable doubt. At the very least. Whereas most of the rest of us will simply discount it entirely. It's your call.

Sand shoes and dentures...

You should probably know the facts before critiquing this. People can come up with anything to deny something they don't believe in.

 

[Bradskii]

You should probably know the facts before critiquing this. People can come up with anything to deny something they don't believe in.

We have the facts. I coupled them with a very straightforward and entirely natural proposal for what could likely have happened. Now your choice is to either say that my proposal or something very much like it could not possibly have happened or that it is undeniably a supernatural event.

That's your call. But I will say that any reasonable person would say that my proposal, or something like it, is quite possible.

 

[All Becomes New]

I gave you the facts. And then coupled them with a very straightforward and entirely natural proposal for what could likely have happened. Now your choice is to either say that my proposal or something very much like it could not possibly have happened or that it is undeniably a supernatural event.

That's your call. But I will say that any reasonable person would say that my proposal, or something like it, is quite possible.

You've done mostly speculation. If you think this shows a naturalistic explanation, then you need to get the facts straight. For example, the nurse was a male, not a female. That's just one of the facts you seem to be completely ignorant of.

So before you speculate (which is all you are doing) at least try and get the facts straight first.

 

[All Becomes New]

The most pervasive core experience as far as NDE's are concerned... is that most people don't have them. Now that may sound immaterial to understanding actual NDE's, but it's a legitimate question... why do 17% of dying people have NDE's and 83% of them don't?

This question is important because understanding why some people have NDE's while others don't may also help explain why their NDE's tend to be similar. It may simply be that their experiences are similar because the people themselves are somehow similar. Perhaps they're simply part of the 20% of people who are lucid dreamers, and hence they're brains are more in tune with the fact that they're dying. Maybe some of us go gently into that good night, and some of us dream our way there.

What, I wonder, would a dying brain dream? What, I wonder, will I dream?

The people who have NDEs are across every kind of spectrum you can think of. No, this does not explain anything. Unless you want to say all these people are different in every single way except one? So that would need to be shown.

Again, you speculate, but it is by no means reasonable.

 

[All Becomes New]

We have the facts. I coupled them with a very straightforward and entirely natural proposal for what could likely have happened. Now your choice is to either say that my proposal or something very much like it could not possibly have happened or that it is undeniably a supernatural event.

That's your call. But I will say that any reasonable person would say that my proposal, or something like it, is quite possible.

Here is why you are wrong. The man never saw the nurse until he saw them and at that point, he said, "You know where my dentures are." That is a fact you have not understood. Not to mention that the man being alive at all is a miracle in itself. Your whole case rests on the fact that the man DID see the person before that. Show that that is what happened.

 

[Bradskii]

You've done mostly speculation. If you think this shows a naturalistic explanation, then you need to get the facts straight. For example, the nurse was a male, not a female. That's just one of the facts you seem to be completely ignorant of.

So before you speculate (which is all you are doing) at least try and get the facts straight first.

What we are both doing is speculating because this is not a matter that can be proved one way or the other. We are looking at the balance of probabilities. Now either the natural laws of the universe were temporarily suspended so that this guy could watch his dentures being stored OR there is a much more mundane, prosaic explanation is the question to be answered.

As I said, it's your call. And I don't get the facts right because the nurse was a guy? That is a pretty desperate position to take.

 

[Bradskii]

Here is why you are wrong. The man never saw the nurse until he saw them and at that point, he said, "You know where my dentures are."

As I said, he hadn't had his dentures for a week. He would have asked for them. It's more than possible that the nurse was pointed out to him as the person who likely had dealt with them during his emergency. Did that happen? We don't know. Is it possible. Yes, it's quite possible.

As I said, any reasonable person would admit to other possibilities.

And checking the link again, there is nothing in the description of the event that tells us that the nurse is male or female. So excuse my sexism in assuming that the nurse was female. But other than that...

 

[All Becomes New]

Now either the natural laws of the universe were temporarily suspended so that this guy could watch his dentures being stored OR there is a much more mundane, prosaic explanation is the question to be answered.

No, again, wrong. That is not what people who believe that NDEs show life after death say. All it means is that there is life after death. There's no reason to think the laws of nature were suspended. People who believe NDEs show life after death believe the event of an NDE is staying in line with the way things work (even though the supernatural is present in them). Think about it as a law that the supernatural operates under.

As I said, he hadn't had his dentures for a week. He would have asked for them. It's more than possible that the nurse was pointed out to him as the person who likely had dealt with them during his emergency. Did that happen? We don't know. Is it possible. Yes, it's quite possible.

As I said, any reasonable person would admit to other possibilities.

"He would have asked for them." That's speculation. So stick to the facts in explaining the event. "It's more than possible that the nurse was pointed out to him as the person who likely had dealt with them during his emergency." Show me that. Don't assume that must be the case. Again, simply speculation, not based on the facts to interpret the event.

Like, you realize the way you are talking about this is a method that could be used to explain away almost any historical fact we know of, right?

You can't assume naturalism to show naturalism is true. That's not how it works.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can't assume naturalism to show naturalism is true. That's not how it works.

Naturalism is the only thing to assume since the supernatural cannot be studied or shown, only claimed. That's how it works.

 

[All Becomes New]

Naturalism is the only thing to assume since the supernatural cannot be studied or shown, only claimed. That's how it works.

No, you should make no assumptions and let the data speak for itself. Otherwise, you argue in a circle.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, you should make no assumptions and let the data speak for itself. Otherwise, you argue in a circle.

Yes, letting the data speak for itself is the right thing to do. But no data shows, with 100% certainty, that things like NDEs are caused by the supernatural since there is no way to study the supernatural. Therefore, since they cannot be studied, they are excluded. It's not hard logic.

 

[All Becomes New]

But no data shows, with 100% certainty

I don't even have that kind of certainty that you exist. It is about what is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "absolute certainty." That is how our justice system works. If absolute certainty would be necessary to convict someone, no one would be in jail.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't even have that kind of certainty that you exist. It is about what is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "absolute certainty." That is how our justice system works. If absolute certainty would be necessary to convict someone, no one would be in jail.

First off: I'm getting sick of the people who just quote tiny little bits of posts and leave out the rest. It's so rude. So rude.

So I'm going to quote myself again, just to repeat what I said:
Yes, letting the data speak for itself is the right thing to do. But no data shows, with 100% certainty, that things like NDEs are caused by the supernatural since there is no way to study the supernatural. Therefore, since they cannot be studied, they are excluded. It's not hard logic.

 

[Bradskii]

"He would have asked for them." That's speculation. So stick to the facts in explaining the event. "It's more than possible that the nurse was pointed out to him as the person who likely had dealt with them during his emergency." Show me that. Don't assume that must be the case. Again, simply speculation, not based on the facts to interpret the event.

Of course I'm speculating. As you are. Because we don't know exactly what happened. What I have given is a reasonable account of what could have happened. Would it be impossible that it happened that way? Of course not. It's entirely possible. Your job is to decide how much weight to give to other possible explanations. As you said above, you have to show that you are correct beyond any reasonable doubt. And you are a very long way from that indeed.

But it's your call. Others will make up their own minds. I know I have.

Oh, and before you speculate (which is all you are doing) at least try and get the facts straight first.

 

[partinobodycular]

No, you should make no assumptions and let the data speak for itself.

This seems to be a tad hypocritical... anecdotal stories in a book aren't data... they're stories.

 

[All Becomes New]

This seems to be a tad hypocritical... anecdotal stories in a book aren't data... they're stories.

Yet that is not what even skeptical scholars say about the Bible. Why do you think that is?

Want to talk about the resurrection now? I'm pretty sure I can provide some FACTS that will be extremely difficult to come to a naturalistic explanation to explain those facts.

 

[All Becomes New]

First off: I'm getting sick of the people who just quote tiny little bits of posts and leave out the rest. It's so rude. So rude.

So I'm going to quote myself again, just to repeat what I said:
Yes, letting the data speak for itself is the right thing to do. But no data shows, with 100% certainty, that things like NDEs are caused by the supernatural since there is no way to study the supernatural. Therefore, since they cannot be studied, they are excluded. It's not hard logic.

It literally changes nothing about what I said.

 

[All Becomes New]

Because we don't know exactly what happened.

We do know what happened. We know a man was basically dead for some time and then when he came back to life he seemed to know exactly who took his dentures. The only thing that differs is how we interpret the event. You have to add facts to the equation. I don't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It literally changes nothing about what I said.

I never said it did. But the point still stands: if the supernatural could be studied, it would be studied. Since there is no way for the supernatural to be studied, since by it's nature, the supernatural exists outside of nature, it cannot studied and thus is not studied so it is not included.

That's why any claims about supernatural causes behind NDEs are dismissed as just claims. There is no way to study them as supernatural. Only the natural can be studied.

 

[All Becomes New]

I never said it did. But the point still stands: if the supernatural could be studied, it would be studied. Since there is no way for the supernatural to be studied, since by it's nature, the supernatural exists outside of nature, it cannot studied and thus is not studied so it is not included.

That's why any claims about supernatural causes behind NDEs are dismissed as just claims. There is no way to study them as supernatural. Only the natural can be studied.

Talk yourself into a circle. IDC. But it is a known logical fallacy, just so you are aware.