General anesthesia and consciousness

[partinobodycular]

What kind of credentials are you talking about? Like having a seminary degree? That does not count as merit to being a Christian.

I agree. I'm curious tho... have you seen the sign on the door? The one up there that says 'Christians Only'. Because when I see a sign like that you can bet your life that you'll find me standing outside with the 'undesirables'. That's why it says agnostic over there. I wonder though... where would Christ be... inside with the so-called Christians or outside with the undesirables like me?

 

[All Becomes New]

I agree. I'm curious tho... have you seen the sign on the door? The one up there that says 'Christians Only'. Because when I see a sign like that you can bet your life that you'll find me standing outside with the 'undesirables'. That's why it says agnostic over there. I wonder though... where would Christ be... inside with the so-called Christians or outside with the undesirables like me?

I'm not calling you an undesirable. I am questioning your motives for coming to a Christian forum to likely debate with Christians over things you don't believe even if you did at one point.

God loves everyone. That does not mean God approves of everything everyone does.

You still have not answered my question though about your "credentials." And if it is just, "I'm an undesirable so Christ would automatically be more on my side" that does not take into account who I am (as an undesirable). Not to mention that Christ did not leave people in their sin. He said, "Go and sin no more."

 

[partinobodycular]

You still have not answered my question though about your "credentials."

Let me know when you figure that one out.

 

[All Becomes New]

Let me know when you figure that one out.

You brought it up.

 

[All Becomes New]

@myst33,

FWIW, I apologize for hijacking your thread and making it about NDEs when that was not the purpose you had in mind for your thread.

 

[trophy33]

@myst33,

FWIW, I apologize for hijacking your thread and making it about NDEs when that was not the purpose you had in mind for your thread.

Its OK, no problem.

 

[Larniavc]

Some of them do do that.

Do they though? Absent anecdotes what evidence is there that that is ever the case? Your vid is chock full of claims and nothing else.

When asked your are reluctant to point to any specific example and cite trust in the interlocutor as a good enough reason to believe.

The guy on the vid’s website takes one straight to his storefront; he makes money by selling books to people who believe him. That alone should tell you that he has a vested interest in people buying in to his ideas.

 

[Larniavc]

Read the studies rather than asking how the studies are done is my advice.

That is terrible advice. In peer review examining how the study is carried out is a vital part in determining whether it is valid research.

My Research Methods professor would be turning in her grave were she dead.

 

[Larniavc]

I think you missed the part about these people knowing things it is impossible for them to know.

This has been claimed but where has it been verified?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This just shows you are not viewing the evidence fairly. In the case of these NDEs, they are literally trying their hardest to find a natural cause and not finding any.

Yes, that is true. But that does not necessarily preclude that a supernatural cause is the answer. A lack of evidence for one thing does not equal evidence for something else. If we assume that the world operates by natural laws, then there has to be natural explanations for everything. And that is the only assumption that science of any kind can and will make.
Why is that a problem for you?

 

[Emmawowee]

Do they though? Absent anecdotes what evidence is there that that is ever the case? Your vid is chock full of claims and nothing else.

When asked your are reluctant to point to any specific example and cite trust in the interlocutor as a good enough reason to believe.

The guy on the vid’s website takes one straight to his storefront; he makes money by selling books to people who believe him. That alone should tell you that he has a vested interest in people buying in to his ideas.

Well people need to eat too, especially when they’re dedicating their whole life to researching something. And they’re not making a whole lot of money off these books.

Meanwhile a lot of materialist junk science that atheists cite has a lot of influence/backing from major corporations. Such as manipulating research/data, threats against scientists who go against the common ideas, etc.

 

[Larniavc]

Well people need to eat too, especially when they’re dedicating their whole life to researching something. And they’re not making a whole lot of money off these books.

Meanwhile a lot of materialist junk science that atheists cite has a lot of influence/backing from major corporations. Such as manipulating research/data, threats against scientists who go against the common ideas, etc.

And they’re not making a whole lot of money off these books.

His net worth is estimated at $1-5 million. That’s a whole lot of merch.

Please show evidence of where corporate funded research has not been roundly criticised as going against the current scientific understanding.

 

[All Becomes New]

Why is that a problem for you?

Why should we assume there is a naturalistic answer for everything? I honestly would love to hear your reason for that. And don't say, "because the supernatural cannot be demonstrated," because it literally can be. There are so many stories of answers to prayer and healings for no apparent medical reason that to say there is a naturalistic answer for these things just shows your commitment to naturalism more than anything. When people are healed in the name of Jesus, that's an indication of supernatural power, not just that a naturalistic answer is unknown. Saying there is a naturalistic answer for these healings is simply incredulity towards the supernatural.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why should we assume there is a naturalistic answer for everything? I honestly would love to hear your reason for that. And don't say, "because the supernatural cannot be demonstrated," because it literally can be. There are so many stories of answers to prayer and healings for no apparent medical reason that to say there is a naturalistic answer for these things just shows your commitment to naturalism more than anything. When people are healed in the name of Jesus, that's an indication of supernatural power, not just that a naturalistic answer is unknown. Saying there is a naturalistic answer for these healings is simply incredulity towards the supernatural.

I'm going to copy and paste the part of my comment that you left off because I feel it answers the incredulity you have easier:
Yes, that is true. But that does not necessarily preclude that a supernatural cause is the answer. A lack of evidence for one thing does not equal evidence for something else. If we assume that the world operates by natural laws, then there has to be natural explanations for everything. And that is the only assumption that science of any kind can and will make.

 

[Emmawowee]

I'm going to copy and paste the part of my comment that you left off because I feel it answers the incredulity you have easier:
Yes, that is true. But that does not necessarily preclude that a supernatural cause is the answer. A lack of evidence for one thing does not equal evidence for something else. If we assume that the world operates by natural laws, then there has to be natural explanations for everything. And that is the only assumption that science of any kind can and will make.

At this point they’ve completely run out of naturalistic explanations. And these are neuroscientists with years of experience. If it was a natural thing they would’ve figured it out easily years ago

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

At this point they’ve completely run out of naturalistic explanations. And these are neuroscientists with years of experience. If it was a natural thing they would’ve figured it out easily years ago

Except that they really haven't, because as I've said numerous times, the only way to truly test for NDEs would be to have people AT the point of death, but it's unethical and immoral to put people into that position for science.

 

[All Becomes New]

AT the point of death

That's literally how they do the studies.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's literally how they do the studies.

No, asking people their experiences of NDEs is not the same as studying people who are at the point of death and then brought back. To fully study NDEs, people would have be to forced into the point of death that NDEs occur at, which is essentially and explicably an attempt to kill a person.

And not a single person has shown a single point for it being of supernatural origin. Just because it cannot yet be properly explained through naturalistic causes does not immediately mean that supernatural causes must be accepted. That's not how science works.

 

[All Becomes New]

No, asking people their experiences of NDEs is not the same as studying people who are at the point of death

You don't seem to know how these studies work. A person dies and is brought back. The study would then ask them right after the event what they experienced while dead. Most people do not have an NDE, but some do, and a lot of the time they are asked about it sooner rather than later.

 

[All Becomes New]

It's like they have people "on call" and keep an ear to the ground whenever someone dies and comes back. That's literally how the studies are done.