Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No a living person was able to verify the NDE of another person having a NDE ie they saw the deceased person having a NDE standing in front of them. They gave them some information which the person told to another which was information they could not have possibly known which verified the case.
Thats like assuming all men are losers because you thought the first 3 you met were losers. Its one of the biggest logical fallacies there is. That a fact about the entire group can be concluded by a handful of examples among 10s of 1,000s according to your liking or not.
If you put up three of what you consider to be the best and they come up short, then I'm not going to waste my time time checking umpteen other examples that you thought were not as good.
But my example has not fallen short. It has independent evidence that it happened just as the patient described. You keep saying I have failed or come short but you still are not showing any evdience for that being the case.
You can provide counter evidence against the evidence presented in this case. Thats how it goes. One side presents evidence and the other counters that evdience with better evidence disputing the case. Neither skpetics or yourself have not shown this. If you basing your evidence on arguements like on Skeptico then that is not evdience but heresay and gossip.
Yes I have. I presented that evdience and you havn't shown it to be wrong with likewise evidence. Its like the case against Harvey Wienstein. Witnesses gave their testimony and evdience was shown that the events happened as the victim claimed. Independent witnesses corroberated the victims testimony.
If you going on probability what is more likely, a patient being comotosed opening their eyes or not able to open their eyes. What is the more likley that taped was used most of the time (not sometimes) that his eyes were taped. Your elevating 'sometimes' as being more likely over 'most of the times'. That seems obviously wrong. That the doctors are the type to lie and make up this whole thing or they are telling the truth. You have not shown anything that remotely sugests the doctors are lying or made stuff up.
Failed according to who, you. I don't think so. Its usually a sign that a person has nothing and are defeated when they keep trying to cl;osed down debate and ignore dealing with the actual evidence.
Yes good point. I mentioned this earlier that even if the evidence was strong and obvious some will still deny it because fundementally they don't believe in such things. This is a stronger form of atheism along the lines of materialism. It not only denies God or gods but denies anything non naturalistic.
No-one has suggested that at all. At any time. See how things that aren't true become accepted as being true when it fits what you want to believe?
Thinking rationally is a form of arrogance?
apologeticspress.org
piathompson.wordpress.com
Then you have not been reading your sides objections. Your side suggested that someone could have told the patient what happened which would then require everyone to go along.
Once again your side said the patient could have been told the events by someone else and created the whole thing. Thats another way of saying the patient is engaging in misrepresentations and falsehoods.
Wait a minute you just said no one has accused the patient of lying and now you want to use possible evidence that the patient may have lied. You just cancelled out your own logic for making a case. You also are taking a one sided view. Your quite happy to give the skeptics a point for there being no evidence that he did not lie. But your unwilling to give a point for the fact that no one has also showed he was lying. At the very least these cancel each other out.
Once again your showing bias. Your quite willing to use testimony that there was heart activity which doesn't mean consciousness as the heart can still beat when unconscious. But you are ignoring Dr Rudys testimony that the patient did not wake during the entire event because he was so compromised that he didn't wake for 2 days.
Once again your side, the skeptics claimed that someone must have told the patient. I think wife, nurse and doctors were implied. So yes thats inferring some collusion between a number of people. So before I lose count that would be 4 in favour of the case and 0 to the skeptics.
So you are calling Dr Rudy a liar then. If you have no evidence then I am afraid thats another mute point.
So if your admitting that you don't question the testimonies of the 2 doctors then it stands to reason logically you accept their testimony as true and correct as evidence. They both said the patient was not awake as he was comotosed and that what the patient had told them is correct according to what happened in the OR.
Not sure I posted it to you. Quick search. Yep I linked it to you in post #516. It concludes
Actually as with the above post I have. The independent review did interviews and investigated the case. I am using this evidence. But the skeptics have nothing of the sort. I have given up counting as I think I have already defeated any skeptical claims.
Except the professional disagnosis of the patient was that he was completely comotosed during the entire time. This is backed up by the fact that he was so far gone he did not wake for 2 days. No one can become clearly and vividly awake to recall such trivial details. ITs scientifically impossible.
No the procedure was not completed. His chest was still open so they still had to sew him up for autopsy. As Cattaneo said the tape is removed before the patient goes to the ICU. If someone has died there is no completion to be done at that stage. In fact as the eyes can open after death its more likely the tape remained in place. Its only taken off if the patient is alive and going to the ward obviously.
Are you kidding. What about the fact they both said there is no way the patient could have been awake or conscious.
But I am not advocating for magic. Just an unusual event and experience during dying to be taking as really happening. That doesn't mean its magic. There could be a natural explanation. So the evdience only needs to show that the event itself happened as it did thats all. I think this has clearly been established.
Lol cut off again gee. When the going gets tuff. Not even a draw which I think is being generous to the skeptics arguements considering I knocked most of them down or at least undermined their strength.
OK I thought you said the most likely answer was that someone told the patient, I think you said the nurse or the wife or doctor from memory. Like there were stories going around the hospital and it turned into some supernatural event.
Yeah, someone told him exactly what happened. Why wouldn't they? He'd be the talk of the hospital. Their first Lazarus experience. They would have told his wife. She would have told him. There isn't any conceivable way that he wouldn't have known. If you'd have tried to convince me that nobody had said anything to him I wouldn't have believed you. It would be a nonsensical proposition.
Actually in checking back on your post I wanted to question something. Here you said in post #511.
Oh well it looks like I answered that question as you were writing yours so was already on to it. Now you need to answer the question in the other post. How did everyone else know before the patient told of the trivial details of his experience. How did they know what the patient was going to say before he said it. How could someone come up with such minor detail as seeing post it notes. In fact how did they even know he was going to talk of a NDE.
You are so familiar with this event. But you still keep getting details wrong. Nobody at any time confirmed that the doctors were the first to hear about what the patients experiences were. Nobody at any time said they saw the patient before his wife. She was only mentioned once when they said they told her they thought he had died.
