I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[SelfSim]

And what specific, nuanced strata within my interior epistemic structure do you want to know about....?

Oh .. you'll have to read all your references again, this time looking out for your responses to my nuanced comments, as we communicate in future CFs threads.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh .. you'll have to read all your references again, this time looking out for your responses to my nuanced comments, as we communicate in future CFs threads.

Sounds great!

 

[Mountainmike]

Thank you. Was that really so hard, and I didn't have to read some silly book. Of course this is stuff that I already knew, so I already understood the premise... 'she really, really, really couldn't hear.' All that your book could add to this is a bunch of technical stuff that any rational reader, not being an expert in the field, would take with the appropriate amount of skepticism.

Which brings us to step two... find someone better educated than myself who has a conflicting opinion. That's where Mr. Woerlee comes in, and with all due respect to your personal opinion I have no reason to doubt his findings any more than I doubt the findings presented in your aforementioned book.

Conclusion: Although interesting, the case of Pam Reynolds isn't definitive, or even convincing evidence, for NDE's. It's quite possible that through a simple case of 'Anesthesia awareness' she was able to reconstruct her experience in the same way that thousands of other NDE reporters have.

In other words, there's really nothing earth shattering to see here, just more anecdotal evidence for the often bizarre behavior of the human brain.

Or another gap in which to insert God.



Actually, the hyperbole isn't necessary, as I'll happily admit to having read very few books in my lifetime. But in my defense I'll gladly count myself among those such as Nobel Prize winning 'Developmental biologist' John Gurdon, who find the reading of books to be a tedious chore best avoided whenever possible.

"But I suppose what might surprise readers is that I am a complete non-intellectual. I just don’t read books, I hate reading, and I don’t go to the theatre either. If I’m asked why I don’t enjoy reading, I’ll say that it takes a long time, it’s much easier to talk to someone who has read the book and ask for the bottom line!" ... John Gurdon

In my opinion a clear summation of an argument is worth more than a thousand books that only leave the reader believing that they're now somehow an expert in a field about which they previously knew little or nothing, and still do. To me, you're a perfect example of this, and I take your claims of intellectual superiority to be of very little value. Sorry

If you have an argument to make, make it as clearly and concisely as you can. If you have sources to cite, then by all means do so. But don't just ask people to read a book.

Woerlee is a sceptic nutcase. Nobody informed takes him seriously. He is a laughing stock among serious researchers.
how did you find him ? I’ll wager you searched “ nde sceptic “ or similar
which gets into the pseudoscientific cesspit of skeptical inquirer / skepdic readers and posters

Advice,
If you ever want to learn anything about anything , you start with the advocates case, not the opposers , and you do have to read books
.A lot of this is technical. Consciusness is what they call the ” hard problem.
To understand where NDE and consciousness research is at , is a minimum of 5 books.
To have a good understanding is at least 10-20.
That is true of all major branches of science.

In this case all the obvious questions have been asked and demonstrated by a lot of scientific research.
it wasnt drugs, hypoxia, hallucination, invention , guess, last gasp of a dying brain, religiin , culture ot even awareness of NDE. Or any other lazy skeptic assumption. Stats show NDE are real. Consciousness is not explicable as a pricess of brain for other reasons than NDE.

But how all those were proven is many books.

Your ONLY alternative is NOT to pretend you have an opinion.
You dont, until you study it..to get a significant view,

Inevitably if I give a simplistic summary , which misses core parts,( just as my few brief notes did about woerlee) , someone like you attacks a limitation of the simplistic view, or the missing parts as if you have insight, or as if it debunks it. It doesn’t debunk it. all it serves to do is misinform other readers, like skeptic enquirer, skepdic, wiki, and all the other pseudoscientific claptrap , put there to mislead the increasingly lazy .



So study.

 

[SelfSim]

Advice,
If you ever want to learn anything about anything , you start with the advocates case, not the opposers , and you do have to read books
.A lot of this is technical. Consciusness is what they call the ” hard problem.
To understand where NDE and consciousness research is at , is a minimum of 5 books.
To have a good understanding is at least 10-20.
That is true of all major branches of science.

Can you please give us the minimum cumulative mass of those books, or better still; the minimum mass per page for the average ink volume used in printing a given page in those books? .. (For my scientific equation building research purposes ..I mean one has to be very careful in reading only the appropriate books that fit the predictions made from my equations .. this is serious!)

 

[Kylie]

Hello,
I sincerely want to help people who are questioning the existence of God. I will not promote any religion. I will prove the existence of God to you in a way you have probably never heard before, clearly, as clear as 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Instead of explaining it to you directly, I want to ask questions that will lead you to discover it yourself, that way, it will be more meaningful.
I believe it would be best to do this through private messages, so please message me directly.

I'll bite. I'll message you.

 

[Bradskii]

So I had a few minutes spare. So I read the whole thread.

First up, I find it frustrating that if I have someone on ignore because their posts are simply not worth reading, I still have to scroll through umpteen posts people have made in response to that person who have yet to reach the same conclusion. Ah well.

And secondly I find it frustrating that people who bring up subjects like NDEs are generally reluctant to give specific details (but look at all the examples - go Google it - check out Youtube etc etc). I had an incredibly long discussion with someone not that long ago (no names) and I had to push for post after post for the very best example that he had so we could investigate. When he finally gave it and it was comprehensively debunked, there was a 'well, if that one didn't convince you, then what about this one..' Ah, no. That was your best shot and you only get the one. And it failed.

Anyway, as you were. This will now come up on my 'threads in which you are involved' list so I'll browse it now and then.