I loathe when someone makes arguments with absolutes (not one). I can't say I've personally spent a lot of time looking for an irrefutable example of such a thing, but I may just have to poke around the internet a bit after work just to bug you on this point.
If you're hunting down more anecdotes, then don't bother. You could post 10 million anecdotes and still miss the point entirely. There is
no amount of anecdotal evidence that is ever valid in science. It can be interesting and spur further research but it demonstrates nothing scientifically. There has not been a single verified case simply because it would have been the greatest scientific discovery in the history of mankind. Forget anything else. This would be it.
Many similar events have been reported.
So what? See above for why this is irrelevant. Is there a cutoff where something becomes 'factually true'...how many reports is that at, exactly? 200? 20,000? 2 billion? How verified do these accounts have to be? When you'll admit
anything as evidence without using any kind of standard, the entire system falls over.
Oh, now I see how your belief system protection game works. If you can't invalidate the data some other way, all you have to do is throw out a accusation of desire for fame and you've got an excuse to toss out any and all data. Cute, a tad self serving of course, but cute.
It's
not data. It's anecdote. Again, you're missing the entire point, and your acceptance of anecdote as evidence demonstrates why your belief system was so easily subverted. And yes, it's entirely valid to look at an extraordinary claim and realize that the person making it might be looking for fame and glory. It happens all the time. Creationists try and use this technique all the time with any evidence presented for evolution, except that evidence is pretty solid and isn't extraordinary at all to anybody except a creationist.
What makes you SURE that 'soul' isn't part of the 'natural order' exactly?
You don't even really know
what it is, so how can you say that it is part of the natural order?
My point would be that we can damage specific parts of the brain and lose particular faculties, even emotional ones - the ability to empathize for example, or the ability to match names with faces - and still have the rest of the brain function fine. What you're asking is that the ENTIRE brain will be damaged through the process of death - all neuron activity and function will completely cease - and yet your soul can rise off of this with all your mental faculties entirely intact, and you'll be able to recognize people, places, memories, and so on. There is absolutely no evidence to show that this is possible, and we've had billions of people from whom to get a verified example.
Nobody is claiming that a soul is "paranormal" other than you. What evidence would suggest a soul is "paranormal"?
What evidence would suggest there is
any such thing as a soul? Non-biblical or anecdotal evidence please. I know you want there to be such a thing, as do lots of people, but that's not good enough, and 150 years of neurobiology has suggested the very opposite to be true. Damage parts of the brain and you lose parts of your mind, damage all of it and you lose the lot.
What you're doing is ignoring the fact they were in fact pronounced "clinically dead" and then they were in fact resuscitated/brought back to life.
Clinically dead simply refers to the
cessation of blood pumping around the body, and breathing. It is
not the same thing as "permanent" death. Simply saying someone is 'dead' clearly implies permanent death, not clinical death.
What "miracle"? I simply noted to you that THEY report that THEY are not limited to their physical form and can TRAVEL OUTSIDE AND AWAY FROM IT during the period in question (clinical death?) Who said anything about miracles?
If you don't see why the notion that someone's critical faculties can survive
independent of their brain is considered miraculous, I don't think you've quite understood what it is we're talking about. You're talking about the fact that consciousness is entirely separate from brain function, something so far unobserved, and we've had a LONG time to look.
You're the one changing the definition of clinically dead to suit yourself and your the only one talking about "miracles".
No, clinical death is pretty well defined (I think you don't quite know what it means). I'm saying YOU are trying to use the fuzzy word "death" to describe something that has never been verifiably observed, ever, and flip-flopping between the distinction of "clinical" and "permanent" death to justify it.
I repeat - if a story like the teeth one had
ever been verified, we'd know - because it'd be the greatest discovery in human history. Literally,
the greatest. So yes, I can say with confidence - there has not been a single verified case of an out of body experience.
