Heaven is real, says neurosurgeon who claims to have visited the afterlife

[amencon]

Don't have a link, however I remember reading about a study of near death experiences.  The study found that most of the people who glimpsed the "afterlife" in these experiences were religious beforehand...

Most people are religious. Go figure. It doesn't take a study to deduce that.

Well I couldn't find the details so I guess it's pointless to debate.  However if the phenomena wasn't something made up in peoples' minds and they were actually glimpsing an afterlife you'd think it would have a similar chance to happen in all NDEs regardless of the religiosity of the person experiencing it. 

If you have 10 religious subjects and 10 non religious and the afterlife only appears to those religious would that tell you nothing?

Anyway it's moot since I can only loosely paraphrase the results.  Not that any study will convince anyone otherwise anyway.

Do people believe DMT users go to the afterlife as well?  I think it's easy to make poor conclusions about experiences you don't truly understand and can't process and don't see people's recounts of NDEs as much evidence of anything conclusive one way or the other.

[1715031228]

1715031228

[1715031228]

1715031228

[1715031228]

1715031228

[1715031228]

1715031228

[1715031228]

1715031228

[foggyb]

But that doesnt make complete fantasies any more real.

No, complete fantasies aren't real. It's you're job, now that you've made the claim, to show conclusively that the supernatural is a fantasy. "Everyone knows it" is not a good argument, because we have at least two people who directly refute your claim. You need to show that a neurosurgeon and an intelligent articulate young woman are both incompetent at separating fantasy from reality.

Yes, but if there is an underlying 'reality' than it must somehow be part of our reality otherwise it could not be underlying it. So there must be a physical effect on our 'reality' otherwise it is just fantasy.

underlying present participle of un·der·lie (Verb)
Verb:   
Be the cause or basis of (something): "the fundamental issue that underlies the conflict".

Rethink your quote in the context of the correct definition of the term 'underlying'.

Why 'must' there be a physical effect? The underlying reality is a spiritual reality, not a physical one.

Anyhow, show me anything un-real that is appreciable outside of your own brain or thought and i will agree with you.

Easy. Truth (as a concept) exists outside of and separate from any human brain. Logical contradictions are another example.

[dank]

How about quantum physics?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

You're assuming there is only one reality.

It's not an assumption, it's a definition.
There is nothing outside of reality.
If you find soumething you think is outside of reality it is actually somehow part of reality.
There are no un-real things.

You're mixing reality and universe.

reality: is the state of things as they actually exist
universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Your mind creates what exists and it can very for different people because we believe different things.  If you meditate and hallucinate, those hallucinations actually exist, they become reality.  You cannot say another reality doesn't exist just because you have never seen it.  Universe is everything, there is nothing outside of the universe because the universe is all, it is one.

[mobodick]

But that doesnt make complete fantasies any more real.

No, complete fantasies aren't real. It's you're job, now that you've made the claim, to show conclusively that the supernatural is a fantasy. "Everyone knows it" is not a good argument, because we have at least two people who directly refute your claim. You need to show that a neurosurgeon and an intelligent articulate young woman are both incompetent at separating fantasy from reality.

Yes, but if there is an underlying 'reality' than it must somehow be part of our reality otherwise it could not be underlying it. So there must be a physical effect on our 'reality' otherwise it is just fantasy.

underlying present participle of un·der·lie (Verb)
Verb:   
Be the cause or basis of (something): "the fundamental issue that underlies the conflict".

Rethink your quote in the context of the correct definition of the term 'underlying'.

Why 'must' there be a physical effect? The underlying reality is a spiritual reality, not a physical one.

Causing something or being a basis is a physical effect expressed in reality.
If there was no physical effect it would be impossible to know about it.

Anyhow, show me anything un-real that is appreciable outside of your own brain or thought and i will agree with you.

Easy. Truth (as a concept) exists outside of and separate from any human brain. Logical contradictions are another example.

Truth is completely a human notion and can only be considered by human brains.
Realiy is not true or false, it just is.
Your view of reality can be true or false (or somewhere in between), and that is still a purely human notion.

[mobodick]

How about quantum physics?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Max Planck

You're assuming there is only one reality.

It's not an assumption, it's a definition.
There is nothing outside of reality.
If you find soumething you think is outside of reality it is actually somehow part of reality.
There are no un-real things.

You're mixing reality and universe.

reality: is the state of things as they actually exist
universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Your mind creates what exists and it can very for different people because we believe different things.  If you meditate and hallucinate, those hallucinations actually exist, they become reality.  You cannot say another reality doesn't exist just because you have never seen it.  Universe is everything, there is nothing outside of the universe because the universe is all, it is one.

I'm not even going to debate this. You're mixing reality with fantasy and there is no way reason can compete with that.

[dank]

Ok, well, those are the definitions...

[foggyb]

Causing something or being a basis is a physical effect expressed in reality.
If there was no physical effect it would be impossible to know about it.

No, if one is not attuned to spiritual things. Corinthians 2:14 says:

14. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Truth is completely a human notion and can only be considered by human brains.
Realiy is not true or false, it just is.

Your view of reality can be true or false (or somewhere in between), and that is still a purely human notion.

You just broke the laws of logic....and your own argument. Truth IS an unbreakable constant. We may not always know what the truth is, and some questions cannot be answered true or false. But some can. You've been arguing that 'this' reality is true! Do you mean to say that if all humans were to die off, that this reality would no longer be true? That this dimension would cease to exist? Then you agree with Dank that everything is an illusion of the mind.

The example of logical contradictions is very similar. For instance, it is a logical contradiction to say "my car is in the parking lot, and my car is not in the parking lot". If this law is broken, there would be chaos. Matter could be in two places at once. We didn't invent this law. It must have been put in place before the creation of the universe. Otherwise no ordered universe is possible.

[mobodick]

Causing something or being a basis is a physical effect expressed in reality.
If there was no physical effect it would be impossible to know about it.

No, if one is not attuned to spiritual things. Corinthians 2:14 says:

14. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

After many many tests people seem incapable to transfer information with the use of attunement to spiritual things.
You can't explain away bullshit with a religious quote.
And what kind of quote is that anyway. It teaches you to put your hands on your ears and go 'NANANANANANANANA'. The text tells you to ignore other opinion. Nice work...

Truth is completely a human notion and can only be considered by human brains.
Realiy is not true or false, it just is.

Your view of reality can be true or false (or somewhere in between), and that is still a purely human notion.

You just broke the laws of logic....and your own argument. Truth IS an unbreakable constant. We may not always know what the truth is, and some questions cannot be answered true or false. But some can. You've been arguing that 'this' reality is true! Do you mean to say that if all humans were to die off, that this reality would no longer be true? That this dimension would cease to exist? Then you agree with Dank that everything is an illusion of the mind.

The example of logical contradictions is very similar. For instance, it is a logical contradiction to say "my car is in the parking lot, and my car is not in the parking lot". If this law is broken, there would be chaos. Matter could be in two places at once. We didn't invent this law. It must have been put in place before the creation of the universe. Otherwise no ordered universe is possible.

For truth you need a judge and reality doesn't judge.
You can only have truth if you ask a question.
Consider your example.
Who's logical connondrum is that?
The cars?
The parking lots?
No, it's the person considering it.

And some types of matter do not adhere to simple logic, but is still consistent.
Read about the Pauli exclusion principle, for instance, or entanglement.
I'm not sure what you mean by putting matter in place because there was no matter right after the beginning of the universe. There was a shitload of energy and that energy later condensed into matter.
Your idea of 'must have been put' sounds like a deliberate act and so it is just another uninformed excuse to justify your believe in something that must have put it there.
But there is absolutely no evidence to assume even the slightest bit that things were 'put into place' and someone hit the start button.
Nothing, except your belief, points us to some part of reality where we can find evidence of the existance of a spiritual world.

[foggyb]

For truth you need a judge and reality doesn't judge.
You can only have truth if you ask a question.
Consider your example.
Who's logical connondrum is that?
The cars?
The parking lots?
No, it's the person considering it.

That is incorrect. Again, no person needs to be present for that logical contradiction argument to work. It may not be of any significance if there are no persons present to evaluate the logic argument, but that does not nullify the argument or logic itself.

Secondly, its not a conundrum.

co·nun·drum/kəˈnəndrəm/
Noun:   
A confusing and difficult problem or question.
A question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.

A logical contradiction cannot happen, ever. No matter if humans are present or not. Its not a riddle, nor is it confusing or difficult to understand. Logic is a critical component to the structure and order of the universe. Without it, there can only be chaos.

To the point, logic exists apart from ANY physical reality or human mind. That is evidence of something going on behind the scenes.

[tiberiandusk]

If you wake up again then you weren't really dead. You exist in your brain. If your heart and breathing stop for a while your brain will start to die. If you are resuscitated in a short amount of time you wake up normal. If it takes longer you end up disabled or a vegetable and your idea of You is different or gone entirely. The time it takes to go from brain alive to brain dead is different depending on temperature and life support. Where exactly You go away in this timeline of brain completely alive to brain completely dead is still a mystery.

TLDR, how many of your brain cells have to be damaged or dead for consciousness to cease.

[mobodick]

For truth you need a judge and reality doesn't judge.
You can only have truth if you ask a question.
Consider your example.
Who's logical connondrum is that?
The cars?
The parking lots?
No, it's the person considering it.

That is incorrect. Again, no person needs to be present for that logical contradiction argument to work. It may not be of any significance if there are no persons present to evaluate the logic argument, but that does not nullify the argument or logic itself.

Secondly, its not a conundrum.

co·nun·drum/kəˈnəndrəm/
Noun:   
A confusing and difficult problem or question.
A question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.

A logical contradiction cannot happen, ever. No matter if humans are present or not. Its not a riddle, nor is it confusing or difficult to understand. Logic is a critical component to the structure and order of the universe. Without it, there can only be chaos.

To the point, logic exists apart from ANY physical reality or human mind. That is evidence of something going on behind the scenes.

Logic does not 'exist', it is a methodology applied by humans.
It is a tool for mapping a consistent space. It exists in the same way as mathematics exist.
In that respect truth is only a confirmation to the observer of the state of the subject.
Imagine we lived in a universe where cars could indeed be in two states at the same time. Your logic would then have to allow for thing to be in two states at the same time. Just as our logic is adapted to the mechanics of our universe.
And in fact such logic falls apart on the quantum level. Things at the nanoscopic scale can indeed be contradictory when seen through classical logic.
Logic seems consistent because our universe is consistent at our scale.
Fly into a black hole and things become a lot less 'logical'.  

And my excuses that i don't speak your language very well.

Edit: oh, and the going physics theory says the universe is indeed based on chaos.

[malevolent]

Well it looks like he simply wants to earn some money:

http://www.amazon.com/Proof-of-Heaven-ebook/dp/B008AK8FHM

[foggyb]

TLDR, how many of your brain cells have to be damaged or dead for consciousness to cease.

Although we may not be able to detect any physical consciousness, it is plausible that the person has a limited physical awareness, but cannot communicate through their damaged physical faculties anymore, in spite of the soul still being present.

Science cannot prove that awareness has ceased in a brain damaged person, it can only prove that physical responses are no longer active.

Well it looks like he simply wants to earn some money:

http://www.amazon.com/Proof-of-Heaven-ebook/dp/B008AK8FHM

Scientists publish books too.

[foggyb]

Logic does not 'exist', it is a methodology applied by humans.
It is a tool for mapping a consistent space. It exists in the same way as mathematics exist.

And yet the structure and order behind things like logic and mathematics do not cease to exist if we stop thinking about them. This is the non-physical reality that, as I have been arguing, exists.

Imagine we lived in a universe where cars could indeed be in two states at the same time. Your logic would then have to allow for thing to be in two states at the same time. Just as our logic is adapted to the mechanics of our universe.

Exactly. An IMAGINARY universe where logical contradictions can happen. Such a universe exists only in the imagination, according to all evidence.

Logic seems consistent because our universe is consistent at our scale.
Fly into a black hole and things become a lot less 'logical'.  

Logic seems consistent because it is consistent. We don't live in black holes, so you can't call that our physical reality.

Edit: oh, and the going physics theory says the universe is indeed based on chaos.

Yes, and a constantly changing theory, I might add.

Your English is fine. English was not my first language either. 

[mobodick]

Logic does not 'exist', it is a methodology applied by humans.
It is a tool for mapping a consistent space. It exists in the same way as mathematics exist.

And yet the structure and order behind things like logic and mathematics do not cease to exist if we stop thinking about them. This is the non-physical reality that, as I have been arguing, exists.

Right, because they are abstractions based on our local universe. And since the structure of our local universe doesnt change we get to keep our logic.
And there is no other reality than the one where you read this.

Imagine we lived in a universe where cars could indeed be in two states at the same time. Your logic would then have to allow for thing to be in two states at the same time. Just as our logic is adapted to the mechanics of our universe.

Exactly. An IMAGINARY universe where logical contradictions can happen. Such a universe exists only in the imagination, according to all evidence.

It was just an example. It shows that if you change the properties of the universe you will have to change logic.
Anyway, we would have to define what we mean by logic and by truth.

Logic seems consistent because our universe is consistent at our scale.
Fly into a black hole and things become a lot less 'logical'.  

Logic seems consistent because it is consistent. We don't live in black holes, so you can't call that our physical reality.

I can only repeat the sentence that you removed from the quote:
And in fact such logic falls apart on the quantum level. Things at the nanoscopic scale can indeed be contradictory when seen through classical logic.

At the quantum scale (which is everywhere in our universe) things follow their own set of logic rules. We had to create a new set because the univere behaves differently at that scale. Out usual logic rules just do not apply.
So there is just no denying that what we call logic is just a tool to help us understand the world.

Edit: oh, and the going physics theory says the universe is indeed based on chaos.

Yes, and a constantly changing theory, I might add.

Your English is fine. English was not my first language either.  

Scientific theories constantly change to more precise versions that better describe the universe we find.
And there are libraries full of stuff that we already found out.
We can roughly see things on a scale of 10^50 all the way down to 10^-36.
Yet, no evidence at all of a spiritual reality. Not even a hint.
These things only exist in peoples imagination.

Science can change because it has an open mind to critisism. The mind of a believer is often as stubborn as a brick.

Anyway, this is getting way too deep for a bitcoin forum.

[bgmc]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

The experience was really created by the mind.  It existed.

It was not real.

Scientifically, this is the only thing that makes sense. The mind is powerful enough to deceive the self, especially when having an NDE. The curious thing about NDE's is that the experience is always consistent with the person's religion. ALL NDE's are different. If there was one religion that was correct all the others were wrong, then shouldn't all NDE's be very similar? But they aren't. And NDEs are very powerful hallucinations, so powerful that indeed the person thinks they are real. I can say all this, and if I have an NDE, I also might convinced it was real.

[rokkyroad]

I see dead people.

[dank]

Are you saying this from experience or only by definition?  If I told you I meditated and left my body, would you tell me what I experienced wasn't real, even if I said it was?

Yes.  It is by definition, not real.

"Hallucinations involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."

You either have to accept that it was a hallucination, or decide that it wasn't a hallucination and was in fact real.

There is no such thing as a 'real hallucination'.

Do you accept that experience of the hallucination was real?

The experience was really created by the mind.  It existed.

It was not real.

Scientifically, this is the only thing that makes sense. The mind is powerful enough to deceive the self, especially when having an NDE. The curious thing about NDE's is that the experience is always consistent with the person's religion. ALL NDE's are different. If there was one religion that was correct all the others were wrong, then shouldn't all NDE's be very similar? But they aren't. And NDEs are very powerful hallucinations, so powerful that indeed the person thinks they are real. I can say all this, and if I have an NDE, I also might convinced it was real.

Everything you see is manifested within the mind.  If you experience it, it is real.  NDE's are more real than life itself because when it comes to it, life is an illusion we create in our heads.