Things happen for a reason. Most people don’t get a second chance. You got four. Its a gift, not only for you to do better and properly get done with whatever you need to get done with but also a gift for others to have a glimpse of that special realm through your experience. Don’t hesitate to...
What do you mean? There is no scientific rejection for the NDE studies. If you don’t know about it or don’t hear much about it, it doesn’t mean its not accepted scientifically.
yes, there is no physical explanation for NDEs but that is irrelevant to the fact that the observations itself are...
The NDE evidence (See # 75, #66, & #60) showed that our consciousness beyond the lifeless body continues with unaltered self-identity. The identity doesn’t change, and the return was always to the same physical body. There is no evidence otherwise.
You didn’t read the line of evidence (#1 through #9), did you?
If you consider line of evidence #2 and #3, you will see that the definition of “clinical death” is irrelevant. Whatever the definition may be, the observations remain unexplainable.
Line of evidence #2:
how would someone...
Thank you.
I also agree with you that they only caught a glimpse into the spiritual world. I think it’s a message, guidance and mercy for us to help us find the way and make the right choices in life.
Thank you for sharing your comments and the books, here is another important book for those...
You didn’t read the “Line of Evidence”, if you do, then you will see that your comment about “clinically dead” is actually irrelevant. Yes, there is more to this for those who are interested. If you’re not, then it's simply a matter of “freewill”, it's your free inclination towards one side or...
Isn’t your third option=false?
Your positions are possibilities that may be considered in the absence of evidence but in the presence of evidence, a conclusion can be made. It’s no longer a matter of possibilities.
Evolutionists on the thread keep trying to make the discussion appear to be about “Darwin's Illusion” to make it look like irrelevant discussion. Yes, Darwin has his illusion but it's not really about Darwin. The core discussion has been about the Neo-Darwinism /Modern Synthesis, the mainstream...
Why repeating a collection of irrelevant points that have been discussed/refuted multiple times? Is it to confuse/steer the uninformed readers away from the core discussion about the Neo-Darwinism /Modern Synthesis being false?
I’m not talking about hypothetical models; I’m talking about the mainstream consensus.
On what basis? The model itself postulate that whatever beyond the BB is metaphysical/supernatural, hence beyond the typical method of direct observation/experimentation.
Whatever physical understanding we...
Do you mean the effects (observations) itself are not used to confirm the hypothesis? I’m sorry this is nonsense. Can you verify gravity (as a hypothesized cause) independently without the effects of gravity?
The effect is not only the reason we may initially hypothesize a certain cause but...
Thank you for sharing your experience.
Many of the near-death experiencers (NDErs) had a single NDE encounter. it’s unusual that a person experience/survive multiple NDEs, in that sense, your experience is really unique.
Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) website was established...
some will follow the evidence where it leads, and some will take it to where they want it to be. We’re free.
The link below is for another article published by NIH/PMC. The article is authored by a recognized world expert on near-death experiences Dr. Jeffrey Long. Dr. Long established the...
There is no physical existence of any kind beyond the BB.
”We Never Know” proposed a couple of scenarios; I was addressing the second one.
Within the physical realm, not beyond the BB.
Per whom?
Sure
The evidence is there. Some will follow it where it leads; some will take it to where they want it to be, in both cases, it’s a matter of freewill.
Do you have any knowledge of the "NDE" research?
Without any scientific study, near-death experiences “NDE" were previously assumed to be...
Your article is promoting the performance of SIFTER in comparison to other inference algorithms. Yet the same article said about the inference algorithms “Computational methods are widely used for automated annotation. Unfortunately, these predictions have littered the databases with erroneous...
You know this is not a scientific refutation, don’t you? Your disagreement or “what you tend to think" is meaningless. You need to provide credible scientific sources rejecting Noble’s assertions; there is no other way.
And what framework? Do you mean the EES? Yes, the EES is not agreed upon or...
Nice, I like your accurate concise statements.
The fact that the BB had a beginning about 14 billion years ago means that the BB is a contingent being (didn’t always exist). The BB as the first observable effect as well as every subsequent physical effect that we may observe in our realm is a...