What happens after we die

[Mock Turtle]

Not true, you’re committed to a priori. In your mind, you established limits/boundaries defining a paradigm, you don’t want to step beyond these limits. Everything must fit within.

Rubbish. I respect the opinions of the majority of scientists who might be involved in such areas, and with still much to learn will hence refrain from casting my vote - also having some modesty as to my abilities and possible knowledge. You, on the other hand, have allied yourself to a particular religious belief and one which tends to support what you wish to believe - even though this religious belief is one of so many.

 

[LIIA]

Rubbish. I respect the opinions of the majority of scientists who might be involved in such areas, and with still much to learn will hence refrain from casting my vote - also having some modesty as to my abilities and possible knowledge. You, on the other hand, have allied yourself to a particular religious belief and one which tends to support what you wish to believe - even though this religious belief is one of so many.

It's not logical to claim that you would respect a hypothetical future scientific opinion yet ignore current scientific consensus today.

Yes, there is always much to learn. Your vote is irrelevant. The scientific vote already confirmed that the phenomenon in inexplicable under current paradigm.

My religious beliefs or your personal opinion has nothing to do with any logical or scientific conclusions that have been confirmed by the experts.

You don’t have to adopt any religious belief to understand the fact that the materialistic view is not capable of providing any explanation to the NDE phenomenon.

Again, my belief and your opinion are irrelevant, a neutral (posteriori) view and proper application of the logical principles of inference are what is needed to put science on the right track with respect to drawing conclusions. The experts already acknowledged the inability of current paradigm to provide any explanation.

That said, relax, you may deny NDE and reject every single word I say. You are free. It’s up to you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's not logical to claim that you would respect a hypothetical future scientific opinion yet ignore current scientific consensus today.

Yes, there is always much to learn. Your vote is irrelevant. The scientific vote already confirmed that the phenomenon in inexplicable under current paradigm.

My religious beliefs or your personal opinion has nothing to do with any logical or scientific conclusions that have been confirmed by the experts.

You don’t have to adopt any religious belief to understand the fact that the materialistic view is not capable of providing any explanation to the NDE phenomenon.

Again, my belief and your opinion are irrelevant, a neutral (posteriori) view and proper application of the logical principles of inference are what is needed to put science on the right track with respect to drawing conclusions. The experts already acknowledged the inability of current paradigm to provide any explanation.

That said, relax, you may deny NDE and reject every single word I say. You are free. It’s up to you.

Regardless of your denials, your beliefs over this tend to come from your religious beliefs, otherwise you too would keep an open mind on this subject - given, as you have said - the phenomenon in inexplicable under current paradigm. Just as UFOs/UAP is similarly, and where I take the same stance - wait and see. I think I do for all such things where the evidence is not so clear cut, rather than siding with one particular view, and I believe this to be more honest.

 

[LIIA]

Regardless of your denials,

What did I deny?

your beliefs over this tend to come from your religious beliefs, otherwise you too would keep an open mind on this subject - given, as you have said - the phenomenon in inexplicable under current paradigm. Just as UFOs/UAP is similarly, and where I take the same stance - wait and see. I think I do for all such things where the evidence is not so clear cut, rather than siding with one particular view, and I believe this to be more honest.

All what I’m saying it that the overall outcome of NDE studies is that the phenomenon is inexplicable under current paradigm and you did agree.

UFOs are not the same as NDEs. The observed objects/atmospheric phenomena are unidentified (possibly identified but undisclosed). Being unidentified means that UFOs are subject to many interpretations from within the paradigm not necessarily beyond the paradigm. Unidentified is not equal to Inexplicable. On the other hand, current paradigm (the materialistic view) is not capable of providing any explanation of any kind to the NDE phenomenon.

 

[Watchmen]

Is there more?

If religious Bob says there is heaven or hell after death and nonreligious Bill says there is nothing after death....
Aren't they both simply assuming what they don't know?

Nothing

 

[LIIA]

Nothing

Sounds like Bill.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What did I deny?



All what I’m saying it that the overall outcome of NDE studies is that the phenomenon is inexplicable under current paradigm and you did agree.

UFOs are not the same as NDEs. The observed objects/atmospheric phenomena are unidentified (possibly identified but undisclosed). Being unidentified means that UFOs are subject to many interpretations from within the paradigm not necessarily beyond the paradigm. Unidentified is not equal to Inexplicable. On the other hand, current paradigm (the materialistic view) is not capable of providing any explanation of any kind to the NDE phenomenon.

Lack of explanations is much the same - and is why science is open to new discoveries. Some of us perhaps are just a bit more conservative as to explanations until really good evidence arrives. I hope I have a consistent attitude to such things though - and hence why I have not chosen to believe the truth of any one of the many different religious beliefs. And as to many other things.

 

[LIIA]

Lack of explanations is much the same - and is why science is open to new discoveries. Some of us perhaps are just a bit more conservative as to explanations until really good evidence arrives.

There is always much to learn. Science is ever changing and yes, science is and should be OPEN to new discoveries. This is exactly the point. Science should not be a commitment to a priori.

But possible further knowledge/evidence doesn’t establish any basis to deny current consensus today, otherwise we would reject everything we know because it may change in the future.

Current consensus today is the fact the NDEs are inexplicable under current paradigm. There is no basis to deny this fact or the significance of it.

I hope I have a consistent attitude to such things though - and hence why I have not chosen to believe the truth of any one of the many different religious beliefs. And as to many other things.

”Religious beliefs” is a separate subject and has nothing to do with the scientific conclusion (below) that current paradigm (the materialistic view) fails to provide explanation to NDEs.

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

That said, yes, religious beliefs are many and different, but they all share the same roots/origin. They all state that there is more, reality is not limited to what can be physically sensed.

On my end, my belief as a Muslim is that all religions (especially the Abrahamic religions) are all true messages from God. In fact, we believe it's only one message that is sent repeatedly via different messengers. Muslims have to equally believe in all previous messages and messengers/prophets. Muslims also believe that the human factor with respect to deviations/alterations had found its way to the original message that is why the final message of Islam came to restore the original pure faith.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is always much to learn. Science is ever changing and yes, science is and should be OPEN to new discoveries. This is exactly the point. Science should not be a commitment to a priori.

But possible further knowledge/evidence doesn’t establish any basis to deny current consensus today, otherwise we would reject everything we know because it may change in the future.

Current consensus today is the fact the NDEs are inexplicable under current paradigm. There is no basis to deny this fact or the significance of it.



”Religious beliefs” is a separate subject and has nothing to do with the scientific conclusion (below) that current paradigm (the materialistic view) fails to provide explanation to NDEs.

Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality - PMC (nih.gov)

View attachment 67852

That said, yes, religious beliefs are many and different, but they all share the same roots/origin. They all state that there is more, reality is not limited to what can be physically sensed.

On my end, my belief as a Muslim is that all religions (especially the Abrahamic religions) are all true messages from God. In fact, we believe it's only one message that is sent repeatedly via different messengers. Muslims have to equally believe in all previous messages and messengers/prophets. Muslims also believe that the human factor with respect to deviations/alterations had found its way to the original message that is why the final message of Islam came to restore the original pure faith.

But there have been explanations as to why many NDEs occur. You seem to be basing your beliefs on the few that cannot be explained. Wait for the evidence is what I am saying, so as to understand the process better - rather than choosing the few that can't be explained currently.

Can Science Explain Near-Death Experiences? : ScienceAlert

 

[LIIA]

But there have been explanations as to why many NDEs occur

Not explanations, only trials for explanation that were neither plausible nor can have a consensus.

Your article said, " Despite several theories used to explain near-death experiences, getting to the bottom of what causes them is difficult.”..,..”Overall, chemical-based theories lack precision and can't explain the full range of near-death experience features people experience.”..,..” Currently, there is no definitive explanation for why near-death experiences happen. But ongoing research still strives to understand this enigmatic phenomenon.”

You seem to be basing your beliefs

I'm not passing any beliefs; I’m declaring a conclusion that wasn’t made by me but rather by the experts. In fact, you are passing your beliefs in a priori.

on the few that cannot be explained

It’s your claim. The facts are exactly the opposite. Very few can be explained, the vast majority of NDEs are inexplicable.

The scientific consensus today is the fact the NDEs are inexplicable under current paradigm.

Wait for the evidence is what I am saying, so as to understand the process better - rather than choosing the few that can't be explained currently.

It’s not a few, not at all. It’s only your claim. What you’re saying is that you’re personally not satisfied with the outcome or conclusion of the NDE studies that were conducted on thousands of cases and you’re more inclined towards the possibility that future experimentation would show otherwise.

I’m sorry but your position is not neutral. You claim the rule to be an exception and deny the known in favor of the unknown or what may be possible to know.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not explanations, only trials for explanation that were neither plausible nor can have a consensus.

Your article said, " Despite several theories used to explain near-death experiences, getting to the bottom of what causes them is difficult.”..,..”Overall, chemical-based theories lack precision and can't explain the full range of near-death experience features people experience.”..,..” Currently, there is no definitive explanation for why near-death experiences happen. But ongoing research still strives to understand this enigmatic phenomenon.”



I'm not passing any beliefs; I’m declaring a conclusion that wasn’t made by me but rather by the experts. In fact, you are passing your beliefs in a priori.



It’s your claim. The facts are exactly the opposite. Very few can be explained, the vast majority of NDEs are inexplicable.

The scientific consensus today is the fact the NDEs are inexplicable under current paradigm.



It’s not a few, not at all. It’s only your claim. What you’re saying is that you’re personally not satisfied with the outcome or conclusion of the NDE studies that were conducted on thousands of cases and you’re more inclined towards the possibility that future experimentation would show otherwise.

I’m sorry but your position is not neutral. You claim the rule to be an exception and deny the known in favor of the unknown or what may be possible to know.

Fine. End of conversation, given you will never it seems accept anything that contradicts your particular beliefs.

 

[LIIA]

Fine. End of conversation, given you will never it seems accept anything that contradicts your particular beliefs.

With respect to NDE studies, I’m not talking about any belief, I’m only talking about the scientific consensus that the phenomenon is inexplicable under current paradigm. I’m talking about the facts, yet what you are talking about is merely your personal belief.

I’m not saying that NDEs are inexplicable then my belief is true, not at all. I’m only declaring the true outcome of the studies, what you (or anyone else) do with it, is up to you.

Again, I’m not debating about any belief but rather about what the true outcome is. The outcome is a fact irrelevant to your view or my view. We may accept it or reject it, but we cannot change it.

 

[Muffled]

Personally, I think it cannot be proven about life about death from NDEs and such. I've tried that route before, and deniers will continue to deny. It's similar for me to trying to prove the existence of God with logical proofs.

I just say it is something taught by Baha'u'llah and other Messengers before Him, and if you with an open mind indepedently investigate one of these Messengers, that is the route to take, or not, as people choose. I see less good in merely believing in life after death anyway without ethical teachings involved. Something like Spiritualism is not the best route to truth and God.

I believe I would take what a religious philosopher says with skepticism even if he does call himself a messenger. I certanly would trust the Resurrection as a testimony that a Spirit has and afterlife and we have been promised a resurrection also not to mention re-incarnation.