Heaven is real, says neurosurgeon

[Gravage]

When are scientists 'breaking this rule?'
You state this as fact- examples showing scientists making bold assertions with zero evidence would suit better.

Because when you look all the hypotheses about the universe, there are those who have no single proof, except indications, but they are accepted as theories. Big bang should be considered as theory not other hypotheses.

This entire paragraph claims that there will always be the 'unknown' beyond detection. I won't argue whether or not that is true (hardly) at the moment.
Merely point out- that's an excuse.

How it is an excuse, if out detection and measurement abilities are limited (despite all the technology). You can't see all happening at the same time, or detect everything-this is the limitation we're talking about.

It's not "so bad" to be religious, it's "so bad" to be absurd.
Absurdities lead to a great many problems, financially, politically and physically. Think about how many parents make their young children suffer in bed at home praying over them instead of allowing proper medical care.
How about that Oklahoma case where a 13 year old was raped... raped, not 'touched,' not shown videos- Held and raped. The parents are refusing to cooperate with the police, choosing instead to pray about it.
What kind of trauma does this do to the child? Is that child going to feel safe out in the world with that kind of response? Trust has been absolutely shattered.
Through-out time, religion has been the bane of progress, convincing people to remain devout in absurdities, ignorant and giving excuses for the bigots and greedy to use against people.
How often have I heard religious people claim that scientific understanding was of the Devil? Teaching that learning things that question God is Satans work to children?
That generation is to become doctors and researchers and developers?
How often has religion been used to support/defend things like racism, sexism, hate crimes and war?
Granted- that is not the fault of 'religion,' rather it's the fault of ignorance that people use religion to cover for. Religion allows it. It offers nothing progressive in return.

I agree with pretty much everything, more and more people don't go to church (at least catholic church) because of these reasons than there are pedophile scandals, than gay scandals and etc., people don't go to church anymore, they have their faith, but lost their faith in church because church is basically stealing money from you.
And those example you gave they didn't want to cooperate with police, hospitals and etc. that's all ok, I agree with this, but in this case faith is too extreme, every man believes in something-meaning there will always be faith. The other thing is when faith gets you stock in stone age, that's entirely different. Unfortunately there will always be really naive people stock in the dark ages.
Basically, there will be always be faith because there will always be unanswered questions.
Cheers.

 

[Neverfly]

Because when you look all the hypotheses about the universe, there are those who have no single proof, except indications, but they are accepted as theories. Big bang should be considered as theory not other hypotheses.

I'm sorry, what?
I asked for examples and you gave none. At least, you appear to have given none because you gave the Big Bang theory as an example, but said it should be considered a theory (Which is supported by strong evidence) and not 'other hypothesis." Hypothesis being the concept prior to finding evidence to support it.

So, you gave no examples of any scientific theory which lacks any evidence.

Point to note: Proof only exists in mathematics.

How it is an excuse, if out detection and measurement abilities are limited (despite all the technology). You can't see all happening at the same time, or detect everything-this is the limitation we're talking about.

You made quite an assumption, there. You assume there is a lot out there that we cannot detect. Ever.
This is simply untrue.
In fact, we're amazingly good at detecting things, including Earth Like Planets around other stars!
The best example you've given is Dark Matter. One example. Just and only one. But for this, we'll say one is enough... Because if we cannot detect one thing, it's plausible we cannot detect other things. So let's go with it:
There's a flaw in the claim. We detect it indirectly- even if we haven't seen Dark Matter directly and are unsure as to what it really is- We've seen it's effect.
You're trying to claim there are things we cannot detect at all- by direct or indirect means. Once you make that claim, you can use that to support invisible elves or anything else. Anything. Literally, any single thing you invent off the top of your head, you can say, "Well, you just can't see it."
There comes a point where one must accept an irrationality as just that- irrational. It's too irrational to go hunting for the invisible elves.
Is it possible there are things out there that we cannot detect? Absolutely, it is possible. But everything has always been Mundane.
The Bible is full of stories of Wonder and Mystery, the Sun came down and touched the Earth. The Earth is Flat. So on and so on. Why should I take that book seriously when real life observations have shown it to be incredible as a source and real life observations have always been on target?
For reasons covered in this thread, we can easily see why a person would want to believe.
Why even the lack of any evidence could seem to support their belief (It is beyond detection- almighty).
One might wonder why a person would say that zero evidence supports a belief. And there is no solid answer other than that that believer wants to believe. They will fall back on the lack of detection as a comfort. Science can't disprove heaven.
As long as scientists can't see it through instruments and determine it's mundane, not magical, not special- then it's safe. Safe to be clung to.

Basically, there will be always be faith because there will always be unanswered questions.
Cheers.

Perhaps, but what about the atheist? Atheists have faith in things, too. Quite a lot, actually and all of it definable.
Unanswered questions gives us a mystery to solve. Granted, every mystery so far has always had a real world, 'unmagical' explanation. Yet, we are not in it to find wonders and magic, but to understand the world, the universe and ourselves.
I do not think Unanswered Questions lead to faith for most people. I think many people do not want the questions answered. Because everytime we find answers, we do not find a God. And that frightens them.
Many religious people get angry with scientists for finding answers that they didn't want to hear.

 

[iceaura]

In general, the more knowledge of physical science a person has, the less interested that person becomes in humanity. Just look at the trolls on this science website. These are people who are very learned in the physical sciences; simultaneously, they are the least spiritual, least humane and compassionate people in the civilized world. Skeptics and educated atheists are dogmatic and hateful.

There's something odd about the consistency with which these people are deaf to irony.

There's a connection, there. It's a more than a symptom, it's almost a field mark.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

All I'm saying just because there is no proof it doesn't mean life after death does not exist in some form. You said: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect." That's true but appears that scientists can go out in public with all kinds of hypotheses based on mathematical equations with no scientific evidence at all, and none is accusing them they are breaking the rule "extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect".

It's because those hypotheses are not extraordinary. If one of them is true it will not falsify the basis of all of science.

If the hypothesis of the supernaturalists is true, it will falsify the basis of all of science, because it claims that the natural universe is not a closed system. If the natural universe is not a closed system, then all of the laws of nature become nearly meaningless because there are other forces that can affect its behavior.

This is why the Big Bang is just an interesting theory that may or may not turn out to be true, whereas religion is complete and utter bullshit. If there are gods, then everything we have learned about the universe is false. If there was a Big Bang, it changes almost nothing about the natural laws, it just enhances them and provides more detail to make them clearer. This is a very large and important difference.

So if scientists can break that rule, so can other people break that rule as well.

Scientists are not breaking the rule, as I just explained. The Big Bang, dark matter, the Higgs boson, relativity, plate tectonics, evolution, none of the recent hypotheses of science are so extraordinary as to cause the entire canon of science to collapse. Moreover, these hypotheses do in fact have supporting evidence. Just because you can't understand the evidence doesn't mean it's not valid.

And what makes you think that other forms of energy do not exist? Just because the math says so?

Not math, physics.

Math has its limitations, you know. Look at neutrino it barely has interaction with other matter in the universe, but it has it. Yes, math has predicted neutrino, but neutrino case shows there are maybe other particles that do not interact with no matter/energy in the universe, which are truly ghostly particles (neutrino is considered ghostly particle since it has so weak interaction with other matter/energy) which have zero interaction with all the known matter in the universe.

You keep confusing math with physics. You need to go back to the university and complete your education. You're in over your head here.

I agree with you, I really don't know why is so bad to be religious or spiritual person just like anyone has the right to be atheist/theist, gnostic/agnostic or whatever they want that's the fundamental right of any person on this planet . . . .

The problem with religions is that the people don't simply believe what they want. They also insist that everyone else has to believe what they do, and if they don't they start shooting them. The Jews, Christians and Muslims have been at war since those religions were founded. They're actually shooting each other over fucking cartoons and YouTube videos!

Many religious people get angry with scientists for finding answers that they didn't want to hear.

Religious people seem to be born angry. That's why they're always shooting each other. As I've noted before, religion reinforces our Stone Age tribal instincts and reinforces our differences from each other. It has no place in modern civilization.

 

[Balerion]

Because when you look all the hypotheses about the universe, there are those who have no single proof, except indications, but they are accepted as theories.

"Proof" is another one of those words--like "theory"--that seems to have a different connotation colloquially than it does in a scientific context. I suppose what you mean by it is incontrovertible evidence that demonstrates the absolute truth of something. As in, "I found the Big Bang! It was back here in a dumpster the whole time." Sadly, such a thing isn't possible outside of mathematics. In the material world, we're left with evidence, be it empirical or circumstantial. And for something to be accepted as a scientific theory, it must have an abundance of such evidence to support it. And not only that, but in the case of the Big Bang, the theory predicted the existence of the CMB--the Cosmic Microwave Background. Much of science operates in this way; if your theory is sound, you'll be able to use it to predict future discoveries related to it.

Big bang should be considered as theory not other hypotheses.

You seem to switch definitions mid-stream here. Just so you understand, a theory in the scientific sense is an idea that happens to have abundant evidence to support it. It isn't, as you seem to suggest, a "best guess" or something similar. The Big Bang Theory is not simply a hypothesis, but a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support its validity.

 

[AlexG]

I have a friend who three times in his life has died, i.e. no respiration, no heartbeat, flat eeg, and has come back. He reports nothing experienced. Since all there is is anecdotal stories, his has as much validity as the neurosurgeon.

More, because he's had multiple NDE.

 

[Mazulu]

I have a friend who three times in his life has died, i.e. no respiration, no heartbeat, flat eeg, and has come back. He reports nothing experienced. Since all there is is anecdotal stories, his has as much validity as the neurosurgeon.

More, because he's had multiple NDE.

maybe the afterlife had nothing to communicate to him. or maybe they did, but a memory didn't form. But you make a valid point. I know people who did have experiences.

 

[Mazulu]

Actually, there is another possibility. This person did have an experience of the afterlife. But it's buried somewhere beyond what the conscious mind can access.

 

[AlexG]

Or the whole 'afterlife' experience is crap, caused by oxygen starvation.

 

[arauca]

Or the whole 'afterlife' experience is crap, caused by oxygen starvation.

I heard that before , but how do you explain the individual can see hinself on the operating table

 

[Neverfly]

I heard that before , but how do you explain the individual can see hinself on the operating table

That has been explained as to the most probable cause along with one first hand anecdotal account. Why are you ignoring that?
That said, even if no one offered you a rational explanation, this does not mean that any explanation, even an absurd one, will do.

If I saw an odd light in the sky and no one could give a good explanation for what I saw, this does not mean I can jump to the conclusion that Aliens with high powered spacecraft and lots of exterior lighting are visiting our world. There's nowhere near enough probable information to jump through that series of conclusions. It does not mean that no one has never seen an alien craft or that no one has seen heaven. It simply means those conclusions are far-fetched.
It simply means there's no rational reason to believe those things- especially considering that there are almost always real word, rational explanations that do explain it quite well.
Culturally the first thing that will come to my mind if I see an inanimate object rise up off my desk and then fall would be a ghost.
But it may be invisible elves, fairies, God, telekinesis or weird force fields. Well I say it was a Ghost. Why? Because from early childhood on, I spent my time around people that believed there was such a thing and talked about ghost stories. Had I spent my time around people that believed in leprechauns, that would have been my explanation. When ever I asked people, "How do you explain it then?" and they said, "I don't know. I wasn't there. I cannot be sure of what you saw." I might take that as validation that it's a ghost.
Nonsense.
It's quite acceptable to admit that I have no explanation- that more information is needed. That's much more acceptable to jumping to wild, unsupported conclusions given that the ghost would need to be made of something (Outside of science), it would have to be able to remain cognizant and organized in spite of the missing brain, it leaves the mystery as to how ghosts can pass right through materials like doors, walls, steel, etc but not fall through the ground and float around the center of the Earth. It leaves a mystery as to how the ghost picked up the object and why it did so (Watch me spook this dude! Ha!) The concept of Heaven, ghost, Alien visitor all leaves a lot more to be explained, yet the believer ignores that, doesn't want explanations for any of that- they are content to chalk that up to "mysterious ways." Because they find the belief they had in the first place "validated" in spite of the missing information, logic and new mysteries. It was all they cared about- validating the belief.

 

[Aqueous Id]

My point here, is if there is no electrical activity, than there are these chemical fluids cannot make those hallucinations-which are leftovers from chemical activity while they were still active with electrical activity, and this still does not explain how can see a picture that was not in the room while patients were awake.this picture cannot be hallucination, for example.

Among the specialized parts of the brain are the centers for spatial awareness, facial recognition, color recognition, pattern, shape and edge recognition, language, and so forth. When a person is experiencing any of these phenomena while unconscious, as in a dream that assembles virtual imagery in an imagined space, then we have empirical evidence that the requisite parts of the brain (to form those images) are alive. Less clear is the correlation between brain "electrical activity" and the precise moment that the dream occurred. But between the time the brain ceases functioning, and the time it re-boots, and the time the victim actually awakens, there will be ample time for dreams, hallucinations -- and even mistaken beliefs -- to plant themselves in the victim's jumbled memory.

There are a whole class of people who wake up but never truly recover their prior capabilities and/or personality. Some are haunted by recurring hallucinations. Similarly, many people with "normal electrical activity" may never have been comatose, and yet are lost inside a world of severe retardation, autism, or any other number of debilitating conditions.

All this says is that "electrical activity" is a metric, not an absolute.

 

[arauca]

That has been explained as to the most probable cause along with one first hand anecdotal account. Why are you ignoring that?
That said, even if no one offered you a rational explanation, this does not mean that any explanation, even an absurd one, will do.

If I saw an odd light in the sky and no one could give a good explanation for what I saw, this does not mean I can jump to the conclusion that Aliens with high powered spacecraft and lots of exterior lighting are visiting our world. There's nowhere near enough probable information to jump through that series of conclusions. It does not mean that no one has never seen an alien craft or that no one has seen heaven. It simply means those conclusions are far-fetched.
It simply means there's no rational reason to believe those things- especially considering that there are almost always real word, rational explanations that do explain it quite well.
Culturally the first thing that will come to my mind if I see an inanimate object rise up off my desk and then fall would be a ghost.
But it may be invisible elves, fairies, God, telekinesis or weird force fields. Well I say it was a Ghost. Why? Because from early childhood on, I spent my time around people that believed there was such a thing and talked about ghost stories. Had I spent my time around people that believed in leprechauns, that would have been my explanation. When ever I asked people, "How do you explain it then?" and they said, "I don't know. I wasn't there. I cannot be sure of what you saw." I might take that as validation that it's a ghost.
Nonsense.
It's quite acceptable to admit that I have no explanation- that more information is needed. That's much more acceptable to jumping to wild, unsupported conclusions given that the ghost would need to be made of something (Outside of science), it would have to be able to remain cognizant and organized in spite of the missing brain, it leaves the mystery as to how ghosts can pass right through materials like doors, walls, steel, etc but not fall through the ground and float around the center of the Earth. It leaves a mystery as to how the ghost picked up the object and why it did so (Watch me spook this dude! Ha!) The concept of Heaven, ghost, Alien visitor all leaves a lot more to be explained, yet the believer ignores that, doesn't want explanations for any of that- they are content to chalk that up to "mysterious ways." Because they find the belief they had in the first place "validated" in spite of the missing information, logic and new mysteries. It was all they cared about- validating the belief.

Please . I am not talking about gost nor I am interested in gost, the fact is that there are many people experiencing something there are study taken place . I gdn't agree that we should just give a hand waving explanation which commonly by atheists and so called come alone scientist. Physical science does not have much understanding about brain activity .

 

[Trooper]

Wow! Well said, Fraggle. :bravo:

NDEs/OBEs can almost all be scientifically explained, all expect those cases where the person is entirely clinically dead. People who saw exactly what the doctor is doing or what doctor is doing in another room, or what was written on particular objects, while they were clinically dead.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about events where the patient sees particular things while he/she is dead, but that were not present while he/she was conscious, and when the patient what was doctor saying at these given moments and similar, this is not made up by hallucinations.

I heard that before , but how do you explain the individual can see himself on the operating table?

I think it may be a myth that hearing is the last sense to go but what is seen 'out-of-body' does not correspond to what is actually happening in the physical world. If out-of-body experiences can be induced, why can’t we assume that the dying brain induces them, as well? Moreover, quite a few of them also reported seeing future events that never happened.

No one provided a quantum explanation that would surpass Deepak Chopra BS. However, this BBC documentary on NDEs at (38:14), discusses Stuart Hameroff’s and Roger Penrose’s quantum consciousness hypothesis, which I might add, received a great deal of criticism. AlphaNumeric may have enough expertise to expound on Penrose but I certainly don’t.

[video=youtube;u8Ub2xx0KQ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Ub2xx0KQ0[/video]

P.S. Here’s a clear scientific explanation of what happens after you die.

 

[Aqueous Id]

All I'm saying just because there is no proof it doesn't mean life after death does not exist in some form.

If you want proof concerning the validity of eternal life, you need only turn to the myths, fables, legends and superstitions in which the notion took root.

The one most commonly believed by Western religious people was probably imported from Persia, perhaps a century or two after Alexander's conquests fused the various cultures together. One of the likely mythical origins of death and resurrection has to do with the "death" of the sun at the winter solstice (esp. in far northern latitudes) and its resurgence in spring and summer. As the god dies and is reborn, so does the "soul" of a human being. Mithraism (or its roots) seems to have melded into the Judeo-Christian tradition, giving them the paradigm shift that presumably has left you pondering an aferlife as something plausible.

Also: to exist in some form moves the definition of exist, which is constrained to reality, in which existence is real. Alternatively, to exist outside of reality is to exist in the imagination, or else not to exist at all.

 

[Mazulu]

It would be nice if science could prove the existence of an afterlife. I see several clumsy attempts to disprove it. But I think that skeptics come up short. Furthermore, an afterlife doesn't have the reality destroying contradictions that time travel has. It's just hard, perhaps impossible, for science to find absolute proof. Then again, maybe that's not their job.

 

[Gravage]

If you want proof concerning the validity of eternal life, you need only turn to the myths, fables, legends and superstitions in which the notion took root.

The one most commonly believed by Western religious people was probably imported from Persia, perhaps a century or two after Alexander's conquests fused the various cultures together. One of the likely mythical origins of death and resurrection has to do with the "death" of the sun at the winter solstice (esp. in far northern latitudes) and its resurgence in spring and summer. As the god dies and is reborn, so does the "soul" of a human being. Mithraism (or its roots) seems to have melded into the Judeo-Christian tradition, giving them the paradigm shift that presumably has left you pondering an aferlife as something plausible.

Also: to exist in some form moves the definition of exist, which is constrained to reality, in which existence is real. Alternatively, to exist outside of reality is to exist in the imagination, or else not to exist at all.

I trust science more despite being critical, science is clear here except some of the situations that even science cannot explain (post 175).

 

[Gravage]

Among the specialized parts of the brain are the centers for spatial awareness, facial recognition, color recognition, pattern, shape and edge recognition, language, and so forth. When a person is experiencing any of these phenomena while unconscious, as in a dream that assembles virtual imagery in an imagined space, then we have empirical evidence that the requisite parts of the brain (to form those images) are alive. Less clear is the correlation between brain "electrical activity" and the precise moment that the dream occurred. But between the time the brain ceases functioning, and the time it re-boots, and the time the victim actually awakens, there will be ample time for dreams, hallucinations -- and even mistaken beliefs -- to plant themselves in the victim's jumbled memory.

There are a whole class of people who wake up but never truly recover their prior capabilities and/or personality. Some are haunted by recurring hallucinations. Similarly, many people with "normal electrical activity" may never have been comatose, and yet are lost inside a world of severe retardation, autism, or any other number of debilitating conditions.

All this says is that "electrical activity" is a metric, not an absolute.

I have no problem with all this, and like I said to you science is clear here, but you cannot discount situations where patients thoroughly describe what exactly the doctor was doing while they were clinically dead, with no heart beat-that is not hallucination, that's my point.
It has to be mentioned that NDEs/OBEs are extremely rare 1 or 2 patients of 1000 patients has them.

 

[Gravage]

Wow! Well said, Fraggle. :bravo:





I think it may be a myth that hearing is the last sense to go but what is seen 'out-of-body' does not correspond to what is actually happening in the physical world. If out-of-body experiences can be induced, why can’t we assume that the dying brain induces them, as well? Moreover, quite a few of them also reported seeing future events that never happened.

No one provided a quantum explanation that would surpass Deepak Chopra BS. However, this BBC documentary on NDEs at (38:14), discusses Stuart Hameroff’s and Roger Penrose’s quantum consciousness hypothesis, which I might add, received a great deal of criticism. AlphaNumeric may have enough expertise to expound on Penrose but I certainly don’t.

[video=youtube;u8Ub2xx0KQ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Ub2xx0KQ0[/video]

P.S. Here’s a clear scientific explanation of what happens after you die.

No, it's not the myth where patients see themselves above the operation table, it happened to many people, and it does correspond what is actually going in the physical world.
Here is my response (post 175) to Aqueous.

 

[Gravage]

I have a friend who three times in his life has died, i.e. no respiration, no heartbeat, flat eeg, and has come back. He reports nothing experienced. Since all there is is anecdotal stories, his has as much validity as the neurosurgeon.

More, because he's had multiple NDE.

Read post 175.