Evidence; the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Are you certain there is zero evidence?
Yes, I am certain that there is zero evidence that such has actually happened.
There is certainly plenty of evidence that people have claimed it has actually happened.
But that is as far as the evidence goes.
Indeed, evidence of claims.
But that is not the same of evidence that it has actually happened.
You think it's that simple? You're clinically dead, but you are able to picture yourself from the ceiling, so that you trick the doctors/scientists into thinking that there is an afterlife. For that to work convincingly, you have to memorize the staff, what they were wearing, and what the were saying while you were clinically dead. All in all, with that kind of superhuman ability, one could wonder why you just waste it on trying to convince certain people that there is life after death.
I forgot.
Apologies.
Since we don't know what goes on in the brain during the process of being deemed clinically dead to being revived, it is only rational to conclude that everything the person experiences is to be taken at face value.
Yes, of course the the afterlife exists because those people say so, right?
No, Jan.
All they can provide is evidence of their subjective experience.
That they might be able to recall things during that time that others think they shouldn't be able to is simply evidence that there is perhaps something going on that we don't fully understand.
And given how little we know of how the brain operates it is no surprise that there might be such things that we don't understand yet still be within the ability of the brain to produce the results seen.
But let us not kid ourselves that it is evidence that what they claim is actually the case, that it should be taken at face value, that it is the reality.
That way irrationality lies.
Is it unfortunate for yourself, or are you asserting that this is the case for all human beings?
If the latter, can you provide the evidence?
I am asserting it for everyone with properly functioning vision and who aren't suffering hallucinations.
It should be considered axiomatic that one's actual vision is more dominant than what one simply imagines in one's mind.
Do you think you have grounds to dispute it?
If so, what are they, given that we don't see most people wandering around not sure where they are, struggling to focus on what is physically in front of them etc?
It can be, but for the most part, we barely remember our dreams, so what we visualise becomes lost. Plus people who have these experiences, usually comment on the difference between a dream state, and their experience. That information seems to be consistent.
And it would likely be different to the experience of a dream, because the brain is in a different state, it is not going through REM etc.
My point was not that they would experience a dream state, only that it is possible for our brains to be in states where our normal vision is not dominant and for what we imagine to be utterly convincing.
He didn't say he/she thought it was correct, he/she said; "I am just not entirely convinced that there is no afterlife." Is it possible for you t o discuss along those lines?
FFS, Jan.
Stop this incessant desire to score points.
It is as tedious as it is pathetic.
If your desire to score points, however, supersedes your willingness to otherwise discuss civilly then please do us both the favour of not responding at all.
Would it help if I exchanged the word "is" for "might be"?
The purpose of the question remains the same, however: what arguments are there for considering that the existence of an afterlife is a more rational conclusion.
