(August 15, 2016 at 9:10 am)purplepurpose Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 9:00 am)RozKek Wrote: Pascal's wager? No thanks, I don't fear nonsense and don't waste my time on nonsense.

After listening to a few serious believers, I cant say that their attempts to live their life in a more caring or loving manner is stupid, even if its under the guidance of imaginary sky daddy who "motivates" them trough holy scripture.

If I find out someone is a kind person because of a sky daddy and his/her intention is to please that skydaddy and does so by being that kind person, I will take that person less seriously. 

They're stupid if they can't be a morally good person without a god and they're selfish if they need to be rewarded in order to be morally good.

"This is a real puzzle for science."

Must be magic then, huh?

@Arkilogue, you didn't really answer the question - how do you know these experiences were formed/took place while the patient's brain was shut down?

(August 15, 2016 at 4:55 pm)Alex K Wrote: @Arkilogue, you didn't really answer the question - how do you know these experiences were formed/took place while the patient's brain was shut down?

Because she reported the procedures, conversations and instruments used on her during that time.

(August 15, 2016 at 5:03 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 15, 2016 at 4:55 pm)Alex K Wrote: @Arkilogue, you didn't really answer the question - how do you know these experiences were formed/took place while the patient's brain was shut down?

Because she reported the procedures, conversations and instruments used on her during that time.

That could have been coincidence, without knowing what exactly she reported, whether she had seen these things or could have guessed, and how many misses she had in her report, all this is crucial. The question whether people with NDE experiences can really tell what is going on in the room has been studied systematically and came out negative.

I took it upon myself to do a little research on Pam Reynolds' case.

1. She was intubated for a considerable time after regaining consciousness, and did not begin to relate her experience for some time after that.

2. Her surgical team discussed/described the procedure to her before the surgery.

3. When she regained consciousness (remember - still intubated and so could not speak), her surgeon reviewed the surgery with her again.

4. More than one anesthesiologist has reviewed the case and concluded that her experience was something called 'anesthesia awareness', which, while not exactly commonplace, isn't frightfully rare, either.

While I don't doubt Ms. Reynolds' sincerity (meaning I don't think she was deliberately lying), I don't really see the need for a non-prosaic explanation of what happened to her.

Boru

That's what I'm talking about...

(August 15, 2016 at 4:56 am)Arkilogue Wrote: According to the standard model of particle physics, there are 3 densities of quark pairs (renderend stable by the universe) plus their anti-quarks (antimatter) for a total of six types.  The atoms we are made of and find in this universe are of the matter charge orientation (center of atom is positive charge and peripheral is negative) and of the lightest of quarks pairs.  

I'm saying that the other types are interdependent realms/creations entangled with the creation/suspension of our type.  None of the single types can exist without the other like we do not get a single color when we send white lite through a prism.

The unification of matter before the inflation of the universe works similarly. In this life we find ourselves in one "color". The "afterlife" takes place in the other color bands.

For purely emotional reasons, I sometimes find it difficult to resist believing in an afterlife. Until I read the arguments in favor of an afterlife. I would rather be annihilated than live forever in a quantum bafflegab universe.

Care to expound on some of the arguments you've read in favor of an afterlife?