continuation from theist zone_souls and death

[tackattack]

1a) I understand your point about death being a process I do, and perhaps I'm being a little too black and white (or boolean as you say) about it. I'm attempting to establish a standard. For instance, I consider death as it applies to this conversation the point at which the brain has 0 eletrical activity, the circulatory system has ceased to function without aide of machines, the brain appears unresponsive to light, pain, sound, etc. That's the point I consider the brain to be "off". Would you concur?
1b)if you answered yes to 1a then you would conclude when people have information existing outside of the experiential pervue (ie. the brain is off)that is externally verifiable, that the brain is not the only (I was going to use soul.. bad pun intended) necessity to experiencing material reality. Since nothing is functioning materially I would assume an immaterial (not to say it couldn't be measured at a point). Hopefully this will help you see why it seems illogical (to me) to deny the possibility of the immaterial entirely and search for a material source or a measurable supranatural cause to help us further our definition of natural.
3a) I'm trying to show you without too much preaching and Bible quoting that it's not contrary at all to Christian teaching as I, and many others, have experienced it. I believe you're confusing the concept of the Holy Spirit and a soul. I'm not even close to getting into a conversation about the Holy Spirit yet. Here we're talking about a soul. It's a Christian teaching that our soul will be judged. New Testament teaching from Jesus clarifies the materialistic focus of the laws of Moses to their appropriate Spiritual context. Bottom line, in Christianity, we're judged off of our intent and motives in judgement, while living we are to discern whether someone is Christian based on the results of his/her works (actions) because we can't clearly see into the heart (mind, rationalle, intent, soul, etc.) directly.
3b) I consider it very strong inductive reasoning behind it as I've clearly outlined. If you don't come to the same conclusion but see the possibility as indicative, perhaps you see it as weakly inductive. Hopefully I've illustrated cases and examples and outlined my reasoning to the point where you can see it's at least (for you) weakly inductive, which is honestly as far as I predicted a materialst to ever go and we can agree to disagree on the strength of the inference, and stop reitterating the same points I think I fairly clearly se your side of it.
3c)I don't understand your alethic modality claiming that it's neccessary for x to be 0. I clearly stated and showed evidence about that by alethic modality's standards it's at least possible. Whatever that recording supranatural item is and whatever you call it (I call it a soul, others could say brain goblins) doesn't matter it makes X equal to anything except 0. I understand the practicalit of reducing (via Occam's razor) most things. It's very useful when dealing the experience and material reality to only factor x as 0. Hopefully though you can see where I see that as denial of supranatural evidence.