rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
I feel pain where it hurts...bang my knee? my knee hurts.
I'm not sure I understand your question.....can you clarify ?
Evidence of the Afterlife - Scientific Research
- Thread starter Keesha
- Start date
I feel pain where it hurts...bang my knee? my knee hurts.
I'm not sure I understand your question.....can you clarify ?
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
Who are these 'experts'...that cannot define dead?
I think you are the only person that doesn't get it.
"there have been countless examples of dead people who have complete conscious awareness."
Can you name them?
If they are dead...they are not aware of anything.
If they are aware ?....they are not dead.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
I agree, & this is part of why I do not believe any of it.
Mankind has too many God's & way too many religions.
They all cannot be right...therefore in my opinion they must be all wrong.
History tells us that the leading cause of war, is religion. Hell, this country was founded / settled [in part] by people fleeing what they felt was religious persecution / and the demands of the church of England.
Now we have a religion [Islam] killing & staging war because they think all others are infidels . And they are promoting Sharia law....{another, their way or the highway}
On top of that , so much of what the bible says / teaches has to do with same {my way or the highway} thinking. Do this or dammed to hell, don't that or you will reap this & or that horrible end, etc, & so on.
So they are threatening me with all sorts of horrible things !! And they want me to join them??!! And worship them / him?!! ........I don't think so.
rgp
Well-known Member
- Location
- Milford,OH
I meant emotionally painful. I feel pain in my chest when it happens to me....sure feels like an heart ache to me.The brain is what tells you when you are in physical pain somewhere. It's a kind of pain different from heart ache. ...
OK, now i understand...respectfully though I disagree. I do not believe in heartache . But!...you do, and i am sorry that you have ever felt it.
Consider this...[I am in no way trying to change your mind]...but just consider.
If for example we loose a loved one.....some people experience anxiety . That is a brain reaction, that triggers all sorts of things. Rise in BP, drop in OX concentration , accelerated h/beat...etc. Science says this is what causes chest pain. It starts in the brain....not the heart. As such, it is the result of a conscious thought...something we should control.
Ya see, I'm not so sure there is even love....there is lust, there is deep caring/concern...but love?...I question.
If it really exist as Hallmark would have us believe?.....Why do we divorce, ? why do we kill ? why do we cheat ? Mothers kill their babies, babies kill their mothers, wives kill husbands, husbands kill wives, etc & so-on. And these are the very people that are supposed to love the deepest.........jmo
Elsie
Senior Member
"...It starts in the brain........(a feeling of pain in the chest that seems to be in the area of the heart....) not the heart. As such, it is the result of a conscious thought...something we should control...)
Conscious thought? Like if one injures their knee & feels pain it's is felt only because of conscious thought? Must be the reason why anesthesiologists put one unconscious for surgery. In case they can't shut off their brain.
Lust and love are often mistaken one for the other. For me, if I were to be rejected by someone I had lust for, my brain wouldn't tell me I my chest aches. But if it was "love", I'd have that ache without my brain telling me so.
I do believe that a person can shut off the emotion called love, to avoid possibly going through love lost. But I also believe there is love and it comes on its own. I don't believe the brain tells one they're in love, or are going to 'fall' in love. It just happens.
Conscious thought? Like if one injures their knee & feels pain it's is felt only because of conscious thought? Must be the reason why anesthesiologists put one unconscious for surgery. In case they can't shut off their brain.
Lust and love are often mistaken one for the other. For me, if I were to be rejected by someone I had lust for, my brain wouldn't tell me I my chest aches. But if it was "love", I'd have that ache without my brain telling me so.
I do believe that a person can shut off the emotion called love, to avoid possibly going through love lost. But I also believe there is love and it comes on its own. I don't believe the brain tells one they're in love, or are going to 'fall' in love. It just happens.
Do we as human beings think we really are capable of understanding everything? Any of you ever read the book "Flatland" or see the movie?
https://youtu.be/N0WjV6MmCyM
https://youtu.be/N0WjV6MmCyM
Lara
Friend of the Arts
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic Coast
Because they intuitively knew man could not have created all this themselves and it couldn't have come from nowhere. They knew that good and evil existed. They knew that man had been created with a choice between good and evil and that man had a sin nature. Sin is what caused all the confusion. Thus many God's until God put his words in writing starting with the 10 commandments in stone. I could go on and on but lucky for everyone, I'll refrain
Lara
Friend of the Arts
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic Coast
Right on. God is not the author of confusion but He makes it clear that He will not reveal everything until His perfect timing. And according to His perfect plan.
Olivia, I did read the book Flatland many years ago, and found it intriguing. Who knows how many dimensions actually exist? I'm sure our lack of understanding greatly exceeds our understanding of the
universe. But we are getting closer and closer to understanding how it all works. Science is bringing us closer. (Carl Sagan's explanation was popular science, not religion.)
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I'll say it one more time: religion insists that some ancient mystics, priests, theologians, etc. had access to some ultimate truth, which we are asked to believe on
"faith." Religion has no scientific proof at its disposal; it may sometimes agree with science, often not. It just requires faith in the "wisdom" of the ancients. In the examples given in this thread, it claims to know
the mind of God, whoever or whatever that deity is supposed to be.
Moses presented the wandering Jewish tribe with the Ten Commandments (which he obviously wrote and engraved in stone), and claimed that God had written them. His credulous followers, or some of them, anyway, actually believed him. They were probably too blown away by having narrowly escaped from slavery to engage in much logical analysis. The religionists among us are still peddling that same bill of goods.
No logical thinking, please, you've got to accept it on "faith," because I tell you it's true.
Science requires proof, and is constantly subject to examination and revision when necessary. Faith and belief don't enter into the picture, except for the belief that something has to be proven in the real,
physical world to be believed. As the Flatland video demonstrates, we are trapped in the three dimensions we live in (four if you count time as a dimension), and if other dimensions exist, we cannot even
imagine them. All we can say is, "What if...?" But the religionists can't imagine them either, and their autocratic insistence that THEY have the right answers (as opposed to all the other religions and science) goes against the grain of rational thinking.
Thanks for the video; it was nice to see good old Carl again.
universe. But we are getting closer and closer to understanding how it all works. Science is bringing us closer. (Carl Sagan's explanation was popular science, not religion.)
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I'll say it one more time: religion insists that some ancient mystics, priests, theologians, etc. had access to some ultimate truth, which we are asked to believe on
"faith." Religion has no scientific proof at its disposal; it may sometimes agree with science, often not. It just requires faith in the "wisdom" of the ancients. In the examples given in this thread, it claims to know
the mind of God, whoever or whatever that deity is supposed to be.
Moses presented the wandering Jewish tribe with the Ten Commandments (which he obviously wrote and engraved in stone), and claimed that God had written them. His credulous followers, or some of them, anyway, actually believed him. They were probably too blown away by having narrowly escaped from slavery to engage in much logical analysis. The religionists among us are still peddling that same bill of goods.
No logical thinking, please, you've got to accept it on "faith," because I tell you it's true.
Science requires proof, and is constantly subject to examination and revision when necessary. Faith and belief don't enter into the picture, except for the belief that something has to be proven in the real,
physical world to be believed. As the Flatland video demonstrates, we are trapped in the three dimensions we live in (four if you count time as a dimension), and if other dimensions exist, we cannot even
imagine them. All we can say is, "What if...?" But the religionists can't imagine them either, and their autocratic insistence that THEY have the right answers (as opposed to all the other religions and science) goes against the grain of rational thinking.
Thanks for the video; it was nice to see good old Carl again.
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
Agree completely.
By the way, after watching the Carl Sagan video I did some digging and found this short animated gem of his explaining the book:
Elsie
Senior Member
"Science requires proof, and is constantly subject to examination and revision when necessary".... Constantly subject to examination and revision--and there ya go. Poor Carl, he studied science for so long and hard yet had to face the never answerable. What an ego killer. If I was a scientist, it would drive me up the wall to believe in God because that would mean God already knows that all the research I'm working on for the why of this and that in the universe is already known by God. lol
Who are the people who cannot define what dead is?
Ive been adding the links to the references but clearly you aren’t interested so aren’t reading.
I am certainly NOT the only person who doesn’t get it.
When I’ve got some time I’ll try and explain in terms that you might understand .
If not, that’s ok.
We clearly aren’t going to believe the same thing and I’m oh with that.
In all kinds of hospitals. Evidence that’s been documented.
Person dies. Heart stops- no brain activity - some for over 14 hours.
If there is no brain activity, how can these ‘dead bodies’ have the awareness with 100% accuracy of the things that happened while they were clinically dead. Clinically dead by definition of doctors and scientists alike.
Isnt it a bit convenient that if things happen after a person is clinically dead according to what is referred to as DEAD, people instantly state that they obviously weren’t dead.
In my opinion, the definition of clinically dead is NOT absolute.
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
I understand what you're talking about, Keesha. There have been plenty of documented cases where all evidence of life has ceased. Certainly the doctors can detect zero consciousness or brain activity, and some time later the patient comes back to life and can report on all manner of things that occurred while he/she was "dead" - or at least dead to the world. They often report seeing things that happened on other floors of the hospital (or wherever their bodies happen to be), AKA out of body experiences. Many meet God, relatives, friends or pass through tunnels, bright lights, etc.
People who (by all modern medical tests) appear to be dead don't always remain in that condition. Maybe that's a better way to phrase this.
People who (by all modern medical tests) appear to be dead don't always remain in that condition. Maybe that's a better way to phrase this.
Yeah.Theres a big difference between medical science and television programs Elsie
That really IS comical:laugh:
The fact that doctors can't detect brain activity doesn't mean that the brain has died. It just means that the medical tests are not sensitive enough to detect the activity that still goes on, though at a very minimal level.
Sorry to rain on the parades of some here, but the fact is, dead is dead. People who appear to come back to life have not been dead, they have been in a near-death state.
Elsie, in 3 ads for 3 different westerns, 3 of the main characters in EACH say, "Dead is dead?" That sounds kind of dubious to me. Can you name the westerns? Just curious.
Sorry to rain on the parades of some here, but the fact is, dead is dead. People who appear to come back to life have not been dead, they have been in a near-death state.
Elsie, in 3 ads for 3 different westerns, 3 of the main characters in EACH say, "Dead is dead?" That sounds kind of dubious to me. Can you name the westerns? Just curious.
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
Yes, these are near death experiences we're talking about. Obviously these people weren't actually - or at least permanently - dead.
Oh ok. So let me get this right. There is such minimal brain activity that it doesn’t show up accurately on clinical tests yet the deceased patients have 100% accuracy on information given?
Something clearly doesn’t add up.
So we have people declared clinically dead by science but they were mistaken? :laugh:
How convenient.
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
I don't know or understand what their status is. "Dead" implies a permanent cessation of life, not an interrupted one. Perhaps we don't have a proper word to describe this state. Researchers and their books - including the one you mentioned in your first post - term them "near death" experiences.