Who or What really has a Soul?

[Anonymous]

Who cares if it advances science or not? Believers don't. If this is the crux of your argument, you're in the wrong forum arguing with the wrong people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When your EEG shows there are no brain waves and you are, by medical definition, dead, then there should be no consciousness. There should be no remembrance of what happened to your body or conversations around you while your brain was not functioning. You should not be able to hear conversations in other rooms down the hall or on other floors either. If your EEG shows no brain waves and you are clinically dead, you should not be able to visit with deceased relatives who you never knew about and be able to report back about them. Yet, those with NDE's report they did. And thousands of people have NDE's. There is no possible way science today can explain this without accepting the concept of a soul or consciousness after death. And when science is finally able to explain it, every medical textbook will have to be trashed and rewritten to include a chapter on consciousness surviving death.

There's something happening to people who have these experiences and while some sit on their hands waiting for science to figure out an explanation, the believers in the world already know. It's the only plausible explanation - our consciousness does survive death. Too bad science can't explain it but religion did though.

Let's assume the person experiencing a NDE is telling the truth. There still exists a problem with your argument. The problem is there is no way of telling when the person had the NDE. They could of very well had the NDE after losing consciousness but before anesthesia brain wave activity stopped and/or had the NDE after brain activity resumed but before they became conscious again. Just because they had an NDE does not prove they had while there was no brain activity. Also, keep in mind a dream can last for a few seconds or minutes but seem to have last for hours or days. Dream time is not the same as real time.

[Anonymous]

You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think atheists derive comfort from the denial of this concept. There is also a certain arrogance and ignorance with atheists that is needed to maintain this denial, the ignorance in the belief that the undiscovered is assumed be nonexistent and the arrogance that mankind's knowledge is supreme.

Most believers do not think Franklin and Pasteur's discoveries are in conflict with God's laws. We believe
God's laws will always be reflected in science but science has not been able to reveal all of God's laws.

But the bottom line is that Bearegard's assertion has been cited in the Lancet article and that is simply that the evidence seems to show consciousness survives death. There can be no denial of this. It's been experienced and documented by many doctors now. Regardless of whether atheists can use science to understand or explain it, it occurs.

We need to stop going back and forth on the issue of whether a soul exists. Atheists don't believe it exists. You've been heard loud and clear but no believer will deny its existence regardless of how persuasively you think you're constructing your rebuttals.

aka "cognitive dissonance." Many people are able to live with it. Thank goodness scientists are not, or we'd be stuck in the dark ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When your EEG shows there are no brain waves and you are, by medical definition, dead, then there should be no consciousness. There should be no remembrance of what happened to your body or conversations around you while your brain was not functioning. You should not be able to hear conversations in other rooms down the hall or on other floors either. If your EEG shows no brain waves and you are clinically dead, you should not be able to visit with deceased relatives who you never knew about and be able to report back about them. Yet, those with NDE's report they did. And thousands of people have NDE's. There is no possible way science today can explain this without accepting the concept of a soul or consciousness after death. And when science is finally able to explain it, every medical textbook will have to be trashed and rewritten to include a chapter on consciousness surviving death.

There's something happening to people who have these experiences and while some sit on their hands waiting for science to figure out an explanation, the believers in the world already know. It's the only plausible explanation - our consciousness does survive death. Too bad science can't explain it but religion did though.

Let's assume the person experiencing a NDE is telling the truth. There still exists a problem with your argument. The problem is there is no way of telling when the person had the NDE. They could of very well had the NDE after losing consciousness but before anesthesia brain wave activity stopped and/or had the NDE after brain activity resumed but before they became conscious again. Just because they had an NDE does not prove they had while there was no brain activity. Also, keep in mind a dream can last for a few seconds or minutes but seem to have last for hours or days. Dream time is not the same as real time.

And I imagine some believers reading here are also sitting on their hands because they are embarrassed to be identified with such primitive views

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

If brain activity was dead during surgery, don't you think the surgeons would know about that? In some cases, the NDE occurred during brain surgery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

If brain activity was dead during surgery, don't you think the surgeons would know about that? In some cases, the NDE occurred during brain surgery.

There is no way of knowing when the NDE occurred. You can't go by what the description of the NDE was. That would be like taking a normal dream and claiming the time it occurred is based on the description of the dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

I had to reread this. Lol

This does not explain HOW the patients could have heard conversations in a different room, even one far away. And it does not explain how they met and could identify deceased relatives they never met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

I had to reread this. Lol

This does not explain HOW the patients could have heard conversations in a different room, even one far away. And it does not explain how they met and could identify deceased relatives they never met.

Are you claiming all things that occur in dreams have logical explanations?

Every had Deja Vu? Ever know what someone is going to say before they say it? Ever forget seeing a picture of someone than later remembering what they look like? ....

In short, there are many explanations, your just choosing one. There's nothing wrong with your choice. But your choice doesn't rule out other possibilities nor does it make it an absolute truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

I had to reread this. Lol

This does not explain HOW the patients could have heard conversations in a different room, even one far away. And it does not explain how they met and could identify deceased relatives they never met.

Are you claiming all things that occur in dreams have logical explanations?

Every had Deja Vu? Ever know what someone is going to say before they say it? Ever forget seeing a picture of someone than later remembering what they look like? ....

In short, there are many explanations, your just choosing one. There's nothing wrong with your choice. But your choice doesn't rule out other possibilities nor does it make it an absolute truth.

also, it's complete hearsay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

I had to reread this. Lol

This does not explain HOW the patients could have heard conversations in a different room, even one far away. And it does not explain how they met and could identify deceased relatives they never met.

Are you claiming all things that occur in dreams have logical explanations?

Every had Deja Vu? Ever know what someone is going to say before they say it? Ever forget seeing a picture of someone than later remembering what they look like? ....

In short, there are many explanations, your just choosing one. There's nothing wrong with your choice. But your choice doesn't rule out other possibilities nor does it make it an absolute truth.

I think you are missing something here. People can not travel to distant locations during dreams and overhear details of a private conversation between other people. People can not identify loved ones who have passed away who they never knew of or met after having a dream. How do you explain these occurrences with NDE then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

I had to reread this. Lol

This does not explain HOW the patients could have heard conversations in a different room, even one far away. And it does not explain how they met and could identify deceased relatives they never met.

Are you claiming all things that occur in dreams have logical explanations?

Every had Deja Vu? Ever know what someone is going to say before they say it? Ever forget seeing a picture of someone than later remembering what they look like? ....

In short, there are many explanations, your just choosing one. There's nothing wrong with your choice. But your choice doesn't rule out other possibilities nor does it make it an absolute truth.

also, it's complete hearsay.

Also, it completely falls within the hearsay medical treatment exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have not read up enough on NDEs. Not only was the EEG flat, but the patients were able to overhear conversations of people in the surgical room as well as OTHER ROOMS. They described meeting deceased loved ones they never met before or knew of and their living relatives validated their information.

And you clearly did not read PP. They said these experiences/dreams could of occurred before or after brain activity stopped/started.

I had to reread this. Lol

This does not explain HOW the patients could have heard conversations in a different room, even one far away. And it does not explain how they met and could identify deceased relatives they never met.

Are you claiming all things that occur in dreams have logical explanations?

Every had Deja Vu? Ever know what someone is going to say before they say it? Ever forget seeing a picture of someone than later remembering what they look like? ....

In short, there are many explanations, your just choosing one. There's nothing wrong with your choice. But your choice doesn't rule out other possibilities nor does it make it an absolute truth.

And lets not forget about blind people who have NDE and accurately report "seeing" things. There is too much evidence to dismiss and accusations about deja vu or lying does not explain these cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
I think you are missing something here. People can not travel to distant locations during dreams and overhear details of a private conversation between other people. People can not identify loved ones who have passed away who they never knew of or met after having a dream. How do you explain these occurrences with NDE then?

Suppose I grant you everything you just wrote. All it proves is that there are things we don't understand. It could possibly be explained by hypothesizing that telepathy is a power that we sometimes have when our brains are returning from flat-lining. And even if some part of us, a soul, if you wish, is the explanation, that still says nothing about God.

I'm not telling anyone not to believe, only underlining what I think we all agree on -- that it's a matter of faith that can't be proved. I lack the faith, but I accept that many, perhaps most, have it. I can't prove, and have no interest in trying, that they are wrong. But they can't prove I'm wrong. That doesn't mean we should not love and respect each other and share the world in peace.