Does this philosophical argument and thought experiment demonstrate the existence of an afterlife? Or is it at the very least more persuasive than the ontological and cosmological arguments are for the existence of God? https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o
Tl;dw Near-death experiencers are representative of the population as a whole and all, 100% of the population, who have a really deep NDE end up convinced that there is an afterlife because their NDE was vastly more real than life, and tens of millions of people have had NDEs.
>is it at the very least more persuasive than the ontological and cosmological arguments are for the existence of God?
Yes, but this is a VERY low bar. There may be an afterlife. The research is interesting and deserves to be continued. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
>Yes, but this is a VERY low bar.
Are those arguments really so bad?
>But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Isn't this just the mentality of "let's never arrive at conclusions, no matter what!"? I mean, should we never arrive at conclusions about what's in the room in the thought experiment in OP (
) either?
>Are those arguments really so bad?
Yes.
>Isn't this just the mentality of "let's never arrive at conclusions, no matter what!"?
No, but this subject is so extraordinary that we should be very cautious about jumping to conclusions. As I said, the research is interesting and deserves to be continued.
>NDE
take your meds
>>NDE
>take your meds
>If you think NDEs are not dreams or hallucinations, you MUST be crazy
>no actual argument
Nice textbook, stereotype example of a closed, unreflective mind
It's argument from another person's anecdote, when one's own senses even are less trustworthy than the truth itself. So, not a good argument.
>It's argument from another person's anecdote,
So is the room. Would you not believe what they report what is in the room?
>when one's own senses even are less trustworthy than the truth itself.
You are using your senses to judge that life is real. NDErs have their senses vastly improved, and use those to judge that the afterlife is real. So they are even more trustworthy in that judgment than you are now.
>So, not a good argument.
You did not even understand the argument
Even if I experienced this myself, I would never use it as an argument, I would continue to point to the Bible as the proof of every theological point.
OP is not discussing theology. He explicitly refers to ontological and cosmological arguments. Theological arguments don’t hold very much weight when arguing against atheists or agnostics.
>He explicitly refers to ontological and cosmological arguments.
He's looking for things better than that.
>Theological arguments don’t hold very much weight when arguing against atheists or agnostics.
So what's your point? A good argument doesn't have to be popular, popularity is not what success is. Also, I'm not here to argue semantics, btw. You think discussions about the existence of God have nothing to do with theology, and I have no motive or desire to carry on against something like that.
>A good argument doesn't have to be popular, popularity is not what success is
A good argument can hold its own weight without being btfo’d. What makes your brand of God better than another’s? Unfortunately the Bible isn’t considered a reliable source by many theologians.
>A good argument can hold its own weight without being btfo’d.
The truth speaks for itself, after all.
>bc God said so
is not an argument
>muh dogma
It's a terrible fricking argument and you have to be a smoothbrain to be convinced by it. People who experience their brain starting to shut down have similar symptoms. That isn't proof of anything other than human brains are similar to each other.
Not true. Brains shutting down and being oxygen deprived get you unconscious, not give you a hyper-real experience.
Nonsense. Most OOBEs have proven to be factually and evidently true. Granted we know how to simulate OOBEs by stimulating certain parts of the brain, but that doesn't explain why it happens in the first place. If anything this boggles anything we know about consciousness and the brain at all. How can a consciousness switch out of the body and still observe things going on in the vicinity?
Hardline materialists need to stop coping and be more agnostic about NDEs maybe being true instead of just being against it out of principle, because that's just close minded stupidity.
Show me a single proven case where someone gained any information during his oobe. Because every test where people claimed to float over the operation table etc. were disproven.
The AWARE study and The Self Does Not Die. Not that you will engage with the data though, because "skeptics" never do. Ever.
All oobe have been refuted
>oh but while my brain was active and i was unconscious i had a dream like experience
No kidding? Faith is dead. You can't fake it and no amount of larp will ever change it.
No, learn what philosophy even is
How is it not philosophy though?