Atheist Sez, Catholic Sez

[Randy_Carson]

Give us evidence of some supernatural. The problem is that you cannot, since the supernatural is - by your OWN definition - outside the realm of something one can experience. So, if someone asserts that she “experienced” some supernatural, she contradicts her own definition… and how can we trust someone who is that irrational?

I can give you two examples of the supernatural: Near Death Experiences and the Shroud of Turin. Let’s examine why they qualify as evidence.

Near Death Experiences (NDE’s)

Near death experiences fall into two categories: verifiable and unverifiable. A verifiable NDE is something that we can check to determine whether the account given by the survivor is true. For example, the survivor may report that after death he traveled down a hall in the hospital and overheard family members talking in a waiting room or that he floated up through the hospital as saw a tennis shoe on the roof of the building. Investigators can interview family members to verify that the words reported by the survivor were actually spoken in another part of the hospital. Or the investigators may go up to the roof to find the tennis shoe exactly where it was described by the survivor.

The unverifiable experiences are the accounts of meeting angels, loved ones, a light, or God/Jesus/etc. While these accounts may be encouraging to those who believe them, they cannot be verified by investigation.

So, while unverifiable NDE’s cannot offer us any reason to accept belief in life after death, verifiable NDE’s do. In fact, these types of NDE’s, though not specifically Christian (or Muslim or anything), do strongly suggest that our human consciousness continues after death. Consequently,** NDE’s are a stake through the heart of atheism/naturalism/scientific materialism which claims that there is nothing after death.**

The Shroud of Turn

Much has been written over the years about the Shroud of Turn, and much information has been disseminated due, in large part, to an error in the carbon-14 dating tests performed in the 1980’s. More recent tests have invalidated the previous results and pointed to a date range which is entirely consistent with the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus.

While the Shroud cannot be PROVEN empirically to be the burial cloth of Jesus, the appearance of wound on the Shroud match the accounts of the arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion of Jesus very closely.

Moreover, the Shroud has defied all attempts of modern science to explain its creation.

Consequently, an objective seeker of truth is faced with an unexplainable artifact of genuine antiquity which appears to bear the marks of the torture and execution of a man so similar to those borne by Jesus as to suggest that the belief that it is the actual shroud of Jesus is not only plausible but probable.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is not helpful. We do not have any “perceptors” to experience the supernatural directly. If the supernatural “breaks through” (as you say), it must become natural, so we can perceive it. So all you have is something looks “natural” and there is no way to verify if it is not just a figment of your imagination.

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.

You can see a man walking on water, but you cannot explain it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As I understand it, most bible scholars think that Mark’s gospel was written first in about AD 65 or so in a location other than Palestine.

If those things are true, then I don’t see how thousands of people who might still be alive and who might have known Jesus, Mary and Joseph would have even known what had been written about them. Bear in mind too that all of the NT books likely didn’t come into wide circulation until many years – perhaps even decades – after they were first written.

Those things aren’t true. The synoptic gospels can easily be shown to have been written much earlier with Mark being written as early as AD 50.

First, Peter was aware of what Paul was writing because he tells us:

2 Peter 3:15-17
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Obviously, Peter knew the content of some of Paul’s letters.

Second, Paul tells us:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,** and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Paul is saying, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, ask around.”

**

 

[MPat]

Try this one on for size.

Atheists do not accept the bible for exactly the same reason that you discard the validity of the testimonials about Mohammed’s winged horse, or the golden plates of John Smith… or any of the “sacred” books of any other religion.

Yes, that’s an especially bad objection. In order to make this objection work, the atheist has to make sure that:

1. 
   *]The believer actually rejects the claims he’s talking about.
   *]The reason for which the believer rejects all those claims is the same.
   *]The reason for which the believer rejects all those claims is good.
   
   Of course, in reality the atheist knows no such thing. For example, a Catholic can accept that Joseph Smith had some golden plates - that alone would only make the fraud a bit more complex and expensive.
   
   Not to mention that there are many reasons to reject something - and, while some of them are good (but different: finding a logical contradiction in the claims is not the same thing as Pascal’s Wager), there are also enough bad reasons. In fact, there is little need to remember any examples, as the atheist arguing in such a way is almost certain to offer some himself, without seeing that they dismantle his own argument.
   

   The only difference between atheists and believers that we lack the belief in ONE MORE god than you do. In other words you disbelieve in “N” gods, while we disbelieve in “N + 1” gods. But the reason for this lack of belief is exactly the same for you and for us. We all find the purported evidence lacking in convincing value.

   That obviously avoids the fact that one can also “find the purported evidence lacking in convincing value” in case of the materialist atheism.
   
   Also, I’m sure Flat Earth Society will be delighted to hear that they reject the roundness of Earth because they “find the purported evidence lacking in convincing value”, since, given this objection, no other reason can exist.

 

[Solmyr]

Miracles, for example.

Miracles? What miracles?

Asking for evidence is not the same as denying that any exists, and all you’ve done is to move the goalposts.

Atheists do not necessarily deny God’s existence, they simply do not believe - DUE to lack of evidence.

I can give you two examples of the supernatural: Near Death Experiences and the Shroud of Turin. Let’s examine why they qualify as evidence.

Which part of “NEAR” don’t you understand? Those people were not DEAD. And the shroud is just an ancient piece of cloth.

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.

Which scientific laws? Does someone know ALL of them?

You can see a man walking on water, but you cannot explain it.

Sure I can. Any semi-competent magician can walk on water, or turn water into wine.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which part of “NEAR” don’t you understand? Those people were not DEAD. And the shroud is just an ancient piece of cloth.

And to avoid the implications of NDE research, you define death in such a way that if anyone is resuscitated, then they weren’t “dead” no matter how long they were without heartbeat or brain activity. How convenient for you.

And yet, you have not actually addressed the matter of how a person who is in this state - whatever YOU choose to call it - can overhear conversations in another room, see things outside the hospital, or know what their families were having for dinner at home while their body was still lying lifeless in a hospital bed.

As for the Shroud, yes, it is an ancient piece of cloth. With a remarkable history. And an amazing image that cannot be explained by science. Here is the positive image:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And the negative showing the true likeness of the crucified man:

 

[Solmyr]

And to avoid the implications of NDE research, you define death in such a way that if anyone is resuscitated, then they weren’t “dead” no matter how long they were without heartbeat or brain activity. How convenient for you.

Of course not. Death is a one-way street. But, you know what? Try to resuscitate a decomposing corpse. And see what it has to say. After all the “soul” is independent from the body… or so I heard.

And yet, you have not actually addressed the matter of how a person who is in this state - whatever YOU choose to call it - can overhear conversations in another room, see things outside the hospital, or know what their families were having for dinner at home while their body was still lying lifeless in a hospital bed.

To use your title: “SEZ WHO”? These are simply anecdotal stories, without significance. Let’s see some properly conducted research into the subject.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Those things aren’t true. The synoptic gospels can easily be shown to have been written much earlier with Mark being written as early as AD 50.

From the introduction to Mark’s gospel in the New American Bible published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mk 7:3–4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in the face of persecution (Mk 13:9–13), while going on with the proclamation of the gospel begun in Galilee (Mk 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.

If the gospels can easily be shown to have been written before AD 65 or so, then it seems that the scholars who wrote the NAB introduction would have promoted that position – or at least mentioned it as a possibility.

First, Peter was aware of what Paul was writing because he tells us:

2 Peter 3:15-17
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Obviously, Peter knew the content of some of Paul’s letters.

The author of 2 Peter actually references “all” of Paul’s letter and not "some’ of his letters. In either case, having a collection of Paul’s letters argues against the proposition that 2 Peter was written by the apostle Peter. As the introduction to 2 Peter in the aforementioned NAB notes:

*Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.

The principal reasons for this view are the following. The author refers to the apostles and “our ancestors” as belonging to a previous generation, now dead (2 Peter 3:2-4). A collection of Paul’s letters exists and appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the interpretation of them (2 Peter 3:14-16). The passage about false teachers (2 Peter 2:1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 1:4-16, and it is generally agreed that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, not vice versa. Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of “scoffers” who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter. *

Second, Paul tells us:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,** and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.** 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Paul is saying, “Hey, if you don’t believe me, ask around.”

What do you think the chances would be of someone traveling from Corith to Jerusalem to interview (with one exception) unnamed persons about their unfalsifiable visions? I put the odds at slim to none. Even if someone did make that journey and debunked Paul’s claims, how would he get people to believe him? How would he disseminate that information? More to the point, none of this has anything to do with verifying the gospel stories – the subject of my post.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Yes, that’s an especially bad objection. In order to make this objection work, the atheist has to make sure that:

1. 
   *]The believer actually rejects the claims he’s talking about.
   *]The reason for which the believer rejects all those claims is the same.
   *]The reason for which the believer rejects all those claims is good.
   
   Of course, in reality the atheist knows no such thing. For example, a Catholic can accept that Joseph Smith had some golden plates - that alone would only make the fraud a bit more complex and expensive.
   
   Not to mention that there are many reasons to reject something - and, while some of them are good (but different: finding a logical contradiction in the claims is not the same thing as Pascal’s Wager), there are also enough bad reasons. In fact, there is little need to remember any examples, as the atheist arguing in such a way is almost certain to offer some himself, without seeing that they dismantle his own argument.
   )

1. 
   I think some things might have been lost here, the point as far as I can tell that the original commenter was trying to make(and if he wasn’t then I’ll be the one making the following point) is that if a Catholic has good reasons for not believing in the Book of Mormon or the Qu’ran than an atheist can certainly have good reasons for not believing in Christianity. For example against the claim that: falsifying information would have been very difficult in Jesus’ time so the information probably wasn’t falsified, well what about the Book of Mormon it was written quite recently and information would have been exponentially harder to falsify so why do you not believe the Book of Mormon to be true? The point of this objection is that Christianity is not the only religion to make these kinds of claims so if you count these claims as evidence for your religion why do you not count them as valid evidence for the other religions which make these claims?

 

[Randy_Carson]

To use your title: “SEZ WHO”? These are simply anecdotal stories, without significance. Let’s see some properly conducted research into the subject.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/veggietalesitsforthekids/images/e/ed/Junior_(1996).jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/180?cb=20130422142912
Ya know…I was hopin’ you’d ask!

Near Death Experiences: Evidence for an Afterlife?
By Gary R. Habermas
4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952865

Read the article and don’t overlook the footnotes.

More from Habermas’ website here:

Near-Death Experiences and Life After Death:

Question: I am an agnostic who is interested in studying theism. Christianity intrigues me. I like empirical evidence and have some questions regarding near death experiences. Could NDEs result from deceptive spiritual forces to which non-Christians may be susceptible due to the state of their heart? Where do you reference the evidential NDEs to which you refer? Does one of your publications answer these issues?

Answer: Yes, I have co-authored a book with JP Moreland, Beyond Death (Wipf & Stock Publishers) with three lengthy chapters on NDEs. I have a partial chapter on your first question. The short answer is that some NDEs definitely indicate what might be called spiritual forces. Basically, I don’t think the nature of NDEs helps us construct what kind of world view is true, only that the naturalistic alternative is probably false, since there is very strong evidence here for an afterlife. Still, I think that after they have an experience that is sometimes verifiable, NDErs then basically interpret their these experiences according to their own world view. But if the evidence does strongly indicate an afterlife, naturalism is the “odd man out.” The book provides about 20 evidential cases of various sorts, including detailed references. Please let me know what you think about these matters. Systematic Theology (Bethany).

Question: Who published your book that talks about near-death experiences? I remember you mentioning that some people experienced NDEs, some of which were of hell-like states. Who went where? Were the people who went to heaven exceptionally good or were the people who went to hell really bad? I just thought it might provide some intriguing insights into who gets into heaven. This is an eternal question!

Answer: Yes, I co-authored a book with J.P. Moreland, entitled Beyond Death, published by Wipf and Stock Publishers of Eugene, OR. It has three chapters on NDEs. It is very difficult to answer your question about Christians and non-Christians using only NDEs, since we are dealing with people’s personal experiences. Then we have to add their interpretations of these experiences. But we do discuss this question in a good deal of detail on pages 178-183.

Christians teach that salvation comes from making a faith commitment to Jesus Christ. As I mentioned in the lectureship on Jesus’ resurrection to which you refer, whenever the Gospel facts are defined in the New Testament, the “core” that is always mentioned is the Deity of Jesus Christ, his death for our sins, and his resurrection. This is the factual side. When a person in effect says, “I do” to Jesus, believing this Gospel, they become a Christian, which gives them, among other things, eternal life. I hope this is helpful.

Question: What references would you recommend concerning the evidential value of NDE’s? Please send a list.

Answer: Here are a number of items for you to check out:

The latest edition of my book with JP Moreland, either the Crossway edition (1998) or the Wipf and Stock reprint (2003), include three chapters on NDEs as opposed to only two chapters in the earlier edition.
Negative critiques seldom ever address the evidential aspects of NDEs. For one that at least makes the attempt, see British psychologist Susan Blackmore, Dying to Live: Near Death Experiences (Prometheus Books, 1993).
I responded to Blackmore, claiming that we do have at least some of the evidence that she required, including a few more Bibliographic items for you: Gary Habermas, “Near Death Experiences and the Evidence: A Review Essay,” Christian Scholar’s Review, 26:1 (Fall, 1996), pp. 78-85.
From one of the top medical researchers over the last 25 years: Michael Sabom, Light & Death: One Doctor’s Fascinating account of Near-Death Experiences (Zondervan, 1998). (You’ve probably seen his earlier, highly-acclaimed volume, Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation [Harper and Row, 1982].)
Sabom also wrote recently a two-part article where he shares some of his conclusions on NDEs: “The Shadow of Death,” parts one & two, Christian Research Journal, 26:2 (2003) & 26:3 (2003).
A critical response (with a creative title) by a University of Washington Medical School professor: If I Should Wake Before I Die: The Biblical and Medical Truth about Near- Death Experiences (Crossway, 1997).
Although it is a popular account, prominent New Testament scholar Graham Tweltree tells about his own NDE in: Life after Death (London: Monarch, 2002), pp. 24-27.
Although it is older, I assume you have seen the often-reprinted article by well- known naturalistic philosopher A.J. Ayer, “What I Saw when I was Dead,” originally published in the Sunday Telegraph, 28 August, 1988.

 

[MPat]

I think some things might have been lost here, the point as far as I can tell that the original commenter was trying to make(and if he wasn’t then I’ll be the one making the following point) is that if a Catholic has good reasons for not believing in the Book of Mormon or the Qu’ran than an atheist can certainly have good reasons for not believing in Christianity.

Yes, this is a separate objection, and a much better one, as it does not demand that all claims would be rejected for the same reason.

For example against the claim that: falsifying information would have been very difficult in Jesus’ time so the information probably wasn’t falsified, well what about the Book of Mormon it was written quite recently and information would have been exponentially harder to falsify so why do you not believe the Book of Mormon to be true?

I’m afraid that’s a little too unspecific… What exactly does “falsifying information” mean here? “Lying”? “Lying convincingly”? “Creating fake archeological evidence to fit the lies”? Something else?

After all, I don’t see why lying would become easier or harder with time. And if you consider archeological evidence, there is archeological evidence that fits with what is said in Bible, while the lack of archeological evidence for just about anything from Book of Mormon is so well known, that Mormons claim the evidence was destroyed to make the faith necessary.

As you can see, evidence for Catholicism and evidence for Mormonism are different (I am not sure I know any pair of religions that are supported by precisely the same evidence). Thus, naturally, the points against Mormonism are not going to work against Catholicism (or, for that matter, against Islam or Buddhism) that well.

The point of this objection is that Christianity is not the only religion to make these kinds of claims so if you count these claims as evidence for your religion why do you not count them as valid evidence for the other religions which make these claims?

In other words, if we take Bible as a piece of evidence pointing towards Catholicism, why don’t we take Book of Mormon as a piece of evidence pointing towards Mormonism? But what makes you think that we do not? Sure, Bible is a piece of evidence pointing towards Catholicism, Book of Mormon is a piece of evidence pointing towards Mormonism, and a fingerprint in Conan Doyle’s “The Adventure of the Norwood Builder” is a piece of evidence pointing towards guilt of John Hector McFarlane.

But then, we do not have just a single piece of evidence. And a fingerprint with the fact that it wasn’t there during the previous search is evidence against guilt of McFarlane, while the Book of Mormon with the lack of archeological evidence (that could be expected to be there, if Book of Mormon described something real) is evidence against Mormonism.

However, we do have some evidence supporting the Bible, thus this same approach does not work for Catholicism.

 

[inocente]

And to avoid the implications of NDE research, you define death in such a way that if anyone is resuscitated, then they weren’t “dead” no matter how long they were without heartbeat or brain activity. How convenient for you.

A standard legal definition of death is “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions and of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem”.

Irreversible being the operative word - medically and legally, a person is alive until death is proven beyond reasonable doubt, which doesn’t apply to patients under anesthetic or other claimed NDE scenarios.

There are proposed psychological and physiological explanations for NDE. In those respects it invites comparison with such things as past life regression (the recall of memories of previous lives/incarnations) and alien abduction. If we accept any one of them then we’re left with no reason not to accept all of them, since they’re all based on similar anecdotal evidence.

 

[cornbread_r2]

And to avoid the implications of NDE research, you define death in such a way that if anyone is resuscitated, then they weren’t “dead” no matter how long they were without heartbeat or brain activity. How convenient for you.

And yet, you have not actually addressed the matter of how a person who is in this state - whatever YOU choose to call it - can overhear conversations in another room, see things outside the hospital, or know what their families were having for dinner at home while their body was still lying lifeless in a hospital bed.

First, as far as I know, NDEs are never reported in real time as they’re occurring. Rather, they’re reported as memories of experiences that allegedly occurred hours, days, weeks and even months earlier.

Second, how does a truly non-functional, “lifeless” brain even form memories?

See these fairly recent articles (1, 2, 3, 4) from some neuroscientists for their opinions on the subject. See this article for a general overview of the subject as well as results of investigations of some of the more highly touted NDE claims (including the one involving a shoe).

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Yes, this is a separate objection, and a much better one, as it does not demand that all claims would be rejected for the same reason.

I’m afraid that’s a little too unspecific… What exactly does “falsifying information” mean here? “Lying”? “Lying convincingly”? “Creating fake archeological evidence to fit the lies”? Something else?

After all, I don’t see why lying would become easier or harder with time. And if you consider archeological evidence, there is archeological evidence that fits with what is said in Bible, while the lack of archeological evidence for just about anything from Book of Mormon is so well known, that Mormons claim the evidence was destroyed to make the faith necessary.

As you can see, evidence for Catholicism and evidence for Mormonism are different (I am not sure I know any pair of religions that are supported by precisely the same evidence). Thus, naturally, the points against Mormonism are not going to work against Catholicism (or, for that matter, against Islam or Buddhism) that well.

In other words, if we take Bible as a piece of evidence pointing towards Catholicism, why don’t we take Book of Mormon as a piece of evidence pointing towards Mormonism? But what makes you think that we do not? Sure, Bible is a piece of evidence pointing towards Catholicism, Book of Mormon is a piece of evidence pointing towards Mormonism, and a fingerprint in Conan Doyle’s “The Adventure of the Norwood Builder” is a piece of evidence pointing towards guilt of John Hector McFarlane.

But then, we do not have just a single piece of evidence. And a fingerprint with the fact that it wasn’t there during the previous search is evidence against guilt of McFarlane, while the Book of Mormon with the lack of archeological evidence (that could be expected to be there, if Book of Mormon described something real) is evidence against Mormonism.

However, we do have some evidence supporting the Bible, thus this same approach does not work for Catholicism.

Well when I say that lying would become harder I meant that because information could spread faster and that people were more educated it would be harder to spread misinformation, and while two religions may not entirely rely on the same types of evidence they certainly would make similar claims.

 

[MPat]

Well when I say that lying would become harder I meant that because information could spread faster and that people were more educated it would be harder to spread misinformation,

That looks questionable - misinformation can also spread using that same mail, radio, TV or Internet…

But anyway, this part of discussion does not seem to be directly related to any common atheist objection. Thus I guess we should drop it for now…

and while two religions may not entirely rely on the same types of evidence they certainly would make similar claims.

I’d say it means that you would have to rely on more specific objections, leaving this one “defused”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, as far as I know, NDEs are never reported in real time as they’re occurring. Rather, they’re reported as memories of experiences that allegedly occurred hours, days, weeks and even months earlier.

Second, how does a truly non-functional, “lifeless” brain even form memories?

See these fairly recent articles (1, 2, 3, 4) from some neuroscientists for their opinions on the subject. See this article for a general overview of the subject as well as results of investigations of some of the more highly touted NDE claims (including the one involving a shoe).

The body is lying on a gurney in an operating room. His heart has stopped. There is no pulse. No respiration. The doctors and nurses have exhausted all options. They finally “call it” - the time of death, and start to shut down the machines and equipment.

Meanwhile, the guy is floating high above the city…gradually making his way to his own home where he passes through the walls and he his wife making plans to serve chicken and rice for dinner. He hears her talking with her mother on the phone.

+++

He regains consciousness some time later, and tells the startled medical team that he is hungry and would like to have some of the chicken and rice that his wife prepared.

Chicken and rice? They check with his wife…sure enough…that’s what she was cooking. How did he know this?



There are lots of examples of verifiable NDE’s like this, and they put the lie to the naturalist idea that there is nothing beyond the material world.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

The body is lying on a gurney in an operating room. His heart has stopped. There is no pulse. No respiration. The doctors and nurses have exhausted all options. They finally “call it” - the time of death, and start to shut down the machines and equipment.

Meanwhile, the guy is floating high above the city…gradually making his way to his own home where he passes through the walls and he his wife making plans to serve chicken and rice for dinner. He hears her talking with her mother on the phone.

+++

He regains consciousness some time later, and tells the startled medical team that he is hungry and would like to have some of the chicken and rice that his wife prepared.

Chicken and rice? They check with his wife…sure enough…that’s what she was cooking. How did he know this?



There are lots of examples of verifiable NDE’s like this, and they put the lie to the naturalist idea that there is nothing beyond the material world.

Well being declared dead isn’t the same as being actually dead just because there is no pulse does not mean someone has died, legally speaking yes but in reality they wouldn’t be actually dead. As for dinner maybe he heard her say she was making that dinner that night and dreamt about it, maybe it was his favorite and his wife wanted to make it for him and since he dreamed of his favorite food it was a lucky coincidence. Just because someone knows a random fact that they could have known about beforehand or normally dream of doesn’t prove that that person left their body, it proves that occasionally coincidences will happen and a man who almost died had a dream about the same food his wife was making.

 

[Bradski]

The body is lying on a gurney in an operating room. His heart has stopped. There is no pulse. No respiration. The doctors and nurses have exhausted all options. They finally “call it” - the time of death, and start to shut down the machines and equipment.

Meanwhile, the guy is floating high above the city…gradually making his way to his own home where he passes through the walls and he his wife making plans to serve chicken and rice for dinner. He hears her talking with her mother on the phone.

He regains consciousness some time later, and tells the startled medical team that he is hungry and would like to have some of the chicken and rice that his wife prepared.

Chicken and rice? They check with his wife…sure enough…that’s what she was cooking. How did he know this?

More chicken and rice, Randy?

For instance, in a well-documented incident, a young girl had nearly drowned…Her breathing was performed artificially and she was given very little chance to survive. But only three days later, the girl surprisingly revived and made a full recovery.

Katie correctly reported…and even correctly identified the food: roast chicken and rice. cct.biola.edu/journal/article/2013/spring/near-death-experiences/

The book from which you got your details (unless the plat de jour in the next life is always chicken and rice) is Closer to The light, a book about near death experiences that children are reported to have experienced.

It was written by a piece of low life scum who is now serving three years for torturing his daughter. telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9465920/Delaware-doctor-arrested-for-waterboarding-his-daughter.html

Got any more…?

 

[Randy_Carson]

More chicken and rice, Randy?

For instance, in a well-documented incident, a young girl had nearly drowned…Her breathing was performed artificially and she was given very little chance to survive. But only three days later, the girl surprisingly revived and made a full recovery.

Katie correctly reported…and even correctly identified the food: roast chicken and rice. cct.biola.edu/journal/article/2013/spring/near-death-experiences/

The book from which you got your details (unless the plat de jour in the next life is always chicken and rice) is Closer to The light, a book about near death experiences that children are reported to have experienced.

It was written by a piece of low life scum who is now serving three years for torturing his daughter. telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9465920/Delaware-doctor-arrested-for-waterboarding-his-daughter.html

Got any more…?

Uh…no.

I made up my example to simply illustrate the KIND of thing that verifiable NDE’s can, well…verify.

In a previous post, I provided links to Dr. Gary Habermas’ website where he has provided a boatload of information. See post #29.

There are actually inter-disciplinary committees that investigate this stuff. Dr. Habermas serves as the “Christian” representative for one such organization.

 

[Bradski]

You MADE UP your example?

I think we’re done here…