The Afterlife? Real or Not

Are you sure someone wasn't jerking him off?

 

Believe it or not, there is actual evidence that Edgar Cayce, a simpleton tobacco farmer could go into trances and give medical diagnosis' and prescriptions that cured people beyond what experts could offer during the time period. There are many documented cases. And when Cayce would wake up, he knew nothing about what he said or the medical knowledge he tapped into.

Read up:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/pex_9.htm

 

Find and watch the movie Unmistaken Child

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unmistaken-child/film.html

It is a incredible true documentary of a monk tasked with finding the reincarnated child who used to be his master who had passed away of old age. I won't give away the ending, but the proof at the end is as compelling, and as scientific, as it gets.

But for the record, anecdotal evidence is just fine too to prove a fact. It is used in life, science, and courts every day.

And good point HailBlazers about Edgar Cayce.

 

I met a fairy today that said she would grant me one wish.

“I want to live forever.” I said.

“Sorry,” said the fairy, “I’m not allowed to grant wishes like that!”

“Fine,” I said, “then I want to die after Congress gets their heads out of their asses!”

“You crafty bastard.” said the fairy.

 

That's not evidence in my opinion.

And no, I'm not watching some crackpot "documentary".

 

anecdotal evidence can be useful in tandem with other hard evidence to support trivial facts.

anecdotal evidence is NEVER used as support for extraordinary claims. not in the lab. not in the courtroom. not by sane people in their every day lives.

in the history of inquiry there has never been a shred of valid evidence documenting a paranormal claim of any kind. no voices from beyond. no ghosts. nobody coming back from the dead with evidence of an afterlife. every single claim of this type ever made invariably ends up having a much better purely physical alternate explanation. claims of evidence supporting an afterlife are about as extraordinary as it gets.

thus there is zero reason to give any weight at all to anyone's anecdotal claims of this type.

 

You actually do not know what you are talking about. That is a factually inaccurate statement. If you took the time to look, there is a lot of proof.

And for the record, anecdotal evidence is the basis of most legal cases. That is what witness testimony is. The law gives great weight to anecdotal evidence, actually more than scientific evidence because science is so often inconclusive and at odds with itself. You can hire an expert scientist to say anything you want in court just about.

And you cannot call a documentary "crackpot" if you know nothing about it and have never seen it. How very unscientific of you! Praying at the gates of science is no different than praying at the gates of religion, yet those of you here who are arguing for science show no proof, and make nothing but generalized bombastic sentences. At least we have listed evidence to defend our perspective.

Here is more proof: Read "Proof of Heaven" by Neurosurgeon Eban Alexander and tell me there us no afterlife. He is one of you guys too.

Or he was!

 

No.

 

as noted anecdotal evidence is accepted for ordinary claims for which a base of evidence has already been established supporting at least some potential probability of truth.

life after death is not an ordinary claim. there is no established base of evidence supporting even the potential truth of paranormal claims, and a very strongly established pattern of such claims when objectively investigated invariably lacking substance, and of humans in general being prone false belief in this type of thing.

in a court of law 100 people claiming to have seen a ghost would be trumped by 1 scientists with an alternate plausible physical explanation.

wasn't me that said that, although I've researched Cayce and find no reason to take claims about him seriously.

it has been established that this person was never fully brain-dead -

http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2013/07/proof-heaven-author-debunked/66772/

 

Who are all of these neroscientisists and neurobilogists of which you speak?

 

Well, kudos to you Denny as you are the only naysaying poster in this thread who has posted even a single source to back up your beliefs. I read the article and found only trace elements of science in it though, but at least it's something. We have posted articles, movies, books, people , i.e., evidence to back up our claims that there is some proof of an afterlife. Surprisingly, the cult of science folk posting in this thread have provided no proof other than dogmatic claims, and anonymous work of anonymous scientists and studies. How very, very unscientific of you all.


So here's a little science for ya:

"In recent years, a number of scientific studies conducted by independent researchers have found that as many as 10-20 percent of individuals who undergo cardiac arrest report lucid, well-structured thought processes, reasoning, memories, and sometimes detailed recall of their cardiac arrest. What makes these experiences remarkable is that while studies of the brain during cardiac arrest have consistently that there is no brain activity during this period, these individuals have reported detailed perceptions that appear to indicate the presence of a high-level of consciousness in the absence of measurable brain activity."

- Academic Textbook, Parnia S, Spearpoint K, Fenwick P, The Near Death Experience and After Care of Cardiac Arrest Survivors in Cardiac Arrest The Science and Practice of Resuscitation Medicine Edited by Paradis N et al 2nd ed

 

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. In a murder trial for instance, first person, eyewitness testimony is considered just about the most credible. The purpose of cross-examination after all is to test the veracity of the witness and his/her recollection. Juries then weigh that testimony. Our entire jurisprudence is based on witness testimony i.e., anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is most certainly not limited to "ordinary claims for which a base of evidence has already been established..." That is factually incorrect.

 

Even if they are dreams, the flaw in your argument Denny is that the study says that there is conscious activity AFTER brain functions cease, not just "up until" they cease. That is the whole point.

 

The study is linked to the site. Read it and you can see how it's objectively measured.