Life after Death--Scientifically 'provable'?
-
Peace Tay,
And who knows what these stimuli are actually doing to the mind-body connection? That's my problem with an empirical approach to this sort of study. Just because you can cause it to happen in a lab does not mean the experience is completely physical.
So if you can cause it to happen in a lab, which would explain it in a purely biological manner, you would reject that as evidence for a completely physical experience, and rather go with something that you don?t know. Is this your process of verification?
Again, David, this is why I stated it really depends on what avenue of science, and what discipline is implemented as "evidence".
Okay, explain to me what avenue of science you have used, and what methodology you have employed to verify LAD.
Subjective testimony is enough to convict someone of murder in the USA. What I'm talking about is testimony that spans cultures and generations. When I hear about people all over the world over hundreds of years describing the same experience, I find it as worthy as a video.
People all over the world and over hundreds of years also describe experiences with UFOs. Do you find that as worthy as a video as well?
I'm not sure. I've experienced something that I cannot really explain.
If you?d like to share, I?d be interested.
I guess it depends on who you ask. For those who've actually had these experiences while brain-dead or with a stopped heart, I think it proves that there is certainly life after death.
I agree that personal experience can be extremely powerful, and it is certainly a very important way in which we can know about ourselves, the universe, and God.
However, it is not scientific or objective.peace
-
Peace Saladin,
First of all, I firmly believe in LAD. Where we differ is that I don?t think it is scientifically provable.
You wrote
Logically, reviving is easier than creating for the first time . so giving life after death will be easier than giving the life for the first time
Sorry if I was wasn?t clear. My response was that although this statement is ?logical? for us humans, I don?t think it applies to God, in that whether creating for the first time or reviving/reproducing for the second, third, fourth?. time doesn?t carry any notion of ?easier?, as the first creation was not ?difficult? to begin with.
Lastly, thanks for those verses, though nothing of what you posted showed scientific evidence for LAD.
peace
-
Peace David,
So if you can cause it to happen in a lab, which would explain it in a purely biological manner, you would reject that as evidence for a completely physical experience, and rather go with something that you don?t know. Is this your process of verification?
This may get a little tricky so please bear with me...
I agree that if a process is caused to happen in a lab, then the evidence is clearly biological. But, I do not agree that the process is caused by the physical exclusively in all instances.Let's say someone has a near-death experience. For the sake of argument, let's agree that near-death experiences are the real thing. Now, in the process of the soul leaving the body, the body then goes through some physical cycles as a result, ie, elevated activity in the temporal region of the brain. So, the cause of the physical cycles is the near-death experience. Now, you're in a lab, and stimulate this same area of the brain, and get the same results. This only proves that you've duplicated the physical aspects of the experience. It does not prove that there was not a spiritual aspect in the first place, which would be lacking in the experiment.
Does that make sense?
Okay, explain to me what avenue of science you have used, and what methodology you have employed to verify LAD.
I have not done any research on the topic. LAD has been a truth for me for a long time, since I've experienced some spiritual phenomena that cannot be explained by science.
However, what I was referring to was something different entirely. I don't have the book in front of me but I promise I will cite the references for you. One case in particular involved a scientist who set out to disprove NDE's and eventually wrote a book in full support of it after interviewing hundreds of children who had these experiences.
People all over the world and over hundreds of years also describe experiences with UFOs. Do you find that as worthy as a video as well?
No. UFO testimony varies greatly. Consistency over cultures and generations is what I find as valid.
If you?d like to share, I?d be interested.
I'll pm you the experience shortly, as it's kind of personal.
I agree that personal experience can be extremely powerful, and it is certainly a very important way in which we can know about ourselves, the universe, and God.
However, it is not scientific or objective.Of course, it is not scientific, nor should it be. Science is perfect right where it is. wink
Peace,
Tay -
salam.
First of all, I firmly believe in LAD. Where we differ is that I don?t think it is scientifically provable.
i see. i personally think that in time , we will be able to raise the dead , just like jesus did .
You wrote
Logically, reviving is easier than creating for the first time . so giving life after death will be easier than giving the life for the first time
Sorry if I was wasn?t clear. My response was that although this statement is ?logical? for us humans, I don?t think it applies to God, in that whether creating for the first time or reviving/reproducing for the second, third, fourth?. time doesn?t carry any notion of ?easier?, as the first creation was not ?difficult? to begin with.
i was replying to your statement that
I agree with Ahmed. I think belief in LAD is part of the test, and I don't think it is reasonable scientifically speaking.
you were talking about what is reasonable to us , right ? i replied that it is very reasonable (not for God , He can do anything He wants, but for us). as i said before , scientists have already considered reviving the dead .