Religion… What do you think?

“What are you talking about ? Whose comments ? I specifically said in my original post about this that this is something that I still think about to this day. I referenced no other user concerning this. You are reaching way too much here.”

Sorry about that, then; my mistake.

“Which Church ? There are many different denominations of the Church that believe different things.”

Mainstream Christianity is also known as the Church.

“On top of that using the concept of Soul as Consciousness what evidence do we have of anyone being able to be Aware and Alive when they have no brain activity ?”

Two obvious answers off the top of my head: the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the NDE experiences relied upon and discussed within the scholarly Christian community. And, again, as I said, it is actually consciousness that is being substituted in for a soul, which is defined by correctly interpreting the Bible.

“But these are all assumptions concerning the question. If your Brain is intact and you are alive and have NDE that does not help answer the question on whether or not we can be Conscious beyond our Brain and Body dying.”

You're making a number of assumptions here without simply having gone out to discover what the scholarly Christian community has to say about this issue. This wouldn't be an example of an NDE experience that would be noteworthy. This is your limited knowledge on the topic of NDE; this is why it is suggested that you just simply go out and discover what the scholarly Christian community has to offer on the topic.

“Who cares if my knowledge is limited or great concerning the issue of NDE. If you have evidence that shows that a person can be aware and consciousness when their Brain is no longer having activity that would change my perspective.”

Well, what it means is that you have to expand your knowledge on the topic; otherwise, you simply don't know what it is that you're talking about; you're presuming that I actually agree with your definition of an NDE, where I've investigated the topic from the sources likely to know; I then examined that evidence and found it credible and persuasive; if someone briefly loosing consciousness could be the obvious explanation, as you seem to be implying, I wouldn't have found this persuasive and neither would a large group of Christian scholars throughout the US and all over the globe, where some are medical experts. In my case, I was unconscious for about 12 hours, but my example was more of a personal confirmation; what the scholarly Christian community has to show is much more persuasive, as it would need to be, as it wasn't a personal experience of mines.

“What is it that GOD can take out of the Body where we can still be Aware and Conscious after we Die if Consciousness is gone ? These are the issues that I am talking about.”

Well, examine Jesus again; also, look up Abraham and Jacob, again, as it discussed the end of their lives. Whatever this other property is, it's similar to the state that Angels and demons exists as, and possibly even God. There's another realm of existence that houses Heaven and probably even another that houses Hell; this plane of existence that houses what we call the living is at least a third realm of existence; that's what you can logically extrapolate from the Bible.

“But Mainstream Christianity has several denominations and they do not all believe the same things about everything.”

Being a different denomination isn't always significant enough, at the level of being classified as being apart of the mainstream church community, to separate a church from being thought of as being part of the mainstream church community.

If a church is not apart of the mainstream church community, then it's probably not the Church; but, it deserves closer scrutiny, just to be sure; this is certainly not difficult to recognize by a former pastor. For example, the mainstream church includes the Baptist church, the Church of Christ church, the Methodist church, and the Presbyterian church, but not the Mormon church or Jehovah Witness (e.g. one main reason why: the latter two do not accept Jesus as also God and Son of God; thus, that largely makes them not much different than a religion); a different denomination can be something as small as have a singing celebration with instruments, during church, while another would avoid such activity; however, the main point is that they both accept Jesus as who He claimed to be and proceed to preach from the Gospels; they shouldn't be teaching anything that's offhand and would alert the spider senses of any truly born again Christian, with a degree of experience, in order to know that what is being said is off.

“I don't think Jesus resurrection serves as evidence for us Humans having the ability to survive if our Brains are dead in activity though. Jesus was not simply a Human he was GOD's son was he not ? Meaning Jesus existed as an Eternal Being inside a Body.”

The important part is that Jesus' body did die (e.g. Jesus' body was simply a human body, as it died; but, that aspect made it apart of God's plan of salvation); without even knowing it, and trying to be a wise ass in place of conceding points again: these other properties that you mention is then proof that there is something else apart from the body; the Eternal manifestation of Jesus is a demonstration of what the Bible means about a soul and it being apart from the body. Thus, by extension, we fall back on what Jesus taught which is then what supports a belief in souls (e.g. one vivid description, Lazarus and the Rich Man; this was describing the souls of these individuals, after death).

“As far as NDE's, I am aware people have these experiences but I am not sure if these people are actually having these experiences when their Brain's are totally dead and without activity.”

That might be because you haven't extensively examined the topic, particularly from the group most concerned about its confirmation: the scholarly Christian community. Again, if it were likely that said individuals were possibly able to have brain activity then those examples could not be persuasive. Usually, these NDEs involve very vivid perceptions and sensations; many times, people go to sleep and either don't have dreams or don't remember them; I believe this would be close to no brain activity or a complete lack of awareness or true unconsciousness; I believe that this is true, restful, plain sleeping.

“Here is what confuses me with you Dshipp, instead of you providing examples of a person who was dead to Brain Activity who was still aware and alive via NDE's you go off and say I do not know enough about the subject.”

Well, the issue is more related to whether you've searched on your own or not; similar to something that I just said in a prior post, NDE's also have a very notorious component attached with it, making it possible to then go research and investigate the topic without anyone's assistance; but, if you'd actually expended effort but demonstrated that you were unable to find much, that is when I'd come in to assist; the issue is one of discerning what you know about the topic and discussing that, based on your demonstration of knowing so little about it (e.g. you seem to be implying that what we're relying on is something that's as easily explained as someone briefly losing consciousness, when I retorted: why would this then be so persuasive to scholars who include medical experts?; hence, this is a very quick check on how serious you actually are about the questions you're purporting to ask; you basically want to shift things and start discussing how I would go about looking up NDE's, where that should also be the way that you should go about researching this topic; this is the default, when two adults are involved).

“Yes, you may have been unconscious for 12 hours but you was not dead was you ? Was your brain still intact and able to work ? See, this is what I mean by examples. You have to have the right ones to contend with the points I am saying.”

Just because I eventually survived or walked away from it, returned to this plane of existence, doesn't necessarily mean that I actually had functional brain activity that was dependent upon my body throughout the experience, although that is the presumption that you want to make about it; it was probably separate, as we have the Bible and Jesus to back up my experience; in this experience, I gained full consciousness and awareness of my surroundings, which was a bit different from that peaceful state that I usually enter into, when I'm sleeping (or, while I'm sleeping), when I can't quite gain full awareness of my entire surroundings or complete control of myself during those experiences. I said that this was my personal confirmation and distinguished it from the examples relied upon as support of NDE's as I so clearly stated.

“Abraham and Jacob had no Brain Activity and yet was aware and alive according to the Bible ?”

Yes, it's explained in the Bible; as soon as they died, they immediately had perception and conscious awareness of being somewhere else.

“Can we have Consciousness if our Brain and Body have no Activity and are Dead ?”

Well, I gave you examples of how the secular community took words from the Bible and then slowing adjusted the definitions over time in an effort to then distance itself from the Bible; 'inds' is no longer the adjusted meaning of species, as species went into an expanded definition, while soul is no longer the same as consciousness, because they then greatly narrowed the definition of what the Bible defined as a soul. But, clearly, a soul is aware of its surroundings and in far more vivid detail, based on descriptions of people who experienced NDE's.

“So it's not possible for a Church to believe that Consciousness and the Soul are different ? That's interesting.”

This mini topic of discussion was about the meaning of mainstream Christianity also being called the Church; already slipping off topic in place of just conceding a point.

“Again, Jesus was not just a Human. Jesus was supposedly an Eternal Being that lived in a Body momentarily. This means his Body dying was not actually him dying.”

No, this is not the case in this context; this is just an artificial distinction that you're trying to make up. If properly interpreted, it proves exactly what I'm saying. Jesus demonstrated that we are indeed body, soul, and spirit. And, by extension, every point that Jesus made about our having a soul and the afterlife consisting of Heaven and Hell, as the only two possible destination points for a soul.

“The problem is what do we have to show that when our Body dies especially the Brain that our Consciousness does not Die alone with it ?”

Jesus, along with a thorough research NDE's and how they've become persuasive to Christian scholars over time, have demonstrated that the soul is apart from the brain aspect of the body; again, as with the example of kinds versus species, where species has been expanded over time to broaden what the Bible meant by kinds, a consciousness has been invented to narrow what the Bible means by a soul; you have to help yourself out by simply conceding that point.

“No, the Eternal Manifestation of Jesus is not a Demonstration of a Soul as Jesus is supposedly GOD. Humans are not Eternal Manifestations our Soul / Consciousness has a Starting Point that comes from The Almighty supposedly. These descriptions of Lazarus and the Rich Man could just be Stories.”

The other aspect of Jesus apart from His body does indeed demonstrate what the Bible means by a soul. Again, it's that other aspect apart from the body, where Jesus demonstrates that other other aspect exists. What you're loosing in your attempt to oppose rather than listen is that whether there actually even was this distinction is what others try to use to deny this other aspect of Jesus and make their justification to avoid their own eternal salvation by becoming Christian.

Based on how Jesus described Lazarus and the Rich Man, it's unlikely that it was merely intended to be a story; previously, Jesus told of separating the sheep from the goats. As such, these are descriptions from the view of someone who had an inside look; that's the way that the context would direct a reasonable mind to believe that Jesus was telling them that they had a soul, where it was actually Jesus who had started regularly used the the term soul, and that this soul was going to be taken to one of two places immediately after death, in the eternal afterlife.

“But these are your own beliefs and assumptions. You are saying you believe that these examples of NDEs are close to no brain activity and a complete lack of awareness. That still would qualify as you body and brain being alive anyways though.”

Well, if someone saw some of the examples that I've seen, most reasonable people would conclude the same thing, based on the persuasive value of the examples being described, viewed, or studied. And, I also established that the beliefs and assumptions that I drew from were unlikely to be just explained away by someone having a brief moment of lose of consciousness, where they've also persuade a large group of scholars that include medical experts; it's this piece that you keep ignoring to keep from conceding a point and allowing the discussion to move forward. You couldn't draw a conclusion about what I might be talking about, one way or the other, if you didn't go look for the examples that I've seen, where I'd directed you where to look; but, what I did say that should have directed you by now was that they're within the scholarly Christian community and that you should expand your knowledge on the topic of NDE's by checking there.

“Just about every NDE article I have read speaks of someone who was Unconscious for a while who had visions or even out of body experiences. The issue is if the Body and Brain is still intact and able to give signals then how do we know if that person really did die and have no Brain Activity to have these visions or see these things ? I have seen other articles explaining what is happening when the NDE is supposedly going on and what is happening with the Brain. It's not really a one sided debate concerning the NDE and if these people are really having these experiences while their Brain is without activity or able to give such.”

So, if this were the case, why would this be persuasive to me and the scholarly Christian community, where I'd already made explicitly clear that these examples couldn't be ruled out in such a way? Basically, this tells me that you went to a source intended to support what you wanted to believe about the topic and seemingly confirmed what you wanted to believe heading into your investigation; or, basically, a source adamant that NDE's are not real or really happening. But, my objective search, while still somewhat biased in the other direction, lead me to explore whether there were any examples that could not be explained away so easily. And, I found those examples within the scholarly Christian community; while I was spearheaded into the search, biased to find it my way, it became separate and objective, because they happened to be real examples and couldn't be explained away as possibly being the result of this being even just a little bit of remaining brain activity; while some could arguably be attributed to just a little bit of remaining brain activity, by an extremely skeptical approach which was beyond that reasonable standard to persuade most people, there were at least a few examples where brain activity was absolutely, unlikely a factor (e.g. I'd just have to include that in order to know that I didn't just obtain information to confirm with my existing bias and to be as completely honest with myself about what it was that I was searching for, as possible); I did this extreme scrutiny precisely because of my science background and to avoid essentially just having gotten my hopes up; I had to be objective; now, for your own exploration and research, you should direct your exploration beyond trying to confirm what would prevent you from just conceding a point.

“Okay but you are making my point. If you yourself do not know that what you experienced and survived was a situation where you had no Brain Activity how do you expect me to believe that this was such if it's not verifiable that it was the case ?”

You should know that I wasn't making your point, at all, as on what I lead my example off as, which that it was a confirmation for what has the scholarly Christian community persuaded; and, then, I repeated that; and, now, it's repeated yet again; basically, this is another demonstration of your not just conceding a point lost long ago and allowing the discussion to advance, as it was pretty clear that that caveat accompanied my example. Basically, I took those other examples to then confirm what I was likely experiencing; basically, kinda like finding out an explanation for something that you'd experienced from someone else or by reading up on something to help you come to grips with something that you'd experienced, but where it's undefined to you until you can learn something external to yourself to explain what you just became aware of or experienced; basically, the learning process and expanding upon your own field of awareness.

“I am surprised you did not give the verses to support this ?”

Actually, I kinda did; I said it was towards the end of their lives and when they passed away; that should then be enough for an adult to know where to start their exploration.

“How do we know Consciousness and the Soul are not Different though ? What if the Soul is something else that is within us that differs from our Consciousness ? Why is that not a possibility ?”

You're just not listening, as I already explained this to you in so many ways. Again, take the example of what the Bible established as a kind or kinds; very much later the secular community comes along with this term, species, where initially it was clear that it was defined in the Bible as a kind; but, then, the secular community starts to redefine that term and says not so fast; so, basically, it's a made up term or construct designed to play with other adults as if they were children; same with the term, consciousness, except it went the opposite direction to narrow a term from the Bible, in this case, a soul; thus, as with the case of species, I default to kinds, where it doesn't really matter what the latest definition of a species is, as, I'm aware that I'm being toyed with; the problem would be though if I'd played along with said individual, demonstrating that you're not aware that you're being toyed with; so hence, don't try to toy with me here; you're the one who hasn't caught up just yet.

“Well again, are the NDE's describing what a Soul experiences ? I mean if you have Brain Activity and still Bodily intact who is to say your Brain is not giving off signals to have these Visions and Experiences ?”

Well, you've brought in something that I'd explicitly ruled out as examples of NDE's relied upon by the scholarly Christian community; hence, you're not talking about the NDE's as defined by myself and the scholarly Christianity community; you're basically talking about dreaming, in one very narrow sense, that was produced by unreasonably skeptics about the topic, as they remain dishonest with themselves about these topics.

“This was never a topic of discussion. You simply brought that into the discussion when I was talking about Consciousness. You said that the Church states that the Soul is Consciousness. I was never really contending with this instead trying to make sense of how our Consciousness and Awareness can live on outside of Brain Activity.”

Sure you were, as you asked which church, stating that there were many denominations in your own words, although such is not really the case. There are a number of denominations that can easily be narrowed down.

“Artificial Distinction ? If Jesus is an Eternal Spirit as the Bible describes then his Body dying would not mean the end of him as he could exist without his Body as he would have been able to since his existence does not start with the Body.”

There are three components: the body, the soul, and the spirit. This is where and how Jesus starts to demonstrate the existence of a soul; Jesus then popularized the concept of the soul through His teachings.

“If our Human Existence starts with the Body and our Consciousness and our Awareness goes away when this Body dies then what is left of us that GOD can take to Heaven or Hell that would have any type of Awareness of what we are ?”

Well, it wouldn't all go away with the demise of the body. I made clear in so many words, already, that consciousness and awareness are representations/manifestations of the soul; thus, your consciousness and awareness accompany the soul, as also proof of a soul.

“Again, Jesus was not a Human and was an Eternal Being before he became Human supposedly so his Human Death would not be the end of his awareness if he was simply an Eternal Being playing as a Human.”

Jesus was also human; understanding or accepting this is one of the foundations of becoming a Christian; but, Jesus was also God, as part of the Holy Trinity. Jesus having being human is then how he reconciled us with God, and also how He is our Intercessor with God, once we become Christian.

“NDE's are persuasive to some and not to others. Some say NDE's are products of Brain Activity with the Brain still giving off signals meaning the Body is not totally dead.”

Again, you can say nothing at all about my idea of NDE, really, until you've actually investigated what they are and what is persuasive within the scholarly Christian community. And, again, this is about an objective search for any possible evidence that might be available. With objective evidence, most people would be persuaded, while some will remain in a pretense. Thus, it begs the question: who are those some that you're sticking with for your pretense? The thing is you have to actually go and examine what has the scholarly Christian community persuaded. Once you do that, you'll then be better able to understand whether holding to a state of doubt is actually rational, from a view of most people, under the given circumstances.

“Just because you have confirmed bias on one side of the argument is not enough.”

But, this was actually something that I said my exploration was designed to avoid. Just read, comprehend, concede the point, and advance the discussion.

“Like I said, if Jesus is an Eternal Being then his Human Body dying would mean nothing to him as his Flesh was not really him as he was just playing a Human for a while.”

No, this could not have been the case, otherwise, why did Satan go after baby Jesus (e.g. another example similar to where the Egyptians slaughtered babies and toddlers, the Romans slaughtered babies and toddlers to get baby Jesus), why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert, and way did Satan target the bloodline leading to Jesus from way back to the Garden of Eden? Basically, what you're doing is questioning God's plan of salvation and His design towards that end; with God, all things are possible. Jesus, being human, lived a perfect life so that He could then reconcile people who decide to become Christian with God for their eternal salvation. The human aspect allowed Jesus to relate with us so that He's faithful and just to forgive and cleanse us Christians of all unrighteousness, once we confess our sins, 1 John 1:9, my favor Bible verse right now; but, we also don't have to rely on our on efforts, we have faith in Jesus, because we can't be perfect; so, once we're saved, Jesus has our back, where the Holy Spirit is there as our guide; so, this means that not praying sometimes will not automatically return us to a condemned state, as we're born again Christians.

“That is not directly the case for Humans as we are not Eternal Beings like Jesus nor do we know if we can have Consciousness and Awareness beyond our Brain Activity. Some claim that we can and some claim that once the Brain dies it's Over.”

Here, you seem to have forgotten the part from the very beginning of the Bible: we humans are alive because God breathe the breath of life within us; and, that is the eternal component of every human being and clarifies why Jesus popularized the concept of the soul as a warning to avoid Hell and come to Heaven; we also have the eternal components of the soul and the spirit, thanks to God's breathe of life within us. Again, consciousness and awareness are apart of the soul, where you shouldn't take some new word apart from its original, Biblical basis, as I illustrate in describing kinds versus species. Jesus' teachings tell us that consciousness and awareness are newly invented terms that was originally parts of what the Bible was clearly describing, when it mentions the soul.

“It's not my job to persuade you though. I posed a question and you came at me. Just because I see data on both sides and see problems with what the so called "Scholarly Christian Community" is showing that NDE are evidence of Humans having Consciousness and Awareness outside of their Brain Activity and Body does not mean I can not be Objective.”

No, this isn't the case from the description that you gave, following your look into an NDE; what you claimed to have found didn't allow you to easily separate an NDE from someone briefly loosing consciousness or sleeping; if that is what you found, you couldn't have gotten that from the scholarly Christian community or you were deceiving yourself and being disingenuous about what you had really uncovered. Again, consciousness and awareness are two invented terms that comprised what the Bible was referring to, when it talked about a soul; again, the Bible's description of kinds later resulting in the word called species so that the term could then be redefined as is necessary to make the unaware public think that it is somehow discrediting the Bible.

“If something seems fishy, it probably could be and since you have your own Bias against what the Secular Community presents it's hard to really take any of your data seriously as Objective either.”

As a scientist, I wouldn't have a bias against science, if that's what you're trying to imply, in so many words; but I do have a bias towards Christianity; however, I'm also professional enough not to allow this bias to interfere with the actual findings and results; this is how I can then truly claim objectivity. The problem is that you're not able to understand this from the other side, where they've confused you into thinking that their bias is somehow inseparable from actual objectivity.

“You really have not made any point here as some Data goes in favor of NDE's and some Data says NDE's can be explained as Brain Activity and the person still functioning in Body.”

But, this is simply not something that you can know, as you haven't explored what the scholarly Christian community says about NDE; the material that they use is clearly distinguishable from the possibility of brain activity being the actual explanation. It's only logical for such to be the case, where medical experts can also be apart of the scholarly Christian community and in agreement on this topic.

“You said, openly that you "Thought" the experience you had was an NDE where you met Jesus and went to Heaven. You Thought, but if you have no Data to show it was so then it's just your own Assumption.”

I actually said that this personal experience was a confirmation for what I discovered from my objective look into this topic. I also described distinct differences from where I was that day from what I experience on a typical night of sleeping.

“Your data about NDE's do not actually show that these people was literally without possible Brain Activity or totally Dead bodily. They maybe could have but it's not really that conclusive. It's really just assumption about an experience.”

I referred to the data that is in the possession of the scholarly Christian community, where you haven't objectively explored to know anything about; hence, where are you getting this from, where you haven't a clue as to what it is you're talking about?

“No you didn't. You never gave any scripture which is surprising even for you”

I gave you Abraham and Jacob, at the end of their lives; from there, you could then locate the Scriptures.

“How do you know what the Bible defines as a Soul is not different than what we know as Consciousness ?”

Again, by knowing that consciousness was a later invented concept that was clearly a reference to what the Bible was describing when it mentions a soul. This is similar to knowing that the table that includes species was pretty similar to what the Bible was describing when it mentions kinds.

“The examples of many NDE that I have read about could possibly be done while the Brain is producing activity and within the Body.”

Sure, except you're making a choice to limit yourself to those examples; there are much more persuasive examples available for one to examine, but they are within the scholarly Christian community; however, an objective search for something should naturally lead one to looking into whether there are more persuasive examples to be found before making a preliminary conclusion, which is basically what you're doing; you should then be open to someone persuading you with the more persuasive examples that you could not find on your own; the person would just need to show you that they're not effectively speaking nonsense.

“So again Why is it not possible that the NDE's that was experienced by yourself and others not possible Brain Activity done within the Body ? How do you know that this could not be so ?”

Because we looked for whether there might be any examples where this possibility can be ruled out and found some examples; this is how an objective exploration or research has to take place; you can draw conclusions but, at the same time, you're still looking for something that might show otherwise, no matter how sound a finding might seem at a given moment.

Do I personally engage or believe I should in religion? No. However, do I have faith, my own set of beliefs, and accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior? Yes.

@king_saturn:

“What is it that GOD can take out of someone that will maintain our Consciousness and Awareness if our Brain holds these things.”

This is all defined very easily for anyone who reads the Bible.

“Then You Brought Up The Concept That Consciousness Is Some New Secular Term Which The Church Does Not Agree With.”

At which point you raised misinformation about there being many denominations, which I then had to correct for the record.

“You tried to move the point away from how can our Consciousness survive outside the Brain and Body to say that Consciousness is not a Good Term to use.”

Looked at in proper context, I just made this a mini discussion within the discussion; I then very thoroughly focused on what you though were points about a consciousness in the later parts of the post: basically, the other mini discussion about defining a soul as it related to these newly invented caricatures known as consciousness and awareness, where it attempts to depart from the meaning of a soul, as portrayed in the secular community, where these new terms are clearly referring to a soul, comparing it to kinds and species.

“Well we assume that this is the Case.”

No, this isn't just an assumption; a person being a body, soul, and spirit is how we are defined in the Bible.

“We do not really know if we are made up of anything more than Body. Soul can simply be something inside the body that comes from the Brain as Consciousness does and Spirit can mean a whole lot of things.”

We certainly do, provided you take the teachings of Jesus with the required respect. From the Bible and Jesus, we can clearly gather that a person is more than just a body, where body is otherwise defined as the flesh in the New Testament and described throughout somewhat derisively. Equally, if not more, the New Testament then describes your state as a born again Christian, from which you can clearly gather that you are also a soul and spirit.

No, the soul is a Biblical concept that the scholar community later tries to redefine as a consciousness and an awareness, and is trying to say is instead the manifestation of the brain, but is running into problems trying to accomplish; in reality, the consciousness and awareness are not easily linked to just the brain, but the secular community wants to fit this hypothesis into a new theory, or, at least wanted to do such, but ran into problems; from this, science is again catching up with the Bible and confirming what is easily gathered from the Bible: that consciousness and awareness are actually two clear manifestations for the soul. The spirit is like an anchor to the body for the soul that was earlier defined as the breath of life provided by God, when He breathe into his dust creation to complete the formation of a man.

Here, you're trying to construct some new made up misinformation that has nothing to do with anything other than an attempt to avoid conceding a point. From the Bible, one can clear derive that a consciousness and the awareness are connected with the soul, at least with the help of a pastor, if they are less advanced in the church. What you're describing is how the secular community wanted things to go, just before the Bible gave then yet another roadblock for a theory that they wanted to create, in an effort to showing that science, in and of itself, is a better way of defining reality than the Bible, even though the publicity has confused the public into thing otherwise.

“But these are assumptions, every NDE we have has a situation where the Brain and Body is still available to be regenerated, so how do we know that the Consciousness does not go away when the Brain and Body is not available to be regenerated ?”

As I clearly demonstrated in my prior relies, this is just wrong; you're only repeating yourself, when you have another clear opportunity to concede another point; what you say is derived from your heading into an investigation in order to confirm what you wanted to believe on this subject/topic: NDE; you have to actually complete a thorough and complete investigation within the scholarly Christian community on this topic. A complete investigation from within the scholarly Christian community provides persuasive evidence which can allow one to separate a soul from brain activity. Again, a consciousness is a narrow way of looking at what the Bible is defining as a soul, and is a newly invented caricature that the secular community is using to describe as a soul, which is what people previously grouped this type of concept within. We can also gather that the soul goes away from the body to one of two locations, based on the teachings of Jesus.

“Basic Christian Doctrine does not fix this problem. Jesus having existed as an Eternal Being makes it impossible for him to really die, his Flesh could but whatever Jesus exists as before he was Human could not. Humans are not Eternal Beings like that.”

I gave you more information that allows you to then partly understand God's plan in relation to Jesus, where Jesus was made into a fleshly manifestation; this is Christian doctrine although probably not so basic Christian doctrine, as would be required for this discussion on souls, awareness, consciousness, and body. Jesus' body did die; Jesus' work was connected to this other, which is a soul and spirit, which, we, in tern, have in common with Jesus, as our other, which is our soul and spirit are also eternal manifestations; they were apparently provided to us by God, when He breathe the breath of life into Adam. Jesus is, however, also God, and this Eternal Being; however, again, this was resolved in God's plan of creation; while describing your perception under the guise of what you're terming as “basic Christian doctrine” doesn't fix the problem, as there are clearly noticeable built in flaws that your stubbornness to avoid conceding a point has included, God's plan of salvation obviously fixed this problem; basically, right off the bat, what we can discern is that it mostly involved the soul and spirit aspects of a human being, in large part; the Bible teaches that the body has to die in order for the work of Jesus to be fully accomplished, basically meaning, that you have to become a born again Christian.

“I already seen testimonies about NDE's before on several sites. Many are not really that persuasive and could be seen as someone simply having Brain Activity while in Unconscious State. Some can be rather interesting but if the person is able to be regenerated and awaken in their body it's hard to tell if they really had an Outer Body Experience and was Conscious with it.”

If I'm unable to tell that you have demonstrated an understanding of how the scholarly Christian community is convinced that an NDE can be separated from brain activity, at least in theory, then this is just all talk; a thorough search of the scholarly Christian community should allow you to understand how an NDE can be separated from brain activity. So far, what I can still tell is that you directed your research such that you could confirm your preexisting belief that the two would remain indistinguishable; however, this is not an objective search, it's just confirmation bias.

Hence, you have to be a lot more specific about what you saw and also demonstrate that you're aware of what has the scholarly Christian community convinced, while also being aware of the common points raised by skeptics. You can do this by pointing out some of the key aspects that we find convincing and describe for me how you can still come away believing that it's very much likely still connected to brain activity; from there, I can then response as to how rational your conclusions could remain under the circumstances.

Simply because the person was able to survive the experience doesn't, by extension, mean that the body was functional enough to have been functioning at the precise moment under examination; basically, it's describing something still beyond modern medicine as to how that person emerged away from being dead for a while; the key, here is that there was a moment at which the person was actually dead; plus, we can surmise from other knowns such as how much time is required for physiology to fully cease, which would include brain activity; this factor is taken into consideration before we as scientist would even get excited or intrigued; particularly, medical experts would examine something like this before supporting the idea or even a prospect of the idea.

“It's not really a one sided discussion as some Medical Experts think one way and others think the opposite. You may claim that you was avoiding bias but I think it's pretty clear to anyone who is one this thread that you bias heads in a certain direction. We all have some bias about things anyways.“

Again, this is all just talk; I cannot tell that you even know what has the scholarly Christian community persuaded. The circumstances from a more thorough and complete search on the topic would show that some medical experts can separate an NDE from brain activity, where some of them are within the scholarly Christian community; unlike what you're implying here, all medical experts aren't entirely convinced that an NDE can be connected to brain activity, as the scholarly Christian community can show otherwise; thus, you're simply lying; real reality isn't inline with what you claim here; this is just something that you want to claim instead of just conceding another point. People can tell who is who very quickly by simply following where my suggestions directs them to start their search; from there, they can tell somewhat quickly whether I'm mistaken or not.

“This entire paragraph side steps the point that Jesus exists as an Eternal Being beforehand and was playing a Human for a while. Everything you say here goes around the point I am making.”

No it doesn't, at all; Satan's motives in trying to stop Jesus from fulfilling God's plan, as told by the prophets attacks this head on in the best way possible, where God's plan was largely focused on the soul and spirit aspects of a person in order to cure something very destructive that was done to the body aspect of a person; since this means of destroying the bodily aspect is simply not understood, we have to understand it some by such things as what was probably involved in motivating Satan to take so many steps to prevent Jesus from coming into being as a person, in the first place, dying on the cross, and then rising from the dead. It was something about Jesus becoming a person and living a life facing all of the typical temptations that we face that is the explanation of how He was actually also a Person, as He had to be, apparently. But, something about all of this saved this other aspect of people: the soul and spirit, demonstrating their existence via Jesus.

“The Breath Of Life could simply very well just be that. GOD made us alive and our Consciousness being inside of the Brain. That does not mean that our Consciousness is Eternal though nor does it mean we really have a Soul as some other Body inside us that holds our Consciousness.”

The first thing here is that you're pretending that the consciousness is in fact apart of the brain, when the Bible teaches us that it's apart of the soul. Again, consciousness is an invented caricature by the secular community as a means of trying to extract something else from the Bible and then using it to give a public perception that science instead of Christianity has an explanation; again, the consciousness is not fully understood; the desire is to have the consciousness connected to the brain; however, the attempt is running into a number of problems; basically, science is again catching up with the Bible; in this case, science is closing in to actually demonstrating that consciousness is one manifestation of the soul which is independent of the body, as accorded to the Bible.

To your other point, the breath of life is very clearly the moment that God incorporate this other aspect into people: the soul and spirit, or, at least the spirit; the soul might also be a creation, but a creation that is eternal. As this wasn't also done to the animals, this time to make this notation was clearly meant to mean that something very special had just occurred, after God breathe the breath of life into a person.

“Another thing to think about as far as Soul goes is how does it feel pain ? A Soul is something essentially without physical composition so how can it be in torment or pain in Hell if it has no physical properties ?”

The fact that the Bible says that it is in torment in Hell tells you that it can feel pain. Thus, perhaps the better way to see it: is it because of the soul that we can feel, where sensations are included? When the soul is not right by being in the protection and comfort of Jesus, Holy Spirit, and Heaven, health can literally start to decline as a result.

“These cases concerning NDEs deal with people loosing Consciousness and claims about them actually being Dead on a Operating Table or sometimes in a Coma. The issue has still been if their Body and Brain is still intact how do you distinguish whether these people are having experiences generated from their own Brain Activity or they really having some Outer Body Experience ?”

Well, these are the cases that you encountered, which, honestly, doesn't say too much about your investigation into this topic; you'll need to be a lot more specific about what it is you're encountered; you're describing a limited search and examples that are probably the easiest to attack; but, there are other cases; plus, you have to describe what was said in support of these NDE's, when they were being discussed, not just the skeptic's point of view, while taking that as the somehow the definitive and only explanation from the two. Thus, it is likely the main contention as to whether the brain and body could have been considered intact in these instances; but, while I put one foot in here, you'd just have to be more specific about what you found and provide the source so that I can tell whether or not it even is something referred to by the scholarly Christian community for support.

“I have seen enough NDE testimonies to see that many of these experiences are not something that could be done minus brain activity.”

Well, you limited your search to much; sure, you could find a lot of examples within the same scope, but you are still limited in that you wont expand your scope; you do this by looking into what has the scholarly Christian community so persuaded. Plus, again, you have to be far more specific about what you've seen, starting by providing a source; the question then becomes, was it something relied upon by the scholarly Christian community? That's the main aspect of a credible search that you keep avoiding.

“You used words about what you thought or you believed. You was assuming that this experience you had was an Outer Body one.”

And I also compared it to what I found concerning NDE's and a prior experience; these were those words; thus, in a reverse sense, it was a confirmation.

“But that does not mean Consciousness does not exist apart from Soul just because the term was later invented. That's like saying because the Bible does not use the term Gravity or Germ that they can not be real things.”

Well, my point has always been that consciousness was one manifestation of the soul, where the secular community is trying to narrow rather than expand on a Biblical concept, this time around.

@king_saturn:

Here is what confuses me with you Dshipp, instead of you providing examples of a person who was dead to Brain Activity who was still aware and alive via NDE's you go off and say I do not know enough about the subject. Well if you know so much why is it difficult for you to show an example to prove your position ?

That's @dshipp17's slimy tactic. He'll say there's tons of evidence, and then tell you to go find it instead of providing it and say ''you have to do a complete exhaustive search into the Christian Scholarly community and discover that God is real''. There's no point in debating with him.

That's not the full context, though, as I my reply to this phrase laid out.

I've been reading this debate between you two. All you're doing is committing argumentum ad ignorantiam.

King Saturn: Provide a case of someone brain dead but still alive and aware via NDE

You: Your knowledge on the matter is limited. Look into the Christian Scholarly community and learn about what they have discovered about NDE's.

Well that's basically what is happening. We shall see how long "Patience" can hold up this time.

@hulkbusterx9:

When you pray and meditate, do you sometimes get a buzzing feeling through your body? Particularly in your hands?

Bible

God made a body

Put his Spirit in it

It became a living soul

It is the design of the body that determines the nature of the soul.

Take away the body and there is no soul, but there is The Spirit of God remaining.

And there is the resurrection to come.

Now the Talmud would say that God created the soul-body first. They would say that there is a definitive ghost-body. This may be reflected in the verse that says that Jesus gave up the ghost.

If there is a soul and the body dies then it becomes one with the larger Soul, be it Mother Nature or Son Christ. The body of either would become the consciousness of the dead one.

You will not be you until the resurrection

@king_saturn:

“That is Not Correct. The Bible itself does not speak of Consciousness and how it can exist outside of our Brain and Body. The Bible speaks of a Soul, but the Soul is not something that is well defined by The Bible nor Science.”

This is correct; you won't stop pretending around a point that you lost over several iterations; consciousness is a later caricature description of something from the Bible that is the soul; hence, why would the Bible speak of something that's a later invention? But, you can easily gather that a consciousness is a narrow caricature of what the Bible calls a soul. And, from there, the Bible has quite a few examples of the soul existing outside the body, which is kinda of a critical point. Now, you're behaving like a defeated child in place of acting professional, conceding a point, and allowing the discussion to move forward. From the Bible you can gather that the soul is really the person in question and the body is just a vessel of sorts holding that person. This is just the most logical extension to come away with, after reading and studying the Bible.

“What are you talking about ? There are many different denominations and these denominations do not all believe the same thing about everything. You slipping dude.”

Here, you're acting like you're too dense to realize when you're receiving a response to one of your comments; hence, there's no slipping, I just made several more points that a professional would concede and move forward with the conversation. There aren't many denominations; there is a clear small group of denominations, but such isn't really something that is critical to the mainstream church, as a whole. The new Testament actually encourages church groups to form all over the place; the key matter is that the churches are teaching a central message supported by the mainstream Church, which was the mini topic, and what it says about a soul.

“But there is no need for a mini discussion. My point was how is it that Consciousness can live on if it is inside the Brain ? The discussion on the Soul was something that was thrown in here but not needed.”

The discussion made clear for the reader that you're otherwise talking about a soul, when you said a consciousness; this is where the discussion started from; I then made clear overtime that consciousness is merely a caricature of some from the Bible similar to the way species is a caricature of kinds. Hence, it honestly doesn't mean much of anything what the technical definition of a consciousness might be, as it's a caricature and can and will be adjusted overtime, as it's a newly invented term that is clearly indicative of something from the Bible, which is a soul.

“If Consciousness is a real thing and it can or can not exist beyond our Brain and Body then what is it that GOD takes out of us that lives so we can still be Aware and Alive ? The Soul maybe an answer but there is not much known of how or what that actually is.”

Well, then what you're asking is meaningless nonsense derived from what you should understand as a caricature. You have to understand that about your question, first.

“The Bible is claiming something. We do not know if we are Body, Soul and Spirit. Maybe we are just Body or Body and Spirit. The point is that just because the Bible says we are these things does not mean we are if we can not justify a way of it being so. Like for instance what does it mean for us Humans to exist as Spirit ?”

The Bible is a reliable source, because everything from it that could still be verified has been true; thus, it is a source of evidence; the evaluation would necessarily fall more under evaluating historical evidence as opposed to scientific evidence; thus, your implication is then removing the question from being addressed within the more correct context. Thus, since there's no reason to dismiss the Bible offhand like you're suggesting, we should indeed accept that we are body, soul, and spirit, because the Bible says so. Stated another way, science is again catching up with the Bible as illustrated by more than a half dozen other examples.

“Can we verify in some way that we are made of Soul or Spirit ? How so and under whose data ?”

Yes, we can, because the Bible says so and there are no reasons to dismiss the Bible offhand as an unreliable source; it's actually been a reliable source; from there, you've been constantly directed over to the scholarly Christian community but have thus far been reluctant to go look for the evidence that you claim to be seeking.

“You would not even know what a Soul is unless you read a Religious Text now how do we verify that this Soul exists within Humans ?”

Well, we kinda of would, as the secular community is confused as to whether the consciousness is separate from the brain; this is an indicator that they are on the verge of a new discovery, usually; they're basically on the verge of discovering the soul. And, again, this is a case of avoiding the temptation to jumble contexts.

“Why is the Church unable to deal with Consciousness though ? I mean if the Bible is true, the Bible should speak of Consciousness in some state regardless of what the Secular Community has invented.”

Here, you're getting lost in your own confused maze that you generated in place of conceding points and just advancing the discussion forward; the church has been discussing souls from its very inception as such is central to the church; it was popularized by Jesus as something that is real and of primary concern.

“I looked through several sites dealing with NDE's Secular and Christian some will speak of OBE's and how the person was labeled as dead but it's hard to tell if the data is matching up with what they are claiming.”

Basically, just show me what you found and cite the source; but, at the same time, just take your exploration into the scholarly Christian community for a more objective examination of NDE's and OBE's. This is suggested because, again, they're persuaded there by an objective examination of the available evidence, as they're trying to persuade the public to believe in their findings.

@spareheadone: i told you already; I don't pray.

@king_saturn: Hi, UCLA student here where we actually lead in STEM research and neuroscience; the soul is a dead concept that makes no sense in the context of heaven and hell, or in light of empirical data. Split-brain patients (where communication between the right and left hemispheres is cut off) essentially turn into two different people. The "right brain person" believes in a god, the "left brain person" does not, and they are both equal in the strength of their beliefs. Since scripture says you only get to heaven through belief, what happens to this person? Did their soul split in two? If there's only one soul, what happens if they die while "left brain person" is in control?

When we scan theist brains and ask them what their beliefs in God are, do you know which part of the brain lights up? The part that identifies with the self—not the part that identifies with other people. This is why God always seems to agree with them: God always hates the same people they hate, loves in the same way they think he loves, and always agrees politically with them.

We know that tumors can alter your personality and removing it will change your behavior, but if we could reach into your brain and see every little control, every part of the brain is ubiquitous with tumors since we could snip this or medicate that to alter you as a person. We can even send electro-signals via helmet into someone's brain to make them see the same image (I think it was a tree) and all detailed descriptions of this image match what's on the researchers' screen.

Everything we know about personality, belief, and consciousness is contingent on the brain. Those are all emergent properties from the reactions between inanimate matter. If you take a brain injury, your personality can change drastically. If you die, you cease to be conscious as far as we can tell.

In the concept of choice, we know your brain makes decisions before you are consciously aware of it (up to 11 seconds). There's no room for the soul in a process like that. Brain leads the consciousness, not the other way around. If the soul is outside the brain, there is zero data to suggest that it leads either the brain or the consciousness. Also, since everything you do can be traced back to inanimate matter (everything is contingent on the brain), we know that free will is nonsensical. Free will in this context is, "If you could rewind time to a binary decision, could you make a different choice?" The answer is most likely, "No, because if every reaction and circumstance constituting your psychology which led to that choice is kept the same, there's no reason you would ever make a different decision." But if it was somehow the opposite case where the reactions in your head don't matter and there's a level of randomness in the universe, then by definition it's random and you're not in control.

We have set up test protocols for out-of-body experiences (stuff like putting a notecard on the top shelf to see if someone can float and read it) and they have failed every single time.

"The secular community" (whatever that means) is not confused about whether consciousness is outside the brain. The only people who try to fit in a soul are those who philosophize different meanings of free will and soul, but confusion on science's part is something dship pulled out of his ass or that he got from christianpropoganda.com.

@hulkbusterx9:

Oh...well I thought you may have started gathering evidence with the right side of your brain. There are two ways to gather evidence. Internal and external. Only a pathetic fool would dismiss one and only do the other and then claim they have the corner on Truth

And you have the corner on truth? Impossible. Your arguments have always been entirely circular.

@flashfyr:

When you pray and meditate, do you have spiritual experiences?

@spareheadone: Define 'spiritual.'

@king_saturn:

> Yes, I heard about the Split Brain experiment. Is it possible that perhaps the right hemisphere of the brain overtakes the left hemisphere ? Why is it that we have people whom hold very strong to religious beliefs and GOD if they have equal strength of non belief on the other side of the brain ?

We have no reason to think that would happen since communication between the two hemispheres is severed (thus how do you "overtake" something you have no access to?), but people tend to just rely more on one side of the brain than the other based on culture and socialization. But this preference only occurs when you have communication between the two; isolation is different. They can intersect at times, such as when you try rationalizing something emotional, but the function of each side remains the same either way.

> This is what I am thinking is so. It's why I wonder what could GOD take out of a Human that could still be Us and aware of who we are if that all comes from the Brain ? Even the concept of the Soul seems to possibly die with the Brain.

This is why the soul is a dead and nonsensical concept with empirical data considered. Hell, if we bonk you in the brain just the right way, you get amnesia. How could you tear out a soul and retain memories which are dependent on neuro pathways? How could God punish or reward your soul for things it can't even remember?

> Interesting Point about Free Will, I was more on the other side thinking that if GOD knows what you will do what is it that you can do outside of what GOD already knows ?

Nothing. Libertarian free will isn't a thing.

@jaggernutt: Why should anyone care about what Jesus supposedly said?

Hail All-Father Odin, wise warrior, one-eyed wanderer, come sit at my fire. Tell me your wisdom stories, the scenes your missing eye sees. You who chooses the slain, look on my deeds and when my time comes to run the sky with you, let my end be worthy of song. In the meantime, let me feel excitement and poetry and fury and joy, let me understand sacrifice, think long, remember well, and journey far. Odin, witness this.

How do you feel about Zeus, Baldur ? I have heard other Gods say Zeus is as Powerful as your Father. What say you ?

@jaggernutt:

I care

I do.

@spareheadone:

😊

@king_saturn: I have no qualms with Zeus, so long as he stays out of my family's affairs. He can be as powerful as he wishes, but there's always room to improve and weaknesses to exploit.

When you pray and meditate and seek God with all your heart there are varieties of gifts of The One Spirit. There are varieties of ministries of The One Lord. There are varieties of effects and the same God works all things in all people. To each one who prays, meditates and seeks God wholeheartedly is given the manifestation of The Spirit for the common good. To one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another Faith by the One Spirit, and to another gifts of emotional healing by the One Spirit, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But One and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each person individually just as He wills.

@king_saturn:

“ We do not know if the Soul is actually Consciousness and since Consciousness could be tied to Brain Activity if the Brain dies then Consciousness can as well. ”

This was already addressed, but you're repeating yourself without addressing the response directly. Again, the consciousness has not been definitely tied to brain activity; this is more a postulate that the secular community wanted to prove/demonstrate but the results didn't definitely bare it out for them, to their surprise; and, from looking into the description of a soul, objectively, you should be able to tell that it includes the consciousness (e.g. the Rich Man describing himself in a state of torment and asking Abraham to assist him in sending things that he thought could persuade his family from also coming to where he was currently residing, and asking Abraham to send Lazarus over to just him a drop of water, demonstrating that he was aware of his surroundings, also; from this, the Rich Man was consciously aware of his predicament and feeling pain and discomfort similar to the way a person who is still alive would feel discomfort; I'd hoping that you're actually only being disingenuous, when you repeat your question or point that you somehow can't understand that something like this demonstrates consciousness).

“The Soul is not well defined it's presented as a property in the Bible but there is no data to support it outside of that.”

Again, depending on what you're pretending to need to accept it as true, the soul is a state currently still beyond science's ability to actually detect, directly, but indirectly, it has been detected, as consciousness is one manifestation of the soul, where a postulate was made precisely to demonstrate it to be different from other properties that are clearly tied to brain activity; you just simply need to take it that last step and make that logical extension that should tell you that consciousness is likely a manifestation of the soul, based on the way Jesus was describing it in the Bible. Or, basically, the realize that what you're actually doing is trying to debate Jesus' status under the guise of something else; if you believe that Jesus is God, as the Son of God, as a member of the Godhead, Holy Trinity, then you should be able to accept His description of His creation, which I do; thus, I'm only really looking to see it verified more as a means of science making progress more so then proving or disproving what Jesus said; I see it more as getting a physics problem wrong, if I didn't validate something that Jesus said and trying again to eventually solve the problem correctly, where the position that you're describing is actually trying to say that you got the problem solved correctly, but God got the problem wrong, even though He's describing what He created; do you not see how flawed your position could be from that angle? This is so, because we're trying to discover something that is beyond science; it's not like finding somewhere where a Bible verse has defied a verified scientific property (e.g. kinda of like saying that we should breathe methane, where it has verified scientific properties that tells us that it would be fatal); however, this is often the guise that you get by the way many in the scientific community act in talking their approach as professing atheists: that the Bible is definitely defying actual, verified science, which it actually isn't; it's only defying postulates that they're setting out to prove but having little to no success trying to disprove what the Bible has said about something; again, this is just an objective observation of someone emotionally detached from this passion of trying to disprove something that the Bible has said through scientific testing, yet, I can still empathize with this passion as also a fellow scientists; this is so, because several things from the Bible has been verified to be true through scientific testing; it's just a matter of being honest with oneself about what is being found; but, at the same time, seeing the Bible verified brings me delight rather than disappointment; this is where the separation really comes into place; and, unfortunately, where I have to part ways, emotionally, from by fellow scientists, as I'm not actually disappointed seeing the Bible verified; there are plenty of other scientists, too, who see it this way, so, not to give the other misconception that I'm singular and alone, or, virtually so, as it's not true.

“You have not made any good points here. You just assume things. There are many denominations. Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Methodist, Anglican, Adventist are just some that I can think of off top of my head.”

Actually, you're making a derivative of my first response to this many denomination claim and using my response as if I never made the response;these are several different denominations but hardly any thing close to what I'd call many denominations (e.g. from your list, the denominations are Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and Methodist, as what is usually invoked when me think of denominations; the others are more of a broader notion of Christianity); but, again, they all teach the same central Biblical message that is Jesus is the Son of God and a member of the Holy Trinity; but, where something departs from that central theme, they wouldn't be considered apart of the mainstream Church community. Also, you don't have many more to think of, these are mostly all of the mainstream Church denominations; the misinformation spun from a claim of man denominations is what you're trying to support, but which isn't true; a denominations isn't something as significant as a different sect, which would be the case in something like Islam.

“No, I was not talking about a Soul. I was talking about Consciousness and how can it exist outside of the Brain if the Brain and Body dies. The Soul is a Religious Concept and since we have little data outside of the Religious Text to support the concept of it there is no reason to get into a mini discussion or side discussion about it.”

See posts 29537, 29538, and 29541; you asked an if then question, I then came in to respond, as there was something wrong with the if then (e.g. if the sky is usually green then; so, I came in to correct it). The soul was something described in Christianity, and verified by Jesus further describing, as God, not merely a concept from religion; if God created everything, then, He'd come in to describe His creation. The actual current state of affairs is that information is starting to come out about something from the Bible, which would be the soul. And, this is your perspective and your take on data from an obvious state of argument, where you want to avoid conceding a point; I'm providing objective data, or, a description of it that most people could accept; anything beyond that is pretty obviously due to the limitations of science, where there is overlap; it also overlaps into the region of historical evidence.

“Consciousness is not a just a Caricature it's a real thing that people actually study about.”

Within the context of this discussion, a consciousness is one manifestation of the soul; whether or not people are actually studying was not actually in contention, it was obviously something that we were in agreement with, within the context of this discussion; within the context of this discussion, it was a consciousness with respect to what the Bible terms as a soul, where consciousness was defined later; but, this was known from the discussion, you're just again creating a means to avoid conceding a point by basically repeating yourself again.

“Saying that it's nonsense to wonder whether or not Consciousness can exist outside of the Brain and Body and what is it that GOD pulls from the Body that is still us and aware if Consciousness if gone seems a bit dense on your end.”

That's because whether or not consciousness is being studied was not in contention in the context of this discussion. The thing here is that you've lost focus from what you'd originally said: if the consciousness is the result of brain activity, then...; clearly, you must know that your presenting this if then statement didn't actually somehow turn this statement into an actual verified fact; the current state of affairs is actually that the secular community started to run into difficulties by trying to validate a postulate that consciousness was the result of brain activity. And, God clearly already did connect consciousness to the soul, where He described the situation of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

“No, this is assuming way too much because if you can not study or verify if we are actually Body, Soul and Spirit as you say then it's just assuming that the Bible is right about it.”

Well, this is a bit disingenuous or a demonstration of confusion; currently, definitively verifying whether a person is body, soul, and spirit is still a bit beyond the reach of an ability for us to discover, outside of what God has told us about ourselves from the Bible, where He created us; it is not assuming too much at all to believe what someone has said about a device that He's created, in the truest sense of the affair; it's actually most logical (e.g. would you find it sensible to debate someone on how this person created a time machine when a time machine is beyond what you could accomplish? That essentially what you're doing by invoking a question with one foot in reality and one not in reality). The real question: do you not trust God? That's basically a different matter entirely.

“We do not know if Man is Body, Soul and Spirit, you are just assuming it with no real data.”

This is being disingenuous or displaying confusion; we also do not know that a man isn't body, soul, and spirit, at least definitely speaking, as it's still beyond our ability to detect on our own (e.g. but, we are certainly on a verge, as we recognize things such as near death experiences and out of body experiences, where these things are more likely then not connected to brain activity, based on the material that can be found within the scholarly Christian community, should someone want to go and learn from it, while in a genuine determination to find the material); but, we can certainly relying on the Person who created us to tell us that we are body, soul, and spirit; we can trust God, because He teaches use to avoid or hate dishonestly.

“The Church has been discussing Souls but not Consciousness.”

They certainly have been, in so many ways, as consciousness is clearly one manifestation of a soul, where one thing the church uses is Lazarus and the Rich Man, where the Rich Man describes himself as being in a state of torment; in order to notice such, you'd have to be conscious of your whereabouts; but, it's the scholarly Christian community that does directly tackle this newly created word: consciousness, based on its description; from that, we can logically devise that it is describing a soul, at least partly; this, of course, is in true reality that consciousness has been definitely tide to brain activity, not within your if then statement, where you seem to be confused between it and true reality based on the way you're retorting with me.

“The Bible discusses Souls even before Jesus though.”

While this is true, sure, it was kind of an obscure concept and topic until after Jesus discussed it clearly and emphatically; I didn't really mean to imply that Jesus invented the term, soul, even though I said that He popularized it, as in making the term, popular, but, maybe not the most appropriate of saying it; sure, dancing existed before Michael Jackson.

@dshipp17:

> This was already addressed, but you're repeating yourself without addressing the response directly. Again, the consciousness has not been definitely tied to brain activity; this is more a postulate that the secular community wanted to prove/demonstrate but the results didn't definitely bare it out for them, to their surprise; and, from looking into the description of a soul, objectively, you should be able to tell that it includes the consciousness

a) You don't know what a postulate is.

b) Faking research in neuroscience to help your point is a very, very bad idea.

> I see it more as getting a physics problem wrong, if I didn't validate something that Jesus said

This isn't science. Learn what induction, Karl Popper's falsifiability, tabula rasa epistemology, and what the role of postpositivism in identifying biases are.

You're the equivalent of a flat earther trying to call themselves a physicist.

> Again, the consciousness has not been definitely tied to brain activity

> of course, is in true reality that consciousness has been definitely tide to brain activity

You're not even coherent.

It's alright

@flashfyr:

“a) You don't know what a postulate is.”

Sure, my description of the history behind trying to connect the consciousness to brain activity equates to: A postulate is an assumption, that is, a proposition or statement, that is assumed to be true without any proof. Postulates are the fundamental propositions used to prove other statements known as theorems,

where the consciousness has not been definitely tied to brain activity.

“b) Faking research in neuroscience to help your point is a very, very bad idea.”

Bring in an example from the scholarly Christian community and show how the research has been faked.

“This isn't science.”

Learning from mistakes is indeed science. This is how you would revise an experiment, for example; or, would be a basis for repeating an experiment or test.

@dshipp17:

It's not a postulate anymore if you're trying to prove it. Good attempt to google what a postulate means but it doesn't fix the self-contradictory logic of your statement. You don't prove/demonstrate postulates, you would have to operationalize that axiom into a hypothesis for testing purposes. Google words before you use them, not after.

> Bring in an example from the scholarly Christian community and show how the research has been faked.

I didn't say anything about Christians; I'm calling bullshit on your claim that science is getting results inconsistent with consciousness being tied to the brain. But again:

> Again, the consciousness has not been definitely tied to brain activity

> of course, is in true reality that consciousness has been definitely tide to brain activity

You're not even coherent.

> Learning from mistakes is indeed science. This is how you would revise an experiment, for example; or, would be a basis for repeating an experiment or test.

Nice dodge. Read what I actually said. "Learn what induction, Karl Popper's falsifiability, tabula rasa epistemology, and what the role of postpositivism in identifying biases are." Let me show you why you're not doing science in one question I already know you're gonna dodge and flounder and feel a need to redefine science so you can escape falsifiability: What research results would it take to convince you that the Bible is scientifically wrong about the soul?

@flashfyr:

“It's not a postulate anymore if you're trying to prove it. Good attempt to google what a postulate means but it doesn't fix the self-contradictory logic of your statement. You don't prove/demonstrate postulates, you would have to operationalize that axiom into a hypothesis for testing purposes. Google words before you use them, not after.”

Of course I had to Google something to get a definition, as I don't have the definition on my computer that's readily available; but, it matches something that I'd previously written, when you interjected yourself. It's more about the gist of things, based on the context of our conversation; the conversation didn't involved defining a difference between an axiom and a postulate, but the conversation was about it not being what would be considered a scientific fact borne from the actual results from experiments that had been documented to have taken place.

“I didn't say anything about Christians; I'm calling bullshit on your claim that secular science is getting results inconsistent with consciousness being tied to the brain. But again:”

The context of our conversation included data that can be gathered from the scholarly Christian community on the topic of near death experiences and it's relation to souls versus consciousness and awareness; I then implied that he should direct a search there to then come away with a more objective perception on the topic; I didn't fake anything, at all, especially given that I didn't actually present anything from the scholarly Christian community; I only implied a recollection, as my objective was to differentiate and discuss what he knew/knows on the subject as opposed to starting a debate based on what I knew and could find on the subject, where he was making a broad attack about there being no evidence available; hence, why we should probe his knowledge on the subject more than mines. And, I just posted a video showing that consciousness hasn't been definitely tide to brain activity; it's only an objective observation.

“Nice dodge. Read what I actually said. "Learn what induction, Karl Popper's falsifiability, tabula rasa epistemology, and what the role of postpositivism in identifying biases are."”

Clearly, you're taking one perspective on how science can be conducted; I presented a more practical example of how science can be and is conducted. Science occurs in both the classroom or boardroom and within the lab. What you seem to be insinuating is that I have no background in science, simply because I take a different perspective than you.

“Let me show you why you're not doing science in one question I already know you're gonna dodge and flounder and feel a need to redefine science so you can escape falsifiability: What research results would it take to convince you that the Bible is scientifically wrong about the soul?”

As I explained to someone else on this website: something that would start to break it down would be to show that things we call miracles is actually somehow tide to something that an individual is doing on their own, or soimeone else, on their behalf, obviously, but largely unwittingly or only part wittingly (e.g. and going way back to Jesus, that somehow Jesus had a much better grasp and understanding of this to do something like bringing Himself back to life, bringing someone else back to life, and were it could then be demonstrated that He was fraudulently claiming a God, but knowing full well that what He was doing He was actually only doing Himself and deceiving those around Him).

But, I already have my own personal experiences, also (e.g. and, being honest, I did just view a YouTube clip that showed a scientist trying to both claim that consciousness was connected with the brain dying as a process versus just shutting down at the moment of death, but also having to admit that the person was aware of their surroundings; the key, though, is the specifics of their awareness of their surroundings, and this is how I consider him being just a bit disingenuous; being aware of your surroundings could simply be hearing someone say something; but, we have evidence of people being able to actually both describe what they heard about their surroundings and describing their surroundings, which included viewing their own body; objectively speaking, I'd find it extremely intriguing as to how the brain is able to do something like this and there being some type of untapped potential in what we could do with our brains, provided this was just a currently not understood way that a dying brain exhibits its final brain activity; but, I clearly find it far more plausible to believe that this is a soul departing from the body, based on the totality of other evidence that we have available supporting the Bible; I see it more as God describing for us how He created us).

@dshipp17:

> Of course I had to Google something to get a definition, as I don't have the definition on my computer that's readily available; but, it matches something that I'd previously written, when you interjected yourself. It's more about the gist of things, based on the context of our conversation; the conversation didn't involved defining a difference between an axiom and a postulate, but the conversation was about it not being what would be considered a scientific fact borne from the actual results from experiments that had been documented to have taken place.

A postulate is not a gist of something being proven/demonstrated. There is no difference between a postulate and an axiom and I never brought up a need to distinguish the two. Keep bullshitting. You're already in a ten-foot hole and I'm wondering how much farther you can dig. Google words before you use them, not after.

> The context of our conversation included data that can be gathered from the scholarly Christian community on the topic of near death experiences and it's relation to souls versus consciousness and awareness; I then implied that he should direct a search there to then come away with a more objective perception on the topic; I didn't fake anything, at all, especially given that I didn't actually present anything from the scholarly Christian community; I only implied a recollection, as my objective was to differentiate and discuss what he knew/knows on the subject as opposed to starting a debate based on what I knew and could find on the subject, where he was making a broad attack about there being no evidence available; hence, why we should probe his knowledge on the subject more than mines. And, I just posted a video showing that consciousness hasn't been definitely tide to brain activity; it's only an objective observation.

Read what I said and tell me how anything here is even remotely an answer. When I say "I didn't say anything about Christians" and the first words you type are "data that can be gathered from the scholarly Christian community," you're already off-topic.

> Again, the consciousness has not been definitely tied to brain activity; this is more a postulate that the secular community wanted to prove/demonstrate but the results didn't definitely bare it out for them

That is what you are faking. "I'm calling bullshit on your claim that science is getting results inconsistent with consciousness being tied to the brain." By the way, your video cites nothing. Let me give you shit that's been said by actual quantum physicists on consciousness and soul:

Physicist Sean M. Carroll has written that the idea of a soul is incompatible with quantum field theory (QFT). He writes that for a soul to exist: "Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of 'spirit particles' and 'spirit forces' that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments."^[129]

Some theorists have invoked quantum indeterminism as an explanatory mechanism for possible soul/brain interaction, but neuroscientist Peter Clarke found errors with this viewpoint, noting there is no evidence that such processes play a role in brain function; Clarke concluded that a Cartesian soul has no basis from quantum physics.

All we have seen are regular particles interacting in ways that can be predicted. We have not seen any external forces acting on those particles.

> Clearly, you're taking one perspective on how science can be conducted; I presented a more practical example of how science can be and is conducted. Science occurs in both the classroom or boardroom and within the lab. What you seem to be insinuating is that I have no background in science, simply because I take a different perspective than you.

> As I explained to someone else on this website: something that would start to break it down would be to show that things we call miracles is actually somehow tide to something that an individual is doing on their own, or soimeone else, on their behalf, obviously, but largely unwittingly or only part wittingly (e.g. and going way back to Jesus, that somehow Jesus had a much better grasp and understanding of this to do something like bringing Himself back to life, bringing someone else back to life, and were it could then be demonstrated that He was fraudulently claiming a God, but knowing full well that what He was doing He was actually only doing Himself and deceiving those around Him).

If the only research that would dispute your soul claim is to impossibly test past events and demonstrate what was inside a dead man's head that we no longer have access to, then this is something we can't do and your proposition is -unfalsifiable- and we shan't take your soul claim as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis, by definition, must be testable and falsifiable with the tools we have. You're not doing science.

Yes, I am insinuating that you're no scientist because the best you've ever come up with are YouTube videos of <cherry-picked jackass> and you had to google what a postulate is after using it. Then you had to downgrade your argument to "the gist of blah blah blah insert whatever moronic placeholder I'm going to call context" because I called you out on your bullshit. Not once have you ever cited a single paper from the scientific literature. You're about as much a scientist as I am an expert gamer because I watch COD tournaments on YouTube.

Religion is the mind-killer.

Where religion has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain.

About Dr Eben Alexander:

In a 2013 investigation of Alexander's story and medical background, Esquire magazine reported that before the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error. He settled five malpractice suits in Virginia within a period of ten years.

The guy is full of shit.

Cool Beans. How have you Asgardian Folks been doing since that ordeal with The Big Purple Titan who was running around attacking Realms looking for some Colorful Rocks ?

@king_saturn: Well, those of us that have survived are at home in Norway and somewhere over Oklahoma. When that whole Titan fiasco happened, I wasn't actually aware of it, and was off-world, soaring the endless black with my friends. Other than that, I'm pretty upset to hear that my father and mother both passed away.

@cyborgzod: I wouldn't be surprised if they were all the answer.