LOL The cave is essentially a maze about two kilometers in length and primarily etched out of limestone by the sulfuric acid in the water.
And our glorious God made it just for fish. LOL
.
So my question is why would you hold a belief without evidence? Also do you see that the bias in that belief is the very definition of a closed mind?
No, my atheism is the lack of belief in your position, it is not in and of itself a position, and since the alternative to not holding a belief is to hold a belief, I find myself again asking why anyone would base a belief on not knowing something? Though of course my atheism may involve me making claims, and taking a position, where the god claims presented can be falsified either objectively or rationally. Also why do you assume there is an overarching reason for human existence? Is it just another piece of unevidenced wishful thinking? Only I would need it to be demonstrated first before I believe the claim, this seems to be the fundamental difference between my rationale and that of the theists I encounter.
So my next question is do you know what an argument from personal incredulity fallacy is? Also do you understand that this means that argument is irrational?
Who says it had no cause? Also why would you assume the cause to be supernatural when we have no objective evidence such causes are possible, but overwhelming objective evidence that natural causes are? This part of your argument seems to be based on a false dichotomy fallacy, this irrational arguments you’re presenting are present in every argument I have ever seen presented for a deity as well.
Do you always believe claims you don’t know are true? I’m curious what your criteria for disbelief is in that case? This just seems like closed minded bias.
It seems a popular tactic among religious apologists to be vague on this point, but this is only so they can prevent a generic god claim as unfalsifiable, but again why would you believe a claim when you can’t know if it is true, and have no objective evidence to support it?
Belief, obviously?
Indeed, and so far it is littered with logical fallacies and biased wishful thinking.
You have used at least three known common logical fallacies that I have seen, one of them forms the core of your argument for a creator, so you are in fact presenting demonstrably irrational arguments, demonstrating you don’t have even a basic grasp of logic, as you have failed to see that the arguments you are presenting are weak and poorly reasoned. If you learned to recognise the difference you’d not make such obviously erroneous claims as to be “doing basic logic”, which to those who recognise the difference just seems hilarious, no offence intended.
3 Likes
It seems you are assuming independence with (presumably) zero justification. Worse: there is reason to reject independence.
- There is no objective way to calculate the ratio between any two fundamental forces (in the current physics regime).
- Another problem is that the coupling constants, are not constant; physics is full of misnomers, sorry! As I linked above, they based on the energy present. So you have to pick an arbitrary energy level.
- However, even after picking the arbitrary energy level (to get the answer you want) you then have to pick arbitrary pairs of particles so again you create the answer you want.
- A popular choice (like the famous graph above) for which particles to compare to get a ratio (this is part of the problem. If you choose different particles, you get different answers for this ratio. With popular setup you’ll find your answer is off by 30% which normally wouldn’t be worth mentioning; but you did say if it wasn’t precisely 1% then life couldn’t exist; well it is off by 30% and life still exists. Choose a different set of arbitrary options and you can get just about any result you want.
No one knows; for starters because of what I mentioned earlier; no one knows the relationship between the (currently known) forces (you assumed independence); without that information, no one can calculate that probability. It might be less than 0.001% or greater than 99.99%; no one knows.
5 Likes
I am prepared to go out on a limb and suggest that the odds against this happening are unlikely to be lowered by adding an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition using inexplicable magic.
3 Likes
You’re putting the cart before the horse. The universe has been around for 13.8 billion years. Life only presented itself 4.5 billion years ago . Life occurs when conditions are favorable for life. In the pools of radioactive waters of nuclear reactors, certain life forms thrive. Other life forms prefer the deep sea vents, by volcanoes, at the bottom of the sea. Life forms live inside your body and on your skin because those are the perfect environments for them. Life has been found in boiling water. Life has been found in frozen ice. Spinoloricus survives without oxygen a mile underground. Even the open and harsh vacuum found in orbit around the Earth, with all its deadly radiation, is not deadly enough for tiny eight-legged creatures known as water bears. (Creature Survives Naked in Space | Space).
The universe was not created for life. Life is what happens when it finds an environment in which it can thrive.
1 Like
This is complete crap.
First of all, my being an atheist DOES NOT in any way prevent me from looking at relevant disciplines and examining the evidence they have to offer. The physical sciences being an important set of disciplines that have plenty of answers on offer, backed by relevant bodies of evidence for the postulates in question.
My being an atheist does NOT prevent me from seeking proper, rigorous answers to any questions. It merely means that I’m suspicious of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions, and with good reason.
…because god wills it though right?
1 Like
Yeah! The idiot sat around for 9 billion years thinking, “Duhhhh… What the fuck should I do? What the fuck should I do now?” Then he invented microbial life forms and was amazed at how fast they turned into slimes and molds. “Duhhh! Look what I done now. Looky. looky, looky!”
Nevertheless, after poking slimes and molds with sticks for another 4.99 billion years he decided to get more creative, and two million years ago created something resembling a human. Well, he continues poking these new creations with sticks and inventing new ways to torture and kill them. Volcanoes, floods, disease, starvation, and he even invents war and has them kill each other. Then, after all of that, 2000 years ago, he kills his only begotten son, something that was very fashionable at the time, which was him in disguise, to himself, to forgive mankind for all the horrible things God made it do. Yes, because he willed it. “The stupid fuck willed it!”
3 Likes
You. The fact that you exist on the other side of this screen and can read and understand and cognize my words demonstrates that you exist. If there is a “you” then there is a foundation for that “you”. The only foundation for “you” is a transcendent being. “You” are not a physical reality. You are a transcendental reality. As such, “you” exists beyond matter. And don’t give me that “I’m a representation of brain activity and such and such”. You know that’s not how you perceive your self. You perceive yourself as a unity. A single conscious observer inside your body. You are consciousness. You are a single, unified, intelligence. You are not an amalgam of brain activity. You are a being such that when this body dies you do not also die. Your very existence cannot be erased. Your consciousness is the most fundamental and indestructible part of existence. You are the being within the void. You are the intelligence of the emptiness. You are the conscious observer. You are a dimensionless pin point in the vast, incalculable infinity of space time. You cannot be destroyed. But you can be reborn. And that is why you’re here now. It’s because you’re naughty. You do naughty things. And that is why you can’t escape into Nirvana; you’re true nature; emptiness; voidness; that is which cannot be pointed at.
1 Like
Don’t be so goddamn literal. With your X=Y dictionary equivalencies.
Does one suddenly become brain dead or does it take a while?
We don’t have objective evidence. Well … we do have all of the evidence that a person who is well on their way to total and complete brain death experiences things which line up exactly with what we would expect the afterlife to be.
Why do their accounts describe an afterlife? Why don’t they come back with accounts of … oh I don’t know … the same kind of things that other oxygen deprived people come back with?
It’s because the experience accurately reflects what is going on during the death process. These people are actually going to die (without life resuscitation) AND (surprise surprise) they recount stories (descriptions) of approaching an afterlife.
Wow. What a coincidence! 
The brain doesn’t produce a “dream”. It produces the most vivid and profound experience the person has ever had and they’re never the same after. I would laugh (though God Forbid my dear Shelly) if you could only imagine half of what these people experience. We’d make a theist out of you yet.
It makes perfect sense. These people are well on their way to complete and utter brain death AND (surprise surprise) the last thing they ever experience with relation to the few, wasting moments of cell activity in their brains is a PROFOUND out of body, heavenly portal, meeting of souls in what appears to be an afterlife.
AND THEN? The body dies. And they (and I will concede this) … they will never experience another thing in that body. As for the PROFOUND OBE, heavenly portal, and meeting of souls - I’m POSITIVE it goes on and onwards.
And I’ve already demonstrated the existence of the soul, so there’s no need to do that over again.
It does not demonstrate a soul exists, you haven’t accurately defined it yet either.
Tautological gibberish.
Three bare subjective claims, no objective evidence for any of them, or a soul.
Unlikely since all the objective evidence demonstrates consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brian, it emerges after we are born, and disappears when we die, it is impaired when the brain is damaged. Yet all you have is a bare subjective claim.
Three more unevidenced subjective claims, still no objective evidence for a soul.
…and two more unevidenced subjective claims.
Circular reasoning fallacy. Naughty is a subjective notion by the way.
Hardly a surprise since we only have objective evidence for the natural, and none that the supernatural is even possible.
I was asking you for clarification as your statement about an “inactive brain” literally defines brain and legal deathm which obviously contradicts your claim people have recovered from it. So you’re now claiming it doesn’t mean what it says , care to tell where your goal posts are landing now?
This has zero relevance to your erroneous claim that people with “inactive brains” have come back to life. They have not and they don’t, you were wrong. NDE’s do not involve dead people, it is not a glimpse of an afterlife, but a brain that is very much alive and in oxygen debt, you’re moving the goal posts so fast and so far from your arguments you might as well shout abandon ship.
Anecdotal claims from people whose brains are being starved of oxygen, that they’ve experienced dreams that people choose to subjectively believe matches their expectations of an unevidenced afterlife, it’s simply hilarious that anyone would even try and pretend this is represents objective evidence, have you learned nothing from your time here?
Please demonstrate some objective evidence for an afterlife, and that their dreams match it, dear oh dear, why do theists imagine they can people up bare subjective claims with more bare subjective claims, as if they can add unevidenced claims together and they’ll add up to objective evidence.
Are you going for some sort of record for repeating a bare subjective claim?
- Everyone is approaching death, if they’re alive they cannot do otherwise.
- Anecdotal claims are not objective evidence.
- Subjective interpretations of dreams from anecdotal claims even less so.
Dreaming or imagining something while alive, especially by a brain that is being starved of oxygen, is not objective evidence of an afterlife, why would it be.
I don’t base belief in imagination, this is where you are going wrong.
I treat god claims like all other claims, and base belief on the support of sufficient objective evidence, you are making the largest of possible claims, and offering no objective evidence whatsoever, so the only thing you will make of me is dubious.
Not if one cares about the truth in any objective way, it only “makes sense” to a closed mind that is determined to cling to a belief they like despite there being no objective evidence to support it.
Dreams can be very vivid, and a dying brain in oxygen debt does some pretty weird shit, repeating your unevidenced subjective claim is not going to make it any less credible.
So despite you repeatedly claiming that people with “inactive brains” have been resuscitated, you know admit that no one has ever recovered from the complete cessation of brain activity.
You can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy, but your closed mind on this is not objective evidence, nor have you produced any.
Yu have done no such thing, only endlessly made subjective unevidenced claims. You can’t even accurately define it in any meaningful way.
1 Like
No? Why not?
Even you would argue that the brain is the foundation of the ego. You’d be wrong. But nonetheless. That’s what you would say.
“All the evidence”? Hardly. We can get into the hard problem of consciousness another time.
It’s logic. I’d rather have this conversation with Cog to be honest. But if you’d like to know, then that’s fine.
Are the body and mind conditioned or unconditioned?
Naughty is a range of behaviors bordering on stealing candy to fucking your boss’ daughter. Those are strict and well defined boundaries.
I’ll ask you again: is the body conditioned or unconditioned?
Is the mind conditioned or unconditioned?
They’re landing in the area where people can appeal to reason.
The goal posts are “somewway to brain dead” but “not quite
Do you assume there is no progression towards brain death? No path of death along which one travels towards the irreversible end?
I specifically said “we don’t have objective evidence”. We have “compelling evidence which fits in with predictions of what an after life would provide in terms of near death experiences IF there really was one.”
I’ll stop here for time.
Wrong banana breath. I am a member of the Vidyârâjas and beyond your perceptions of comprehension of existence. The computer works itself because it wants to work itself for me just like you want to respond to me because you want to respond to me.
There is no you, there is no foundation. There is no physical. There is nothing transcendental, what stupid idea. To assert ‘transcendental,’ one would need to be so far removed from the present as to be a complete fool. There is nothing conscious and no observer, and nothing observing the observer observing the observer doing the observing, and on and on and on. LOL… How silly is that never ending string of bullshit. There is no existence, and nothing to be erased. There was never a void. There is just one stupid assertion after another and then another and another and another and on and on and on you go. An endless spiral of empty bullshit pretending you are actually saying something. You would not recognize a person in Nirvana if you were locked in an elevator with them for a year. Your mind is so full of shit, you can not see beyond your own nose.
1 Like
No, because the fact we exist doesn’t on it’s own objectively evidence the existence of a soul, why would it?
Straw man fallacy.
All the objective evidence demonstrated here, by me. You’ve offered none your woo woo claims.
No it isn’t, stringing subjective unevidenced claims together isn’t logic, it’s weak argument, the kind we see theists offer all the time.
This is a public debate forum, you may post as you are minded to, as may anyone else.
You didn’t address your fallacy, and that range of behaviours is both subjective relative, obviously, as are all moral claims. With or without a deity as well.
Again, that’s the first time you’ve asked in this discourse, and I have no idea what possible relevance it has to my assertion you quoted?
Nope, you claimed people with inactive brains had recovered and come back to share anecdotal stories about what they’d experience, the clinical and legal definition of death is the cessation of all brain activity, both @Cognostic and I offered multiple citations (one for the NHS) that no one recovers from "brain death. I asked repeatedly for you therefore to clarify what you meant by an “inactive brain”, but months later all you can offer is “don’t be so literal”, so obviously the brains involved in so called NDE’s were in fact active, as I pointed out all along, and you are now attempting to move the goal posts. I am not responsible if you include inaccurate claims in your pitch for woo woo.
Irrelevant, since it was your claim that people with inactive brains had recovered and come back to share anecdotal stories about what they’d experience, which is the “irreversible end” as you were told repeatedly, and you are now trying to move the goal posts by pretending you didn’t say that.
As I explained there in the post you’ve responded to, and you seem to have ignored in favour of goal post shifting? Either the brains are inactive and they don’t come back to share anything, or the brains were in fact no inactive in the anecdotes you were sharing, so which is it?
Only if you find subjective unevidenced anecdotal claims, and wild unsubstantiated conclusions, based on wildly inaccurate assertions compelling.
dear oh dear ratty…
And for me to recover from my stitch, it can’t be good for a man my age to laugh this hard…
My mind was very full of shit once upon a time. It was once a rock solid, shit caked pile of filth and evil. One day that changed. One day that shifted and let loose. For three months after that I applied my mind unto my mind. I subdued my mind and I penetrated into the nature of reality.
The nature of all reality is that consciousness clings. The clinging is the sickness. Consciousness is the sickness. And having realized the truth of ill I stopped grasping at consciousness.
First my eyes stopped perceiving; then my ears; then my kundalini opened and a rush of swelling rapture overtook my body. It dissolved all conscious grasping of the tactile faculty. That was when I experienced the “unconditioned state”.
Such a state exists. Such a state is comprehensible. Attainable. This is the deathless; the wishless; the signless.
Because to exist is to experience reality - a reality which has no business being here.
Cop out. Weak cop out. I base the existence of an observer on the foundation of an unconditioned element. Nothing tautological about it. No more tautological than you basing existence (human awareness) on a brain inside the skull
I’ve asked you about what conditions our knowledge of the body and what conditions our knowledge of the mind.
And in that same respect, how is something “conditioned”? How is something “unconditioned”. Answer as you see fit. This is a debate forum. We’re allowed to ask questions.
What constitutes an unconditioned state? What processes have to occur for an unconditioned state to come about?
If you insist.
Restate the conditions of the fallacy and I’ll address it.
Answer the questions. What have you got to lose. Why are you scared? Why do you need to know my intentions before you can answer the question
Again you’re being painfully literal. I will concede to you that the brain is active. I will furthermore claim that in the absence of life saving measures such cases as the ones we’re talking about will assume total brain death within minutes of the onset of the cardiac arrest. Okay? Should I bend over now? Would you like that?
The people are on their way to total brain death and (surprise surprise) they experience exactly what we would predict they should if an afterlife does exist. And not the opposite. And not anything even remotely contradictory to the prediction.
Okay. Here Sheldon. I’m gunna bend over now. Okay? There it is. Go have your way with it. Go be naughty and get that male aggression out of you.
I KNOW. THE BRAINS ARENT DEAD. YES. IM SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS. ONE POINT FOR SHELDON! THE BRAIN ISNT “BRAIN DEAD”! THE WHISTLE HAS NOW BEEN BLOWN. GAME ON. NEW RULES. NEW GOAL POSTS!
Moving on. The brains have some activity. And are also terminal. Moreover the activity that they show align perfectly with the predictions one might make IF an afterlife existed. Consistently. Amongst all groups. With the same features amongst different individuals. Indicating a pattern to the experience. Ending in total brain death. But consistent with a theory of the afterlife. Profoundly changing to the persons outlook on life and, MOREOVER, not consistent with other forms of oxygen deprivation experiences.
I do. I also believe that when two people agree on the color red being red it is because the color red exists externally to the mind and is independent of the mind.
Oh please. DO elaborate on the chuckle you just had. Don’t mind me!
Don’t go having a hernia on me now!
Objective reality does not evidence a soul, so just how far are you going to spin away from your original claim here? The second sentence is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy if there ever was one.
Well lets take a look:
care to quote anything I have said in this discourse, or anywhere come to that, that remotely resembles your claim? Since I never made any such claim, that is the very definition of a straw man fallacy.
That claim is a subjective unevidenced belief, and the previous claim I was referring to was tautological gibberish, here it is again then:
Straw man fallacy, I made no such claim.
Those were your claims not mine, it is for you to explain what they mean, and support them with sufficient evidence. You have failed to offer any objective evidence for a soul, or properly define what you mean.
I insist nothing, the site is not mine?
I have done so twice, you could have read it in that post easily in the time it just took you to pretend you didn’t know what it was. It is even now just two clicks away, three for the original quote.
- It’s your claim, you need to explain it, not me.
- I am not at all scared, since the question is irrelevant to your claim I was addressing, and makes no sense to me, as I have now explained three separate times.
- I have nothing to lose, since I have made zero claims about this, so why would I need to answer any questions about it? That’s just bizarre.
- I can answer your question as I have no idea what you’re talking about, again this is the third time I have explained that to you, again just bizarre?
Nope, you claimed people with inactive brains had recovered and come back to share anecdotal stories about what they’d experience, the clinical and legal definition of death is the cessation of all brain activity, both @Cognostic and I offered multiple citations (one for the NHS) that no one recovers from "brain death. I asked repeatedly for you therefore to clarify what you meant by an “inactive brain”, but months later all you can offer is “don’t be so literal”, so obviously the brains involved in so called NDE’s were in fact active, as I pointed out all along, and you are now attempting to move the goal posts. I am not responsible if you include inaccurate claims in your pitch for woo woo.
then I invite you to see how your previous claim it was “inactive” is at odds with that, so this nonsense about me being “too literal” is meant to achieve what?
All you need have done was acknowledge your error months ago, blaming me is a bt silly don’t you think? Especially given I asked several times for clarification, and explained why.
As are we all, so that’s almost trivially true.
Do you imagine endless repetition of your subjective unevidenced claim will make it any less absurd? Here’s a clue, one would need to experience an afterlife in order to have an objective point of reference, before one could claim something was in any way comparable to it, like claiming to have seen Jesus’s face in a tomato, such claims are risible.
Opposite of what, and again that an anecdotal claim that someone experienced X, and someone predicted an afterlife would look like X does not evidence X, even could offer more than the anecdotal here, all you’d have something we can’t explain.
So the lesson is to be more accurate when creating an argument, and not evade critical scrutiny when you make an error, not hard really is it. So now we know that NDE’s are simply anecdotal claims about what a brain being starved of oxygen supposedly imagined, whilst alive, hardly a compelling reason to believe it’s a glimpse of an afterlife, and as far from objective evidence as one can imagine.
Yes, and no they are not terminal, they might end that way though depending on whether the patient’s heart can be successfully restarted in time.
Nonsense.
Anecdotal unevidenced claim, sigh…and in and of itself not evidence of anything supernatural let alone an afterlife.
Nope, no NDE’s end in brain death, that was your original error, once the brain is dead that person never comes back to share anything. I though you had realised your previous error in this post? NDE’s are anecdotal claims about what brains experience whilst very much alive, though I can see why people desperate to believe in an afterlife want to avoid that fact with as much ambiguity as possible.
Fnarrr, funnier every time you say it. What afterlife is it that you’re comparing the anecdotal claims of people who are still alive to I wonder?
Oh a new unevidenced claim, might we trouble you for an explanation of and objective evidence for this claim? I am asking more in hope than expectation obviously, given your track record here.
Yeah you do, maybe you ought to try and reason what that means objectively for beliefs based on fuck all? I mean try and imagine a belief you could not hold, if an unevidenced subjective anecdote is all you need? Even contradictory beliefs would carry the same weight, tell me again how you imagine that is logical?
Obviously because those questions are simply hilarious given the pains I have taken to explain that already, multiple times.
I will try, given I had three as a child that required surgery this would be most unfortunate. Oh and when I had anaesthetic my consciousness had a huge gap, odd how something physiological like that can interrupt something you insist is supernatural and can transcend the physical?
The fact that you think there is a reality you can crack, that filth and evil exist, that you have something called a mind, and that it is yours, that whatever it is can be subdued or penetrated, (and what do you imagine subdued or penetrated it?) That you would know something about the nature of reality beyond the jibberish bouncing around in the vacant area between your ears is an extremely amazing idea. Your Kundalini is showing, and you have obviously raptured all over yourself once again, It’s truly a shame that you have attached so much bullshit to something as simple as sitting peacefully and experiencing a very human state of mindfulness. It was a human state of awareness long before any mystic ever got hold of it and began to make himself/herself special. You have wasted your time filling your mind with crap.
The state exists or not, is not the issue. The crap you are shoving into your head is. Imagine the wheel of a bike with its many spokes. Out on the rim of the bike, by the tire, are all these beliefs. Every culture on the planet seems to have had its mystics at one time. They all point to the same shit. You can fill your head with any culture’s shit and think you have found the path to truth. (As you have done.) Just cram shit into your head and believe it.
Or, you can see the big picture. You can actually do the exploration. You can actually do the research and make the inquiries. You can study this thing called consciousness, mind, brain, and man. You can see where it has been, what it has done, what is it capable of, and where it is going. You can see all the various interpretations of it throughout the centuries; like the blind men describing the elephant. And, you too can join the blind men describing your piece of the elephant, (as you have done) or you could step back and be amazed at what you do not know. As you follow the spokes of the wheel closer and closer to the center, your bullshit no longer applies. Your words have no meaning. Your experience is nothing remarkable, nothing new, nothing enlightening, and not amazing in any way at all. It can not put food on your plate. It can’t plant corn in your field. All the enlightenment in the world will not buy you a cup of coffee. You sit in your state of bliss, and the world will pass you by as you imagine you are the one with the correct perception. (The very definition of ignorance.) There is nothing remarkable down this road. It is chewing gum for the mind and a fun diversion. Beyond that, not much more. It allows you to spend hours filling your mind with bullshit, mystical language. and warm fuzzy feelings. Well, have fun. And in 20 years, you will be in the exact same place doing the exact same thing.
1 Like
Objective reality evidences the existence of an unconditioned state. That state is the absolute foundation upon which an indestructible soul rests. You can verify the existence of an unconditioned state with logic and perception.
The Buddha Said:
vii. "And what, Ananda, is contemplation of cessation? Herein, Ananda, a monk having gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to a lonely place, contemplates thus: ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, the stilling of all component things, the extinction of craving, cessation, Nibbana.’ This, Ananda, is called contemplation of cessation.
I don’t care to. I’ve discussed many times with you your staunch position that consciousness is emergent property of the brain. In fact, if I cared to, I’d quote you in this very thread as saying exactly that. In other words,” consciousness is founded on the brain” - that is clearly your position. I have said nothing more. Only that you would claim as much. No more. No less.
“Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain”
- Sheldon
Need I say more?
That’s fine. The unconditioned state exists and is open to examination and investigation. When a person grows disenchanted with sensory consciousness, they develop dispassion as wel. Having done that they let go of sense-consciousness. In such a state as this, the existential relationship between the senses and the sense objects is destroyed. One enters in Nibbana - the unconditioned; the deathless; the signless; the wishless.
We’re talking about the “naughty” comment still? Can you please pick your battles, Shelly? My time is not unlimited.
Already have. Done the work for you.
Buddha said
vii. "And what, Ananda, is contemplation of cessation? Herein, Ananda, a monk having gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to a lonely place, contemplates thus: ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, the stilling of all component things, the extinction of craving, cessation, Nibbana.’ This, Ananda, is called contemplation of cessation.
Relax Sheldon. Breathe. I am CONCEDING THIS POINT.
Jesus H. Christ. You think you’d be happy. Are you ready to move on?
To point out that you’re ignoring the fact that the difference between a cardiac arrest with a slight amount of activity in the brain is still going to be a terminally dead person within the next few minutes. Death is a process. In the process of dying people have NDE’s. that’s all I’m saying. And, sorry. You’re not being too “literal”. You’re being too “asinine”.
It’s easy to explain. The person experienced the after life.
I prefer “undergoing the process of dying” and “will be dead without critical interventions” to your “whilst alive” claim. If they were as alive as you seem to think, then why do they require life saving interventions? They’re “alive”. Let’s just leave them that way and carry on. Oh! We’re forgetting something, they’re also dying - in the process of dying.
So, you’re positive that of all the people who don’t recover from their brush with death, zero of those people who literally die and can’t be saved won’t have the same visions and experiences before actual death.
You only think that it’s the people who are resuscitated who have the visions?
Do you realize that there’s a time interval in which these NDE people can be saved?
The same one they would have fully entered had the life resuscitation not been successfull.
Stopping for time again.