Afterlife and modern science

Originally posted by flyUnity
Actually I was referring to a couple books, but mostly a book called "Beyond Deaths Door", you can get it from Amazon. you know what, I would like to hear what you (a sceptic, and a scientist) think about it, In fact I'll even buy the book for you if you read it, (with an open mind of course) and tell me what you think of it, and answer some of my questio ...[text shortened]... n NDEs
Sacred geometry supports NDE research
Scientific evidence exists that prayer works

Don't worry, fly, I'll buy my own copy in my next book buying round. Probably in a couple of months - i just bought a half dozen.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Replace NDE with "alien abduction" or "extraterristrial encounter" and the sentances remain plausible.

Also what evidence is there that prayer works (how does it work, what is its function?) and the paranormal exists (how did they come up with that?)? That atsrology "exists" (what do this mean?), that scienitfic mediums have contacted the dead etc, etc,?

[EDIT] Hypnosis 🙄

http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/religion/001_pages/01.html

I do not know what the credability of this link is, and I do not know if there is really evidence that prayer works, I was just copying from the link above

Originally posted by flyUnity
http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/religion/001_pages/01.html

I do not know what the credability of this link is, and I do not know if there is really evidence that prayer works, I was just copying from the link above

Oh dear. I was hoping you meant prayer lead to an altered state of consciousness. 😞

Anyway, a study of prayer results on people undergoing heart surgery was released a year a go in Australia. It discovered that prayer had no beneficial effect on the patients.

The problem with these studies is that they often interpret results with bias. It is most likely that the statistics of this site are coincidental rather then causal. Unless we can establish a causal relationship between outer body experiences and the like with human consciousness, its all speculative.

Also, why do we need to pray to God if he's omniscient? Sounds a bit like red tape beaurocracy.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It is a possibility, although more research would require to be done before it could be made into a serious contender. At the moment, it ranks scientifically no higher than an idea or concept (the very lowest level).

You have to admit that this idea or concept seems to mesh very well with what all these religious freaks have been saying for centuries. Perhaps this is the missing link between science and religion. Hmmm....
I wonder just how much research has already been done?

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
You have to admit that this idea or concept seems to mesh very well with what all these religious freaks have been saying for centuries. Perhaps this is the missing link between science and religion. Hmmm....
I wonder just how much research has already been done?

DF

To be completely honest, I'd be extremely sceptical of whether it's actually real or not. If it were to be proven, then I'd accept it, but I very much doubt it ever will be. Feel free to go out spend 7 years of your life in uni, then do the experiments.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
To be completely honest, I'd be extremely sceptical of whether it's actually real or not. If it were to be proven, then I'd accept it, but I very much doubt it ever will be. Feel free to go out spend 7 years of your life in uni, then do the experiments.

I thought that was the beauty of science - that one scientist can look at the experiments of another and repeat them if so desired. You yourself have said that you haven't presonally conducted all of the experiments whose results you accept as truthful. So how do you draw that line between the scientists whose work you deem believable and those you don't?

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I thought that was the beauty of science - that one scientist can look at the experiments of another and repeat them if so desired. You yourself have said that you haven't presonally conducted all of the experiments whose results you accept as truthful. So how do you draw that line between the scientists whose work you deem believable and those you don't?

DF

Look, there are so many interpretations of this "near death" thing and you just wilfully ignore the evidence that suggests nothing spectacular.

Oh and the believability of a scientist work is based on a) the veracity of the observations and measurements and b) the allowable deductions which can be made. If your talking about scientific theories it becomes much more controversial.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I thought that was the beauty of science - that one scientist can look at the experiments of another and repeat them if so desired. You yourself have said that you haven't presonally conducted all of the experiments whose results you accept as truthful. So how do you draw that line between the scientists whose work you deem believable and those you don't?

DF

The problem with these experiments is that they have never been done before, they rely upon subjective data (testimony of individuals, who may have opinions, pre-concieved notions or may simply be mistaken - popular opinion isn't always right, you know), and they don't gel with many or indeed any other facets of my understanding of the world / universe.

The thing that makes science strong is when various branches intertwine and build up to a coherent picture. This just doesn't exist in term of this type of supernatural-esque research.