Clinicaly dead for hours

I have heard and read on the internef countless stories about this. A person is clinicaly dead for some hourse. Others claim to have seen God or heaven. Others claim that its like sleeping and nothing exists. Who to believe? Is it any scientific data that shows how the brain responds to that situation? I mean you are not clearly dead since you wame up again and remember the experience

The things I would first look into is what is the definition of “clinically dead” being used and if in each case it’s a cessation of the heart beat it is it brain activity.

Secondly to know what happens in the afterlife I would go to scripture and theology. Such as revelation says he calls up everyone living and dead at once to face their sentencing at the white throne judgement and those whose name is found in the book of life receives eternal life and salvation. It would not make much sense to believe when we die we go to heaven only until we are brought back to life and hear our name called and then go back to a new heaven. We also don’t read of people dying and going to heaven but being resurrected and heaven coming down to earths the Holy new Jerusalem coming to earth, not earthlings coming to heaven.

Always only ever believe the science.

2 Likes

It is possible, with evidence, but not necessarily scientific evidence, to believe things that are true.

1 Like

I know of no other evidence that could exist in this context. Including Biblical evidence. There is no evidence at all anywhere that anyone experiences anything they remember while they are clinically dead. Tabitha and Lazarus and Jesus included.

It just might be that the testimonial evidence is true.

It is even demonstrable that one can know things when there is no objective (scientific) evidence whatsoever.

That is one of best things about science. Despite the idiot rhetoric of naturalism ideologues, science at least is cognizant of its limitations. That is one of the areas where religion and philosophy can emulate its example – by knowing their limitations also. In the imitation of the methods of religion by the new atheists and naturalism, it is hard to see how they have gained anything at all except perhaps the addition of less rational people to their numbers.

How about a summary of the limitations for each…

Science

  1. The limitations of its methodology – it works for things which are testable and demonstrable. It can say nothing about things which are unfalsifiable or not measurable.
  2. There are self-discovered limitations and the most important is the one in quantum physics which found that there are events for which there are no hidden variable determining the outcome.

Philosophy (method of logic)

  1. What logic gives you depends entirely on the premises you start with. Thus you get highly diverse results depending on those premises.
  2. There can be no expectation that others will agree with your conclusions because they don’t have to accept your premises.

Religion (method of scripture)

  1. This is culturally diverse to a very high degree.
  2. There can be no expectation that others will agree with your conclusions because they don’t have to accept the authority of your scriptures.
  3. Even when they do accept the authority of your scriptures, interpretations of those scriptures are still quite diverse.
  4. Scriptures are not enthusiastic about the ability of human beings to know things – constantly suggesting that we overestimate our own knowledge. Instead they are often telling us that there is much about God and reality which we do not or even cannot know.

Theology combining the methods of scripture and logic has the limitations of both religion and philosophy.

To bring this back to the topic of the thread… what do each of these have to contribute to the topic.

Science: Dealing with the meaning of the subjective experiences of people is not its forte, thus it should not be very surprising that it has little to contribute. Certainly there is nothing of an existence apart from the body which has ever been measurable.

Philosophy: “I mean you are not clearly dead since you came up again and remember the experience.” That is a very good point and a good reason for philosophy to weigh against this.

Religion: Clearly this is going to depend on the religion. Many across the world believe in an existence which is capable of separating consciousness or mind from the body in some way. And stories of experiences supporting such a belief is found in nearly all religions. But as for the Bible, there is certainly plenty of support for an existence after death, but for the experience of an existence apart from the body while the person is still alive, there is no Biblical support.

1 Like

I hope so! @Klax has only testimonial evidence that my name is Dale! :grin: (And it truly is, but I’m looking forward to my new one. :slightly_smiling_face:)

1 Like

No it might not. Not while there are perfectly complete natural explanations.

Emphasis on ‘might’. I am not familiar enough with all the cases of OBEs and NDEs. I recall reading of at least one were the subject reported events that occured outside of the room were they were. Yeah, I suspect neurological reasons can account for many, but not necessarily all. (Read Metaxas’ Miracles.)

I’ve never understood the attraction of near death experiences to many believers. People who have had such experiences are in no position to sort out what part of their experience occurred in the transitions between lapses of consciousness and what allegedly took place while they were out. It is all highly speculative and what one finds in them functions as a Rorschach test of their expectations going in. I see no problem for those who basically use it as an exercise in imagining the ‘beyond’. But it is futile to expect any apologetics built upon such material to be persuasive to someone not sharing those initial expectations.

3 Likes

Guys you are missing the point. I asked for some scientific evidence to either support not only the supernatural view but the other view that states is like they are sleeping as welm

I’ve had a NDE and I can tell you that there is no “transition between lapses of consciousness”. The experience is of continuous consciousness but while some is in the body some is outside of the body. There is no lapses of consciousness.
What takes place with regard to the body is unknown to the soul / conscious being while they are away from the body, but what takes place spiritually is not unknown to the soul. It is every bit as valid as any other experience. But it is different to OBEs. In an OBE one has a continuous awareness of the body, though vague, but still there.

There is no scientific evidence. But there is also no scientific experiment and hence scientific evidence for subjective experience. If you enjoy the sunrise, you know it for yourself alone. No science can verify it. Same with NDE.

It’s all natural. All. There is no might. Nothing one can ever read by anyone apart from a scientist, preferably a Paulinely objective, first hand forensic account, can have any credence whatsoever. And it will only qualitatively match Arroway’s in Contact. There is no warrant whatsoever for might.

Nick, there is only scientific evidence that they are asleep. There is no room, no space for; no lack, no want of, rational explanation.

What’s my name?

They are clinicaly dead not asleep. So amongst all of these case not one scientist or medical professor studied what happened to thw body? What the brain is doing? What neurotransmiters actually work?

My name might be Dale. :grin:

I was being euphemistic Nick. Clinically dead, brain dead is the big sleep. They study every clinically dead patient rigged up to an EEG. Including those that revive. Nothing.

1 Like

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.