CP3S said:
You're invalidating demonstrable studies based on a series of assumptions stacked on one another. Working at your assumptions backwards; for the sake of argument, we'll just presume God does actually exist, but now you are taking it a stretch further and assuming near-death experiences happen when people out will God and force him to reschedule their death? You're also assuming that God has a time table or schedule for our deaths. A lot of things you could never know for sure, and you are taking them as fact and using them to explain why scientific testing on this matter is bogus. If there is a God, maybe the phenomena we describe as "near death experience" is a nifty feature he built into our brains, and not us defying him after "he calls us" and our spirit returning to our body after departing.
Like I said, you're all over the place. We can trigger the near death experience, but you claim it isn't the same thing even though physiologically it is 100% the same thing. It isn't just the same in looks (toy gun), but it is the exact same in functionality. The brain does the same things, the person experiences the same strange experience.
I'm not trying to take sides here actually. It just seems to me that a "near death experience" test without death almost being certain isn't testing it at all. It's like testing running speed by walking. Walking is certainly safer if you're not being chased and you risk less injury but it's not running. Physically the end result is similar but not the same. Walking utilizes the legs to transport an animal to a certain point. Running utilizes legs to transport an animal to a certain point. On the surface it's the same. We know that's not true though.
I'll admit I made assumptions on what it could supernaturally be but I'm in the same boat as those scientists assuming that they have all the data. There's going to be assumptions based on stuff that we simply don't know. The way I see it unless they test 20,000 people with only 20 or less people surviving the trails their tests aren't entirely valid. Those tests would be completely abhorrent, terrible, horrible, and unconscionable. I don't really want those tests to actually happen. However it's the only way to really rule out the supernatural in such events.
And I can demonstrate that scientist's can't fully test the brain with current equipment right now. We all know with absolute certainty that it's possible to see better than this. However with current (well as of 2011) scientific equipment that's what it's able to reconstruct from the human brain scan. None of those reconstruction images are entirely representative of what you know you see in the initial image with your own two eyes and brain. They're eerily close and disturbingly so but to say that the reconstructed image is a 100% representation of what you actually see is demonstrably false. If they can't read the images you and I see everyday with 100% accuracy. Then how can you tell me the "near death experience" tests are 100% accurate?
