The Instigator
Ogan
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Near Death Experience (NDE)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,202 times Debate No: 12900
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

Ogan

Pro

That NDE (Near Death Experience) is an actual true experience known only to those who have experienced it and gives unshakable proof to the recipient that Life is Eternal and that physical existence is but a reflection of this.
Marauder

Con

I accept the Con position of this debate with the resolution "NDE is a actual true experience known only to those who have experienced it and gives unshakable proof to the recipient that Life is Eternal and that physical existence is but a reflection of this."

Given no definitions I am forced to assume that by NDE my opponent is referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org...

as you can see from the article, Dr. Karl Jansen was able to reproduce NDE scientifically without threatening the life of subjects through the use of ketamine. This shows us that NDE have a biological cause and are ultimately unrelated to death. It must first be proven to be related purely to death to show it has anything to do with the the afterlife.

I am aware my opponent did not say 'afterlife' but again without definitions I am left to assume that by saying 'Life is Eternal' he is not referring to carnal biological life witch of course is ridiculous but rather to the life of a separate entity your soul. 'Afterlife' is just my reference to that souls continued existence without the body witch most would agree that is a necessary consequence of the souls being eternal when your body is obviously not.

Being a christian I do in fact agree that the soul is eternal but not because I think proof exist, but by faith. The proof in fact does not exist, not even for 'the recipient' of the NDE as noted in the Wiki article the phenomena does have a rational explanation that does not need reference to life beyond this carnal one. The who process is obviously just a strange way of entering the R.E.M state of the sleep cycle and experiencing Lucid Dreaming. http://www.luciddreaming.com...

Even under the assumption that the recipient can rationally accept the experience as truly of another form of reality and not something merely biological, it does not in fact prove that life (of the soul) is indeed eternal. It would simply be 'unshakable proof' that life is of a greater length in duration than the life of our body. You would need much more than a Near Death Experience to prove that, you would need a Full Death Experience so that you could stroll through heaven or hell or wherever you think you go after leaving this physical world for a while and interrogate the residents of that realm who have been living as the 'eternal souls' that they are without bodies for a while now and see if they report anyone in the history of that realm 'dieing.' If they report that some souls have been annihilated out of existence then of course the soul is not eternal as it can still on day cease to exist. In fact from data we have their is already been theologians forming just such a hypothesis about the eventual annihilation of the soul in the next life. http://www.ses.edu...
That of course isn't a proven belief, it based just scripture interpretation witch you first must accept as true out of faith anyway for that to hold any water for you personally as proof. But though its not proven, it is not ruled out as impossible. So if it is possible, then the soul being eternal is not the only possibility even granted NDE as proof of the souls continued existence without the body.

Now for the third part of your resolution that I think will be the most difficult to actually prove in your arguments; that NDE proves "physical existence is but a reflection of this"
NDE taken to be truly a brief awareness of your existence as purely a soul without body would never prove any relationship between your eternal life and physical existence simply 'reflecting' it. In fact, if physical existence reflected the fact that life is eternal then from physical existence it should be obvious that life is eternal without consideration of the rare times its residents have NDE. We should be able to gather the data that life is eternal without the NDE from physical existence. we obviously don't as their are many on this very sight that claim their is no such thing even as a soul so its obviously apparent that the 'reflection' from physical existence is not 'obviously' apparent to them. physical existence is proven to be a failure at reflecting anything about your life's eternalness because you in some way require a NDE as necessary proof of that fact.

so in short............

1) even for the recipient of the NDE the phenomena can be explained without considering a 'soul' to exist.
2) even granted you have a soul and NDE is truly just experiencing being it alone briefly; it does not prove life is eternal, for the recipients never have time to question those already living as souls without bodies if anyone has died in that life. Annihilationism remains not proven false even with NDE
3) If one needs NDE to prove anything then physical existence obviously reflects nothing concerning what NDE needs to prove.

Pro to fulfill burden of proof in proving A) that NDE can only be explained by the existence of the soul and not by biological means; B) that granted A, it somehow proves that that soul is eternal and does not one day go through its own death; and C) that physical existence reflects that the soul is eternal.
If Pro cannot prove A, B, & C then the resolution remains negated as then NDE's would not be "Unshakable proof" of any of those things.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
Ogan

Pro

Ogan: Thank you so much for accepting this debate 'let's see where it leads us.

(I accept the Con position of this debate...etc)

Ogan: Apologies for the lack of definitions, I tend to take definitions for granted - lack of formal education on my part no doubt. The definition is much wider than I supposed. I really am referring to those NDE's where the Consciousness is vastly expanded and is able to KNOW beyond question its own inherent Eternity and its belonging to God. If these kinds of NDE experienced by quite a number of people are not acceptable to you then I will 'throw the towel' and forfeit the debate - though that would be a pity.

(Dr. Karl Jansen and NDE)

Ogan: To begin with I would say it matters not a jot what the cause of NDE happens to be, only what the result in the consciousness of the recipient is. I presume you KNOW you are not hallucinating at this moment - unless there is something wrong with you. I therefore presume that during an NDE you would also KNOW whether you were hallucinating or not, either during or after the event. The fact that being struck on the head with a brick or any other method, such as the use of ketamine etc., leading to an NDE does not prove that NDE's to quote you "have a biological cause and are ultimately unrelated to death"�. As regards ketamine, I agree totally with Dr J Long in the following note:
www.nderf.org/ Ketamine 6/8/10
I talked with a retired anaesthesiologist that I see periodically in follow up. He indicated that Ketamine was approved for anaesthesia in children and adults many decades ago. He remembers the day well. For whatever reason, approval to use Ketamine began at 11:00 AM on a particular day. They rescheduled an obese patient with haemorrhoids to undergo surgery that afternoon. The patient received Ketamine, and bled profusely. Apparently Ketamine does not lower the blood pressure the way most other aesthetic agents do.
This anaesthesiologist indicated that he used Ketamine as an aesthetic regularly for three months for adult anaesthesia. He would routinely ask patients after surgery about their experience with the anaesthesia. He recalls that about 75% of his patients receiving Ketamine described frightening dream-like hallucinations. The other 25% did not describe any particular experience. So many patients had frightening hallucinations with Ketamine that he stopped using Ketamine routinely in adults after about three months. He would continue to use Ketamine for selected patients, especially trauma patients where low blood pressure was a concern.
Only a few percent of NDEs are predominantly frightening, and even these frightening NDEs are generally not dream-like or hallucinatory. This anaesthesiologist's observations are some of the most objective and reliable observations about experiences associated with Ketamine. Experiences reported during NDEs are very different from Ketamine experiences. There is no evidence that Ketamine consistently reproduces any element of NDE.
Reported by Dr. Jeff Long

(I am aware my opponent did not say 'afterlife'..... )

Ogan: Again I apologise for lack of definition. I agree with your definition of 'afterlife' meaning the soul being eternal and the body not, although I should say that the matter and energy of the body are also eternal, so what we call death of the physical body should really be called change or transition - as say the atoms in the ice sculpture carry on as normal H2O after the temporary form has melted - the temporary form being merely an image in the Creator's Mind!

(Being a christian I do in fact agree that the soul is eternal but not because I think proof exist, but by faith.)

Ogan: To begin with, I have a few of my own thoughts on Faith. If it were possible to rationalise faith and explain it in reasonable terms, then it would immediately cease to be faith at all and become reason, at which point it would cease to be. Faith is hungry for the Truth it feels but cannot see, and pushing forward with great determination into the unknown, is eventually rewarded with the seeds of Inspiration in a sudden blinding flash of pure Insight. St Paul received such, therefore Knowledge is better than Faith. Regarding lucid dreaming.
The difference between True Consciousness and lucid dreaming is the difference between the sun and the fire-fly.
Secondly, because you believe the monster is chasing you during sleep does that make it real? If it is not real, why are you running from it? If it is real, who is being chased and experiencing such fear?

(Even under the assumption that the recipient can rationally accept the experience... etc)

Ogan: If the soul is already eternal within itself, why would it not remember this when becoming fully Conscious after leaving the body, as you would upon awakening from the nightmare during sleep laugh at the monster you were running from? Surely, this cannot be proven accept that you experience it Within yourself. The eventual annihilation of the soul is probably one of the most wicked teachings ever promulgated by reason. Even the most materialistic atheists would tell you that matter and energy are everlasting and did not come from nothingness, and therefore can never return to nothingness – out of nothingness comes….. NOTHING. I prefer the word Formation to Creation if you see my point?

(Now for the third part of your resolution etc....)

Ogan: No blueprint – no building. All material beings and things have a blueprint or archetype. Without this how could anything in Nature gain a working form? Imagine a pile of rubble evolving after many haphazard motions through time into St Pauls Cathedral, perfect in all its beautiful architecture, without any plan, blueprint or archetype – impossible and against all reason and logic – yet some otherwise intelligent people actually believe this utter nonsense!
To be clear, that is why virtually all those who experience NDE's, see and recognise their ‘dead' relatives and loved ones just as their material bodies looked like on the earthly plane of vibrations. Their ‘body of light' if we can call it that for now – it's only a label – is that actual archetype before the material baby was even conceived.

(so in short............ 1), 2) and 3) burden of proof etc)

Ogan:
To follow your summary in the above tabulations:

1)NDE as a general label perhaps, some of which border on lucid dreams. But as I said earlier, I am considering only those NDE's I regard as a revelation of the soul's existence to the recipient and the marvellous discovery of having eternal life. An experience which can be "explained" as you put it, "without considering a soul to exist" can only be a phenomenon of biology, whereas NDE is a total separation from bodily connections and bodily senses, and therefore cannot be communicated from one to another – it must be experienced – as it will for all of us eventually.
2)As I said earlier, the soul becomes conscious and KNOWS of its own eternity and does not need run, creep or fly around to ask other disembodied souls, who are also fully aware of this. This is a Superior Self Consciousness which must be experienced.
3)Most people, me included, don't need NDE to ‘prove' anything. It's just that it happens to prove to the recipients their eternity and that the life to come is full of Freedom, Love, Knowledge and Power. The effect of this marvellous experience is that they feel compelled to inform others of their experience regardless of any ridicule or threats emanating from other irritated temporary prisoners. Physical forms are direct reflections of higher forms or archetypes. The mind is only an ‘aspect' of Higher Consciousness, some of which is given as a gift to some blest recipients. The proof has been received. Lastly, that the existence of the soul can be discovered in many other ways apart from NDE not at all biological, but again these ‘enlightenments' cannot be communicated from one to a
Marauder

Con

(…am referring to those NDE's where the Consciousness is vastly expanded and…)

I of course cant accept that its inherently true that the NDE's in question let the recipients KNOW anything as that is what I am supposed to be debating; But I will accept that by NDE you are referring only to the ones were people describe the experience like that.

That cuts out simple NDE's like seeing yourself outside of your body looking down on yourself on the operating table. And I can see how one could generalize those as the NDE's that are just Lucid Dreams and the rest as true experiences of the next life.

So with your clarification of NDE's definition I drop my biological argument about how the experiences may not be true; and I pick up a religious one. But I will get to that later; First the defense of my last arguments that I am not dropping before presenting the new one.

1)Concerning Annihilationism: (…Even the most materialistic atheists would tell you that matter and energy are everlasting….)
Actually materialist are the only ones you should expect would tell you that matter could not have come from nothingness. Most theistic proponents agree that God created all out of nothing. That in the beginning there ‘was nothing' until it was created. But that's a whole other debate, and for now it distracts from this one.
(…the soul becomes conscious and KNOWS of its own eternity and does not need…)
To say that the soul is ETERNAL is a declaration about its duration of existence. That's not a fact you can just ‘feel'. And if this ‘experience' as a disembodied soul people have doesn't last ‘forever' but ended at some point, then it by definition was not an ‘eternal experience. It was a temporary one.
On the logic that the soul could not exist without coming from somewhere and therefore cant go ‘nowhere', brings to mind a problem that occurs when you remember you are talking about a ‘soul' and not ‘matter' Matter may be in a permanent loop of recycling itself in 1 form or another but the soul HAD to have come from nowhere. The soul is not made of matter or energy but is simply pure information that defines who you are http://www.authorsden.com... . It's the data on the hard drive that is your brain. If that were ‘eternal' then it should have existed before you were born and you should have some knowledge of that time before then regardless of having a NDE if that's true. But the fact is that everyday of your current life is all that has forged and define who and what your soul is now. So the information that is your soul had to have come from nothing even if it is true that it will last forever. But by my opponents own logic because it came from nothing it could return to nothing. Now that may not be true, but it does introduce ‘doubt' making the fact of eternal life ‘shakable'

2)Concerning Physical Existences ‘Reflecting': (…– impossible and against all reason and logic – yet some otherwise intelligent…)
Your talking about belief in cosmic evolution right? Again that's different debate. The fact of intelligent design holds no relevance in this debate; because physical existence has a blueprint does not mean that blueprint is from what will be our Eternal lives. It could be that Eternal life has a different set of blue prints, though from the same maker. And the maker made the eternal life's blueprints different on purpose because his purpose for Eternal life was very different from physical existences purpose.
(…see and recognize their ‘dead' relatives and loved ones just as their material bodies looked like on the earthly plane of vibrations...)
This fact actually would point to NDE's support of Annihilationism. Dose it not strike you as odd that the only people the NDE recipients see in the afterlife is their relatives? To prove an eternal life by NDE a recipient should see some people who have been dead longer than any of the relatives they ever knew in their earthly life. Abraham Lincoln for example. Why have none of the NDE recipients ever seen him if Lincoln is now existing as his Eternal self? Unless in the after life he has also passed away….hmmm? It of course dose not prove Annihilationism, but it cant rule it out can it?

Anyway on to my new argument
3)The Sovereignty of the Experience:

As a Methodist I completely accept that true experiences can happen to many people out there http://www.theopedia.com... ; but even though a person really experiences something that is more than biological, it does not mean this experience tells them anything true. In the early day's of America such false real experiences apparently happened for Joseph Smith, and in recent times they have happen for a man named Michel Cadry . http://www.amazon.com... http://www.theologyweb.com... Cadry's experience told him that the moon is God and Yuri Geller is the Anti-Christ. Even if the experience is not just biological there is still a danger of getting the wrong idea from it because of excess Enthusiasm as explained by John Wesley in this sermon when he gets to describing the second form of bad enthusiasm (18 ). http://new.gbgm-umc.org... "Though there is a real influence of the Spirit of God, there is also an imaginary one: and many there are who mistake the one for the other. Many suppose themselves to be under that influence, when they are not, when it is far from them. And many others suppose they are more under that influence than they really are."
Experiences that tell you things that are false feel as real to the recipients as experiences that convey truth. That's why what your experience tells you needs to be balanced by the other Wesleyan points.

The NDE by itself cannot make you unshakably certain without first seeing how it lines up in view of the other points. For sure it can probably make you feel a great deal more certain about Life being eternal, but not ‘Unshakably' so. There is room for at least a mustard seed of doubt (often all it takes) and if there is room for doubt then it's not ‘Unshakable'

To summarize this round…..

1)because this is still possible (not inherently contradictory), NDE is not "Unshakable" proof….
2)….It's not "Unshakable" proof….
3)….It's not "Unshakable" proof….

I know I had other relevant specifics in my case; but that recurring theme is all I felt important to show in the summery, as it's the cardinal point I need to make to win this debate. If there is room for doubt to the recipients of NDE, then it's not ‘Unshakable' and the resolution is negated. Doubt isn't all that bad, most often it doesn't end up changing the beliefs, but lack of change does not mean pure absence of doubt. "Unshakable proof" does though.
Debate Round No. 2
Ogan

Pro

Debate: NDERound 2

Ogan: Check comments if you wish to read my reaction to your rather lengthy introduction, which you did not wish to add to the main debate, as I felt it my duty to respond in some way. Also, there was insufficient space for them in the debate anyway. p.s. Thank you for your excellent probing and hope that the following answers are as acceptable as your debating points.

(Anyway on to my new argument
3)The Sovereignty of the Experience: )

(As a Methodist I completely accept that true experiences can happen to many people out therehttp://www.theopedia.com...... ; but even though a person really experiences something that is more than biological, it does not mean this experience tells them anything true. )

Ogan: It's interesting to note that people born blind can not only see clearly during NDE's, but in a far more superior way to normal physical sight. Then afterwards, when back in the body and blind again, they have a clear understanding of the concepts of colour, perspective and light forms, which other people born blind could never have. (see: People Born Blind Can See During a NDE. Dr. Kenneth Ring's NDE Research of the Blind...
www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html. )

(In the early day's of America such false real experiences apparently happened for Joseph Smith, and in recent times they have happen for a man named Michel Cadry .http://www.amazon.com...... http://www.theologyweb.com...... Cadry's experience told him that the moon is God and Yuri Geller is the Anti-Christ. Even if the experience is not just biological there is still a danger of getting the wrong idea from it because of excess Enthusiasm as explained by John Wesley in this sermon when he gets to describing the second form of bad enthusiasm (18 ). http://new.gbgm-umc.org...... "Though there is a real influence of the Spirit of God, there is also an imaginary one: and many there are who mistake the one for the other. Many suppose themselves to be under that influence, when they are not, when it is far from them. And many others suppose they are more under that influence than they really are."
Experiences that tell you things that are false feel as real to the recipients as experiences that convey truth. That's why what your experience tells you needs to be balanced by the other Wesleyan points.)

Ogan: Powerful hallucinations and delusions exist in some, and mildly in many, but that has no effect upon True Conscious which must be experienced, and is a quite marvellous unfoldment of the True Self freed from the lower animal mental activities where all the hallucinations and delusions take place. In the same way, a sane man does not suffer another's insanity; nor should the sane man's mental state be judged based on the other's insanity. However, I agree that those who have an untrained reason and unruly imagination, may utterly distort an otherwise influx of Wise Ideas into a swirling mass of incomprehensible concepts, and then begin to preach these distortions to the faithful and trusting and non-doubting who may then be subject to much damage and distress – this is definitely best avoided like the plague.

(The NDE by itself cannot make you unshakably certain without first seeing how it lines up in view of the other points. For sure it can probably make you feel a great deal more certain about Life being eternal, but not ‘Unshakably' so. There is room for at least a mustard seed of doubt (often all it takes) and if there is room for doubt then it's not ‘Unshakable')

Ogan: Only the actual experience of this Consciousness can make you or me or anyone else… Certain. It does not need any points within the reason to prove or disprove it, as, following the experience, all dissention within that same reason has ended because of the unshakeable experience of Truth. But this cannot be communicated from one to another, hence, preaching can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but debating is not. People must discover this wonderful Mystery for themselves, or throw the whole idea with distain into a bottomless pit - we all have freewill to chose and that's a good thing. Although a full, unbiased and serious study of the kinds of NDE we are debating will produce much fruit in those interested.

(To summarize this round…..

1)because this is still possible (not inherently contradictory), NDE is not "Unshakable" proof….
2)….It's not "Unshakable" proof….
3)….It's not "Unshakable" proof….

(I know I had other relevant specifics in my case; but that recurring theme is all I felt important to show in the summery, as it's the cardinal point I need to make to win this debate. If there is room for doubt to the recipients of NDE, then it's not ‘Unshakable' and the resolution is negated. Doubt isn't all that bad, most often it doesn't end up changing the beliefs, but lack of change does not mean pure absence of doubt. "Unshakable proof" does though.)

Ogan: If the reasoning faculties refused to doubt anything at any time, both they and the body would be become totally unbalanced and be seriously injured one way or another. If the reasoning faculties lose the faith they depend upon, they will mentally stagger forward in a kind of drunken fashion, losing all drive and momentum to understand anything outside their self-constricted limited parameters, and fall into an even deeper more complicated 'sleep'. But as regards ‘unshakeable' proof, one group of individuals has it, another group does not have it – that is the present situation and always as been thus. The problem will only be solved by those individuals alone who first seek to understand it themselves and then eventually attain it themselves.
Marauder

Con

Ohh, what to do. Half my opponent's response is in the comment section. I myself have been penalized before on this sight for trying just such a thing, though to a smaller extent. http://www.debate.org...
I could legitimately play the card that none of his response in the comment section should considered by the voters except when considering the conduct point….

But not all come here on DDO to debate with such legalistic rules about how to debate. They simply wish to have an intelligent discussion about a topic they are invigorated about in an adversarial way. Theirs nothing particularly wrong with that. So it would make me kind of a stuck-up pencil pusher if I so strictly decide to ignore his points in the comment section. And I would hate to be one of those.

So I will compromise. I will attempt to refute all of my opponents case, even those in the comment section; but I myself will refrain from giving any of my case in the Comment Section. This wont be as hard as it sounds because though my opponent ran out of so much space that he needed to put half his argument in the comment section, that was largely because he used most of his character space quoting me, paragraph for paragraph.

So to begin:
(Yes, in our limited time, the experience having ceased…)
Let me explain something about PLC's. if its hard-drive is so low-tech that it is only capable of using data the length of 1 bit (exp: 1010) but you give it a word length input (10101111) the low tech PLC will only be able to show the data 1111, and cut of info to large for it to handle. And the bit 1111 is all it will send out.
That PLC cannot ‘understand' word size data even if by luck it receives it.
Likewise if you admit the human mind is not capable of reasoning things of eternity, briefly being able to understand is not going to work for once back in the human body it loses that storage capacity and thus the information.
How could one ever say their memory ‘truly' (though contrary to their claim) learned what they knew while in eternity? After all, if by divine intervention I were to gain knowledge of a mass of German vocabulary, yet I still don't actually understand German; I could never teach this new vocabulary to others right cause even I don't understand it. I am no better off than those who never got divine knowledge of German. At best I could only know what sounds like German.

(in the sense that we don't know where we have come…. True, the soul is neither made of the matter and…)
I'm not sure you understand what I am saying about the soul. When I say "Me" what do you think I refer to? What are you thinking of when you say "Me"? All the things that define "Me" as opposed to what "Me" would mean if I were you, what are they? Where did they come from? Part of ‘Me' may be a man who believes in supporting the Boy Scouts, part of ‘Me' may be a man who tries to avoid ever running into the unexpected, part of ‘Me' may be a man who puts his eggs in the basket that is his family. How would I gain this character? From life's experiences. It would be from choosing to go to scouts and it changes my life, I could have 1 too many bad run-in's with the unexpected and let it get me too far down, I could have grown up in a close family, ect. Everyday when you or I make choices it affects who we are going to be in the future. In fact anything I can come to think of at all that defines whatever I could mean when I say "Me" or "I" was forged from choices after I was born.
I ask you this, if you strip away all that which defines what you call "I" when you say "I" that did not come as a result of something done after your birth, what could possibly be left to still define "you" before you gained all the self-impositions that make up your character?
I can think of nothing, all that can make you what you are happens after you are born. So you could not have existed before and ‘fallen asleep and forgot' when you gained a body, because no part of what you are was formed yet. Even if some ‘spiritual' material was used to make the soul in your body that would grow into you with your life experiences that spiritual material can not be called your ‘soul' even if it had an eternal character of its own. Whatever defined it was lost when it was destroyed to make room for you. And we know it was destroyed because none of it is left that defines what you think of as "Me" or "I". The only things you think of came from this carnal life.

So anyway, because that establishes you came from ‘nothingness' it shows you could one day return to nothingness your maker willing it.

(Powerful hallucinations and delusions exist in some, and mildly in many, but that has no effect upon True Conscious which must be experienced…)

How could you know this though without some of the examples of those who experience ‘True Conscious' being also recipients of false experiences? To us who have experienced neither can say that both descriptions of the experiences sound near the same, sometimes an individual is simply more poetic in there descriptions. And that would be expected no matter what the case because some people are more articulate than others.
So logically if you experience one and not the other you not be able to determine that other is not like yours simply because they did not articulate themselves as poetically as you did your experience.
You would have to had experienced both the madness or false experiences and experience the True Conscious to be qualified to make a distinction.
And the Sad vicious circle that makes is that if you can honestly admit you experienced the madness at some point in your life; then HOW can you ever feel secure that your new experience is not just a more fantastic episode of that? You after all do have a history of madness and false experiences.
I do think that circle is an unfair one to have my opponent argue against; I would be satisfied to consider it refuted if he could just source an example of someone who ‘knows' what its like to be mad and have false experiences for him/herself and has recovered since then and had the real "True Conscious" experience for him/herself after that recovery at some point.

(If the reasoning faculties refused to doubt anything at any time, both they and the body would be become totally unbalanced and be seriously injured one way or another. If the reasoning faculties lose the faith they depend upon, they will mentally stagger forward in a kind of drunken fashion, losing all drive and momentum to understand anything outside their self-constricted limited parameters, and fall into an even deeper more complicated 'sleep'.)

So you are saying doubt is a rather a necessary presence of any rational person? I of course agree it's presence is not inherently bad. But if it is indeed present, then doesn't that make the proof ‘shakable'? For sure though it may be very IMPROBABLE that the doubt will amount to anything in particular cases, it is possible, right?
If its possible, though admittedly improbable, the proof can be said to be ‘shakable.' If it were ‘Unshakable' it would not just be improbable, it would be outright impossible.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by BellumQuodPacis 6 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
Wow....I've never had to do this before....all points tied.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
I tried to resist on principal but days went by without anybody voting... I cracked.

I enjoyed debating with you too though.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
Didn't know you could for yourself... that's unfortunate for me as I can't vote from England. Not that it matters, as I enjoyed the debate with you.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
oh, I forgot this was just 3 rounds.

Ogan, could you go to my thread on this topic an put your thoughts in on it?
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
I also chose to acknowledge the arguments in the comment section because the case regarding what defines the sole I really do want to hear more about than any of the rest of this debates points of contention. I was struggling with that right now in my life, before accepting this debate.

I was pondering over how god may have 'set aside' a particular detail of my future or me since before creation because of scripture from the book of Tobit. and if god has done that then in some way part of 'Me' had to have been made before creation and thus my birth. But all that I think of that defines me come after birth. Like in the song in the video that talks about how 'he got to be that way'. every imposition you get for doing things a certain way or avoiding them comes from some life experience. you get to be the way you are from the consequences of your (and others to some degree) good and bad choices.
and choices cant be part of your future intended design without throwing the whole concept of Free Will out the window.

So I find myself very unsure of what to think on this.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
Please reverse the 2 prior comments before reading so they flow correctly.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
That's not a fact you can just ‘feel'.

Ogan: True

And if this ‘experience' as a disembodied soul people have doesn't last ‘forever' but ended at some point, then it by definition was not an ‘eternal experience. It was a temporary one.

Ogan: Yes, in our limited time, the experience having ceased to happen when back in the body. The Consciousness of Eternity cannot be had by a process of reasoning within the brain, but it can be had and kept by the deathless soul when freed from such a necessary restriction as the body, which is subject to waking and sleeping and a transitional change, wrongly called death. Yet, paradoxically, the perfect memory of Eternity can be communicated into that same brain consciousness upon its return. The modus operandi of this remains a wonderful mystery.

On the logic that the soul could not exist without coming from somewhere and therefore cant go ‘nowhere', brings to mind a problem that occurs when you remember you are talking about a ‘soul' and not ‘matter' Matter may be in a permanent loop of recycling itself in 1 form or another but the soul HAD to have come from nowhere.

Ogan: Yes, I agree it – the soul - had to come from nowhere, in the sense that we don't know where we have come from while ‘sleeping' in the body, but not as an absolute term meaning no place. And yes, matter is subject to regular cycles in living loops, but the soul, when Awake, rules of over them and attains Freedom – this high state of Consciousness is symbolised by Christ, walking upon the Water and Teaching others, like Peter to do the same – providing lack of Faith doesn't sink him!

The soul is not made of matter or energy but is simply pure information that defines who you are http://www.authorsden.com...... . It's the data on the hard drive that is your brain.

Ogan: True, the soul is neither made of the matter and energy that we know with the senses, mathematics and clever instruments. But a patient who has experienced themselves as a livi
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
Debate: NDERound 2.

(…am referring to those NDE's where the Consciousness is vastly expanded and…)

I of course cant accept that its inherently true that the NDE's in question let the recipients KNOW anything as that is what I am supposed to be debating; But I will accept that by NDE you are referring only to the ones were people describe the experience like that.

That cuts out simple NDE's like seeing yourself outside of your body looking down on yourself on the operating table. And I can see how one could generalize those as the NDE's that are just Lucid Dreams and the rest as true experiences of the next life.

So with your clarification of NDE's definition I drop my biological argument about how the experiences may not be true; and I pick up a religious one. But I will get to that later; First the defense of my last arguments that I am not dropping before presenting the new one.

Ogan: Thank you. Spoken like a true Christian; I understand, and thus we will proceed.

1)Concerning Annihilationism: (…Even the most materialistic atheists would tell you that matter and energy are everlasting….)
Actually materialist are the only ones you should expect would tell you that matter could not have come from nothingness. Most theistic proponents agree that God created all out of nothing. That in the beginning there ‘was nothing' until it was created. But that's a whole other debate, and for now it distracts from this one.

Ogan: Just briefly the ‘nothing' of the materialistic atheist is the state of unknown substance or "original soup" prior to the big-bang – the Ancient religious Philosophies called it ‘No-Thing' or Chaos out of which everything, and back to which everything. Whereas, ‘nothingness' is an absolute term meaning absolutely nothing, from which nothing can come.

(…the soul becomes conscious and KNOWS of its own eternity and does not need…)
To say that the soul is ETERNAL is a declaration about its duration of existence.

Ogan: True.
Posted by Ogan 6 years ago
Ogan
Hi M. Apologies for the sudden cut off at the end - ran out of space. I look forward to your response.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
OganMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Lionheart's vote bomb.
Vote Placed by Lionheart 5 years ago
Lionheart
OganMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: My views fall in line with Ogan's.
Vote Placed by Floid 6 years ago
Floid
OganMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
OganMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 6 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
OganMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
OganMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02