Rebirth....

[Maeght]

No...……………. I agree that Death is final because, er, Death is final is a circular argument.

That people don't usually come back from the dead and I never expect to see it I can agree with......I am even prepared to accept we never come back to this universe.

So you don't think ordinary people come back from the dead because? Is it because death is final?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you don't think ordinary people come back from the dead because? Is it because death is final?

You're not noticing things. I said they don't usually come back.....that's what I think. So I guess I think death is usually final as far as we are concerned.


And death is final because death is final is still a circular argument.

[Sriram]

People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.

What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything. 

Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.

[Maeght]

People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.

What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything. 

Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.

Nothing objectional about it. Having a clear definition is important to avoid a lack of clarity around claims being made, such as the thousands of claims you refer to.

[Maeght]

You're not noticing things. I said they don't usually come back.....that's what I think. So I guess I think death is usually final as far as we are concerned.


And death is final because death is final is still a circular argument.

I am noticing what you are saying but was looking to clarify it.

[Sriram]

Nothing objectional about it. Having a clear definition is important to avoid a lack of clarity around claims being made, such as the thousands of claims you refer to.

Yeah right!!  So, you define it in such a way that the 'thousands' of cases are ab initio taken as wrong?!!!   Nice!

[Aruntraveller]

People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.

What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything. 

Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.

"Define death insuch a way....." What are you on about?

People die. They dont come back to tell us about it. I would love for mu Mum, who died a year ago, to come back and talk to me. She won't though, because she is dead.

The definition doesn't stop people coming back, the act of dying does.

[Roses]

People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.

What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything. 

Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.

No one who is actually dead comes back to life, end of story!

[Anchorman]

Hi everyone,

I came across the following quote from the bible.


************
Titus 3:5-7 New International Version (NIV)

5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

************

It seems to match well with the Hindu idea that if we are cleansed, we can avoid rebirth and attain liberation (eternal life).

Any views?

Cheers.
   
Sriram

   


No, it doesn't.
In the context Paul is using, he mere echoes John and Peter.
The rebirth is another definition of thechange Christians accept happenswhen we acceptChrist as our Lord and Saviour,effectively wiping the spiritual slate clean and beginning a new life in Christ.
This does not happen when we snuff it - at least, if it does, I've been dead since 1977.

[Roses]

   


No, it doesn't.
In the context Paul is using, he mere echoes John and Peter.
The rebirth is another definition of thechange Christians accept happenswhen we acceptChrist as our Lord and Saviour,effectively wiping the spiritual slate clean and beginning a new life in Christ.
This does not happen when we snuff it - at least, if it does, I've been dead since 1977.

The accepting of that guy as my lord and saviour when I was a kid, was not a happy experience. I was more than happy to get rid of that unpleasant baggage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

People don't usually come back from the dead. But there are thousands who have! Even if there is just one person who comes back, it is sufficient to indicate that people CAN come back under certain circumstances.

What is objectionable is that we define death in such a way that it does not allow for people to come back and tell us what it is. Therefore, whoever does come back is automatically taken as 'not really dead'....'must be some brain thingy'. This is a nonsense way of analyzing anything. 

Our initial assumptions cannot put limits on the phenomenon.

You still have it ass-backwards. Is it “objectionable” to define flying as staying in the air for more than a few seconds? Change that definition to, say, staying in the air for two seconds and there are thousands who have "flown" just by jumping too.

“Death” actually means something – absence of neural activity for one – so saying someone came back from death because their heart stopped for a while or because their neuronal activity slowed greatly while trapped under ice is just playing fast and loose with the term. Of course people have “come back from” death when you use the term colloquially (just as they have flown unaided when you use that term colloquially), but that’s a very different matter to being actually dead.

Oh, ignore by the way Vlad’s straw man version of what you said to arrive at the false conclusion “circular reasoning”. To be circular reasoning you’d have to put the argument something like:

Statement A: Death is final

Statement B: I would never accept evidence of someone returning from being dead

Conclusion: Therefore Statement A is correct.

Where you went wrong though was to say: “Problem is that people resort to a circular argument. Death is final (assumption)....so anyone who does come back to tell you about it cannot be actually dead.  It assumes what we are trying to find out...and ends up 'proving' the assumption.” As I explained, “death is final” is just the working assumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And there’s nothing circular about that.

[BeRational]

Yeah right!!  So, you define it in such a way that the 'thousands' of cases are ab initio taken as wrong?!!!   Nice!

There are ZERO cases of people returning from death, ZERO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Yeah right!!  So, you define it in such a way that the 'thousands' of cases are ab initio taken as wrong?!!!   Nice!

No, he defines it as the word actually means. It’s you who’s re-defining it to include, “not actually dead”, “almost dead”, “showing some but not all of the characteristics of death” and similar so as to allow for lots of people to “come back” from being not dead at all.

“Nice” indeed.

[Enki]

Sriram,

No, he defines it as the word actually means. It’s you who’s re-defining it to include, “not actually dead”, “almost dead”, “showing some but not all of the characteristics of death” and similar so as to allow for lots of people to “come back” from being not dead at all.

“Nice” indeed.

And further to that, even Sriram's oft quoted NDEs are Near Death Experiences, not after death experiences, and there is no evidence that they show anything but the workings of the human mind in such situations.

[Gordon]

These days, given medical knowledge and techniques, death is best thought of as a process that can vary and be varied, such as where hypothermia is involved (or induced) or where interventions such as CPR are viable and can, in some cases, be effective in interrupting the process if applied promptly and properly.

If these options don't apply, or if tried they fail, then death will indeed become 'final': in that the process has become irreversible, which is why undertakers don't worry too much about any of their charges absconding.
     

[Sriram]

   


No, it doesn't.
In the context Paul is using, he mere echoes John and Peter.
The rebirth is another definition of thechange Christians accept happenswhen we acceptChrist as our Lord and Saviour,effectively wiping the spiritual slate clean and beginning a new life in Christ.
This does not happen when we snuff it - at least, if it does, I've been dead since 1977.

But you are referring to 'rebirth' as something good that happens when you accept Jesus, like 'born again'.  The quote above talks of 'washing of rebirth' as though it is something to be gotten rid of. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

But you are referring to 'rebirth' as something good that happens when you accept Jesus, like 'born again'.  The quote above talks of 'washing of rebirth' as though it is something to be gotten rid of.

Any thoughts yet on why calling the correct use of the term "death" "objectionable" has given you such a problem?

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Any thoughts yet on why calling the correct use of the term "death" "objectionable" has given you such a problem?

blue,

I usually refrain from entering into any conversation that is obviously a dead end or is likely to become a name calling exercise.   

But let me clarify this time....

No one knows what death is. This is a fact.   It is the most common yet the most enigmatic phenomenon we know of.  We can only see and check on certain physical parameters that we might consider as symptoms of death, but as to what death actually is in terms of our experience we don't know. These parameters also change according to the availability of better technology.

In spite of all current knowledge, no on...no one... knows what death actually is.

People have believed for millennia that after death the Self or soul lives on in another realm (and reincarnates)...and so on.  There is no way of proving this nor of disproving it.  (I know you will say that the onus of proof lies with the believers, but I think otherwise).

However, several people  (thousands) have 'come back' after clinical death certified by doctors  and have given clear experiences of the after life. This needs to be examined.

But if we assume that people cannot come back after death and that the ND experiences have to necessarily be pre death, it automatically  closes the doors for any further investigation and the assumption itself becomes the conclusion.  There is no room left for any other explanation. 

That is all I have to say on this.

Cheers.

Sriram 

[Gordon]

blue,

I usually refrain from entering into any conversation that is obviously a dead end or is likely to become a name calling exercise.   

But let me clarify this time....

No one knows what death is. This is a fact.   It is the most common yet the most enigmatic phenomenon we know of.  We can only see and check on certain physical parameters that we might consider as symptoms of death, but as to what death actually is in terms of our experience we don't know. These parameters also change according to the availability of better technology.

In spite of all current knowledge, no on...no one... knows what death actually is.

Death is the permanent cessation of life, which surely isn't all that difficult to understand.

People have believed for millennia that after death the Self or soul lives on in another realm (and reincarnates)...and so on.  There is no way of proving this nor of disproving it.  (I know you will say that the onus of proof lies with the believers, but I think otherwise).

So aside from falling into the NPF you also want to avoid the burden of proof - nice! 

However, several people  (thousands) have 'come back' after clinical death certified by doctors  and have given clear experiences of the after life. This needs to be examined.

But if we assume that people cannot come back after death and that the ND experiences have to necessarily be pre death, it automatically  closes the doors for any further investigation and the assumption itself becomes the conclusion.  There is no room left for any other explanation. 

That is all I have to say on this.

Cheers.

Sriram

Then all you have to say is essentially woo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I usually refrain from entering into any conversation that is obviously a dead end or is likely to become a name calling exercise.   

But let me clarify this time....

No one knows what death is. This is a fact.   It is the most common yet the most enigmatic phenomenon we know of.  We can only see and check on certain physical parameters that we might consider as symptoms of death, but as to what death actually is in terms of our experience we don't know. These parameters also change according to the availability of better technology.

In spite of all current knowledge, no on...no one... knows what death actually is.

Except of course lots of people know just what death is – that’s why they bury people that are dead and try to revive the when they aren’t. Leaving aside the clinical tests – absence of neuronal activity etc – a pretty big clue is the decomposition that sets in almost immediately death occurs. Of course if you want to argue that some people have managed to recompose themselves after that by all means give it a go, but you’ll have given yourself a hell of a mountain to climb if you do.     

People have believed for millennia that after death the Self or soul lives on in another realm (and reincarnates)...and so on.  There is no way of proving this nor of disproving it.  (I know you will say that the onus of proof lies with the believers, but I think otherwise).

Leaving aside for now that you’ve just driven a coach and four through the logic that underpins the burden of proof principle and moreover that you’re now squarely in negative proof territory, you’ve also just opened yourself up to accepting any other claim about anything else at all when the claimant just has to assert what he thinks to be true.

Is that really where you want to be?   

However, several people  (thousands) have 'come back' after clinical death certified by doctors  and have given clear experiences of the after life. This needs to be examined.

It has been. They weren’t dead, and there’s no good reason therefore to think they experienced an “after life”.

Now what?   

But if we assume that people cannot come back after death and that the ND experiences have to necessarily be pre death, it automatically  closes the doors for any further investigation and the assumption itself becomes the conclusion.  There is no room left for any other explanation.

Wrong again. We have a working assumption that death is final because that’s what all the evidence we have tells us. That’s not to say that evidence to the contrary could not be treated seriously, and indeed that if ever there was any the working assumption wouldn’t change. For now though, “coming back from not actually dead” is all you have.     

That is all I have to say on this.

Probably just as well. 

[Roses]

blue,

I usually refrain from entering into any conversation that is obviously a dead end or is likely to become a name calling exercise.   

But let me clarify this time....

No one knows what death is. This is a fact.   It is the most common yet the most enigmatic phenomenon we know of.  We can only see and check on certain physical parameters that we might consider as symptoms of death, but as to what death actually is in terms of our experience we don't know. These parameters also change according to the availability of better technology.

In spite of all current knowledge, no on...no one... knows what death actually is.

People have believed for millennia that after death the Self or soul lives on in another realm (and reincarnates)...and so on.  There is no way of proving this nor of disproving it.  (I know you will say that the onus of proof lies with the believers, but I think otherwise).

However, several people  (thousands) have 'come back' after clinical death certified by doctors  and have given clear experiences of the after life. This needs to be examined.

But if we assume that people cannot come back after death and that the ND experiences have to necessarily be pre death, it automatically  closes the doors for any further investigation and the assumption itself becomes the conclusion.  There is no room left for any other explanation. 

That is all I have to say on this.

Cheers.

Sriram

People who come back to life after being declared dead, weren't actually dead, the medics got it wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems that we merely have a difference of opinion on whether the definition of death invariably includes the ìdea of finality.
My own opinion is that some who insist on the inclusion of a finality clause have not been totally averse to definitional flexibility but here are insisting on an absolute definition.

To those people it might be worth testing their definition by running a scenario or two.

[Gordon]

It seems that we merely have a difference of opinion on whether the definition of death invariably includes the ìdea of finality.

It isn't a matter of opinion though, Vlad: if by death we mean that the body no longer functions in a manner compatible with being alive (cardiac activity, respiration and neural activity) and any resuscitation efforts made have failed, so that the process of biological death completes and decomposition begins - which is why, at that point, we regard it as being safe to bury or cremate the dead body.

My own opinion is that some who insist on the inclusion of a finality clause have not been totally averse to definitional flexibility but here are insisting on an absolute definition.

I think it is more the case here that some of us recognise that certain well-established facts are more relevant than definitions that don't fully take account of these facts. Do you have a definition for 'just a little bit dead for a wee while but not really fully dead at all'?

To those people it might be worth testing their definition by running a scenario or two.

On you go then: propose a scenario or two.

One option would be for you to pay a visit to your local undertaker (experts in this field) and ask if there have been cases of dead people not staying dead.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It seems that we merely have a difference of opinion on whether the definition of death invariably includes the ìdea of finality.
My own opinion is that some who insist on the inclusion of a finality clause have not been totally averse to definitional flexibility but here are insisting on an absolute definition.

To those people it might be worth testing their definition by running a scenario or two.

The scene: An operating theatre. A team of highly trained professionals are working calmly and diligently on a high risk procedure. The only sound is the occasional beeping of machines and the rhythmic swish of the ventilator. Three hours in, suddenly all hell breaks loose – alarms sound, light flash etc.

Anaesthetist: “Mr Jenkins, I’ve got no pulse. We’re losing him!”

Scrub nurse Smith: “Confirmed Mr Jenkins – everything’s flatlining…”

Mr Jenkins: "Dammit! OK everyone, calm now. Nurse Smith – defibrillator please."

Several attempts with the defibrillator are made, and various drugs are administered; all fail.

Mr Jenkins: “OK, I’m cracking the chest now. Begin open heart massage.”

After 20 minutes or so of frantic activity, all the machines are still flatlining and no signs of life remain.

Mr Jenkins: “OK, I’m calling this. Time of death – 20.2…”

Suddenly the door slams open and a buck-toothed lad in blue cleaners’ dungarees appears.

Youth: “WAIT!”

Mr Jenkins (peering at the youth’s name badge): "Yes, Mr ….er…Vlad is it?"

Vlad (for it is he): “You just said time of death right?”

Mr Jenkins: “Er, yes….are you a relative or something?”

Vlad: “Never mind that now. This is an emergency!”

Mr Jenkins: “Pardon?”

Vlad: “Well, you didn’t say which kind of death did you? You know, did you mean the “might as well bury him now" kind or the, “he could come back from this” kind?

Mr Jenkins: “SECURITY!”

Vlad seen dragged down the corridor by two burly types in uniforms. His last, barely discernible words being: “But you didn’t even run the the scenarios…”

End

[Roses]

The scene: An operating theatre. A team of highly trained professionals are working calmly and diligently on a high risk procedure. The only sound is the occasional beeping of machines and the rhythmic swish of the ventilator. Three hours in, suddenly all hell breaks loose – alarms sound, light flash etc.

Anaesthetist: “Mr Jenkins, I’ve got no pulse. We’re losing him!”

Scrub nurse Smith: “Confirmed Mr Jenkins – everything’s flatlining…”

Mr Jenkins: "Dammit! OK everyone, calm now. Nurse Smith – defibrillator please."

Several attempts with the defibrillator are made, and various drugs are administered; all fail.

Mr Jenkins: “OK, I’m cracking the chest now. Begin open heart massage.”

After 20 minutes or so of frantic activity, all the machines are still flatlining and no signs of life remain.

Mr Jenkins: “OK, I’m calling this. Time of death – 20.2…”

Suddenly the door slams open and a buck-toothed lad in blue cleaners’ dungarees appears.

Youth: “WAIT!”

Mr Jenkins (peering at the youth’s name badge): "Yes, Mr ….er…Vlad is it?"

Vlad (for it is he): “You just said time of death right?”

Mr Jenkins: “Er, yes….are you a relative or something?”

Vlad: “Never mind that now. This is an emergency!”

Mr Jenkins: “Pardon?”

Vlad: “Well, you didn’t say which kind of death did you? You know, did you mean the “might as well bury him now" kind or the, “he could come back from this” kind?

Mr Jenkins: “SECURITY!”

Vlad seen dragged down the corridor by two burly types in uniforms. His last, barely discernible words being: “But you didn’t even run the the scenarios…”

End