linate

There may have been disputes on the point but the idea that jesus is God was there from the beginning and only formally defined much later. Plus I presented the argument biblically so it is what it is

They're each god. C'mon this is right up your ally, you're all about things that don't make sense right?

The phrase "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" comes from Matthew 28:19 in the New Testament of the Bible

If you're that old wouldn't you rather never get sick? Or is your theory that maybe you won't get sick but you'll still maybe die soon either way?

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/198/the-bible-presents-jesus-as-god?page=1&comment_number=2

Your thoughts on how the bible defines elder and Presbytr looks like semantics and if the early church had something like a priest it doesn't matter what they're called

In Christian theology and biblical accounts, the claim that Jesus is God is supported by His authority

• Divine Authority: In the Gospels (such as Mark 2 and Luke 5), Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic man before healing him. The religious leaders of His time accused Him of blasphemy, noting that only God can forgive sins. By claiming the direct right to absolve sin against God, Jesus was asserting divine prerogative.

• Theological Insight: As outlined by resources like Answers in Genesis, Jesus demonstrated divine attributes—such as reading thoughts and performing miracles

• Miracles in the Gospels: Jesus raised multiple people from the dead during His earthly ministry, including Jairus's daughter (Mark 5), the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7), and Lazarus (John 11), demonstrating sovereign power over life and death.

• His Own Resurrection: The primary pillar of Christian proof for Jesus's deity is His own resurrection

The Mystery of the Trinity

The Trinity is one of the deepest mysteries in all of Christian faith—a truth revealed but never fully grasped. The Bible gives us glimpses, not neat formulas, because what is infinite cannot be captured in finite terms.

John opens his Gospel with words that shake the mind: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1,14). Here we see both distinction and unity: the Word was with God, yet the Word was God. The eternal Christ entered history, not as an idea, but as flesh.

Jesus Himself spoke in riddles that reveal this mystery. He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58)—taking upon Himself the divine name revealed to Moses at the burning bush. He warned, “Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Yet in another breath, when called “good,” He responded: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18). Was this denial? No—it was a subtle challenge. If Jesus is truly “good,” then He must also be God, for goodness in its perfection belongs to God alone.

Interestingly, Jesus rarely went about directly proclaiming, “I am God.” Instead, He preferred the title “Son of Man.” This was not a denial of His divinity but a layering of meaning. The “Son of Man” is a figure from Daniel 7 who comes on the clouds with authority, receiving glory and worship. Still, when pressed, Jesus did not reject the title “Son of God,” but affirmed it (John 10:36). His humility was not in hiding His identity, but in revealing it in a way that required spiritual ears to hear.

After His resurrection, the disciples spoke plainly: Thomas confessed to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Paul called Him “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13). The early church was convinced not only that Jesus revealed God, but that in Him, God Himself had come near.

Jesus in the gospels also says "i am the father are one". and 'one' in that context didn't mean the same person but the same essence. and i think it was at that point that the jews tried to stone him for blasphemy

Attempts to Understand the Trinity

Christians across centuries have sought analogies to grasp what is beyond human reason.

Relational roles: A man can be at once a father, a son, and a brother—three roles, yet one person. Similarly, God reveals Himself in different aspects without ceasing to be one.

Dimensions: The Son steps into our dimension, while the Father transcends in another dimension. They are distinct in experience, but united in essence.

Human nature: We ourselves are a trinity—spirit, mind, and body. Different aspects, yet one person.

Nature itself: St. Patrick famously used the three-leaf clover. Three leaves, yet one plant.

Mutual indwelling: The Spirit enters the Son, and through the Spirit, the Father is present in the Son. The Persons are distinct, yet they fully interpenetrate one another in what theology calls perichoresis—a divine dance of love.

Each of these analogies shines a fragment of light, though none can capture the fullness.

The Paradox of the Unlimited

At its heart, the Trinity is not a logical puzzle to be solved, but a paradox that reveals the limits of human thought. God is infinite, yet He enters the finite. He is unlimited, yet He chooses limitation. As Philippians 2 says, Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.”

Creation itself is a form of divine self-limitation: the boundless God makes a bounded universe. In the Trinity we see the same mystery—oneness that contains difference, eternity that enters time, infinity that wears flesh.

Near-death experiences often echo this: people describe encountering a Light that is utterly One yet somehow full of relational Love. They experience God not as cold abstraction, but as a living communion. In that sense, the Trinity is not mathematics (1+1+1=1), but relationship—perfect love flowing between Father, Son, and Spirit.

Conclusion

The Trinity is not meant to be dissected so much as entered into. It is a mystery that invites worship more than explanation. The early Christians did not invent it—they simply encountered Jesus and the Spirit in ways that forced them to rethink everything they knew about God.

As finite beings, we stumble before the paradox. But that stumbling is holy. For the Trinity is God’s way of saying: “I am not solitary power, I am eternal love. And this love has come near to you in Christ, and dwells in you by the Spirit, to bring you back to the Father

Elders and Presbyters: The Greek word presbuteros (often translated as "elder" or "presbyter") appears frequently in Acts and the Epistles. Christian denominations hold different views on these offices:

So you just ignore the early church on confession and trinity?

The bible says jesus and the father are god... do u take reservation on the spirt being god?

The apostles in the bible appointed men to replace and follow after them. They also set up priests and elders in the bible. Notice jesus breathed the holy spirit on the apostles not everyone

The phrase "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" comes from Matthew 28:19 in the New Testament of the Bible. [1, 2]

What would you pick if you were limited to one quickly acquired skill?

You can only pick one of the following below

A. Never get sick

B. Photographic memory

C. Ability to cure any diseases

D. $25,000 a month for life

E. Master any skill in 24 hours

F. Unlimited food

G. Know when someone is lying

H. $1 billion right now

Ai response....

I think you're identifying a genuinely difficult strategic dilemma, and I would separate it into three questions:

* Can the United States prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons indefinitely?

* Can a democracy sustain the military pressure necessary to prevent it?

* If Iran eventually gets nuclear weapons, can deterrence contain the danger?

Those are three different problems, and unfortunately, none has an easy answer.

I also think there's an important distinction in your argument: You opposed the war when diplomacy appeared capable of removing Iran's nuclear material. But now that a war has happened, you're thinking about the consequences of ending it without resolving the nuclear threat. That's a legitimate change in the strategic calculation, not necessarily a contradiction.

### 1\. Your concern about democracy is probably the most important part of the argument

There is a real structural problem with a long-term containment strategy.

An authoritarian government can maintain a decades-long strategic objective despite economic hardship, public dissatisfaction, and enormous human costs.

A democracy has to contend with:

* Elections and changes in administration.

* War fatigue and public opposition.

* Congressional resistance to prolonged military commitments.

* Economic costs, particularly energy prices.

* Allies who may eventually withdraw their support.

And this isn't exclusively a Democratic-versus-Republican problem. Both parties operate within those constraints.

The United States can sustain military pressure for years, but sustaining it indefinitely is a different proposition.

Your whack-a-mole analogy captures the problem: destroying facilities doesn't necessarily destroy the knowledge, personnel, scientific expertise, or political motivation needed to rebuild them.

### 2\. But I would challenge your assumption that Iran getting nuclear weapons is inevitable

Here's something important about the current situation.

As of November 8, 2026, the conflict hasn't produced a definitive resolution. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the June ceasefire arrangement halted large-scale fighting, but strikes and other confrontations have continued.

More importantly:

* Iran's nuclear infrastructure has suffered substantial damage.

* The IAEA still cannot fully account for Iran's highly enriched uranium.

* The status of the stockpile and the extent of Iran's remaining capabilities are uncertain.

* Iran has recently submitted another nuclear proposal through Qatar.

* Indirect negotiations are continuing, despite significant disagreements.

Global Conflict Tracker +3

That last point matters. There is still a diplomatic pathway, however difficult.

And there's a distinction between Iran having the technical capability to produce a bomb and actually deciding to manufacture, assemble, and deploy one.

Those aren't the same thing.

### 3\. The religious fanaticism argument deserves some unpacking

I understand why you find mutual assured destruction less reassuring when dealing with an apocalyptic religious ideology.

But I would be careful about equating religious extremism with suicidal irrationality.

Iran's leadership has demonstrated ideological commitment, willingness to accept enormous suffering, and willingness to sponsor violent organizations.

But it has also demonstrated strategic calculation.

There is a difference between:

* A government willing to sacrifice thousands of its citizens for ideological objectives.

* A government willing to sacrifice its own existence in a nuclear exchange.

The second is a much higher threshold.

Iran's leaders have families, institutions, political power, economic interests, and a regime they want to preserve.

Even deeply ideological leaders can be extraordinarily concerned with their own survival.

That doesn't make nuclear deterrence foolproof. Miscalculation, unauthorized actions, misinterpretation of an attack, and escalation through proxies remain serious dangers.

And nuclear weapons in the hands of a government that supports terrorist organizations create additional proliferation and security concerns.

But I wouldn't assume that Iran would launch a nuclear weapon simply because its leadership is religiously fanatical.

### 4\. The proliferation danger may be even greater than the direct threat from Iran

This is where I think your concern has considerable strategic importance.

Imagine the following sequence:

* Iran eventually obtains nuclear weapons.

* Saudi Arabia decides it cannot remain defenseless against a nuclear-armed Iran.

* Turkey begins reconsidering its own nuclear options.

* Other regional powers conclude that American security guarantees aren't sufficient.

Suddenly, we're not just talking about one additional nuclear power.

We're talking about potentially changing the nuclear balance across an entire region.

And there's a particularly troubling irony: If Iran concludes that its nuclear program is the only thing that can prevent future American or Israeli attacks, military action might actually strengthen the political argument for acquiring nuclear weapons.

Some Iranian strategic thinkers have already been making precisely that argument. INSS +1

### 5\. I see a third option between perpetual war and accepting defeat

I wouldn't reduce the choices to either bombing Iran forever or accepting a nuclear-armed Iran.

There is a possible long-term strategy combining:

* Military deterrence against attacks on American forces and allies.

* Intelligence and surveillance to detect nuclear weapons development.

* International inspections and monitoring.

* Economic sanctions with clearly defined conditions for relief.

* Diplomatic agreements that make nuclear development less attractive.

* A credible military response if Iran violates an agreement.

The challenge is making this sustainable.

The military component should be a deterrent and backstop, not necessarily a permanent bombing campaign.

And critically, any agreement needs to address the actual enriched uranium, not just promises about future intentions.

### My biggest concern

There's something I think is particularly dangerous about the current situation.

If Iran's leadership concludes that:

* America intends to prevent it from becoming a regional power regardless of its nuclear behavior;

* negotiations won't provide meaningful security guarantees;

* and only nuclear weapons can prevent regime destruction;

then we may inadvertently create an even stronger incentive for Iran to acquire the very weapons we're trying to prevent.

That doesn't mean military action was necessarily unjustified. It means military success and strategic success are two different things.

Destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure is not the same as resolving Iran's nuclear ambitions.

And I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of eventual containment or a negotiated settlement, either.

One final thought: I think you're giving too much weight to the idea that the United States is doomed to lose this contest because of democratic politics. Democracies have sustained lengthy containment strategies before. The Cold War is the obvious example.

But they need public support, strategic consistency, alliances, and achievable objectives.

I share the seriousness of your concern about nuclear proliferation. I just wouldn't jump from this is an extraordinarily difficult problem to the world is inevitably screwed.

There is a substantial difference between a dangerous future and a predetermined one.

We r either in a forever war or we lost the war. I mean we can always play whack a mole every time iran gets too far to getting a nuke but since we are a democracy and dems r pussies its probably inevitable that Iran gets nukes. The largest state sponsor of terrorism will get nukes. Nuclear proliferation and spreading nuke states is probably inevitable

Iran is on its knees now so I wouldnt mind the constant bitch slapping perpetually but that's not the way democracies like ours work

I didn't support the war cause iran seemed open to getting rid of their nuke material before the war started. But now that we r in a war that changes things.

Mutual assured destruction only works with rational actors and non religious fanatics which iran is

The usa and world is fucked

Same same, but different

Republicans: racist... but secretly gay

Democrats: gay... but secretly racist

This verse is found in John 20:22–23 of the New Testament (Christian Bible).

The Passage (NIV)

“And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’” — John 20:22-23

Great thoughts

You dont sound like a stereotypical conservative

Here's my tip... dont eat yellow snow

It just allows exploitation and bad experience for customers

I said what I said. Come at me bro. Fight me on this. Lolz

I mean it's like punishingly expensive to do basically anything. It's punishingly expensive to keep yourself alive. And keeping a kid alive and giving them a good life? Buddy, no shot. Birth rate is in decline for a lot of reasons.

I also think the 'smart' maga supporters and even those who merely vote for him and dont support him, are almost always, without fail, pseudo intellectuals. Thats rampant on this website for sure

"We only wish trump was less effective enacting harm to the country"

Said by some side show clown libertarian

I truly believe the fight against maga is mostly a fight between the informed versus uninformed. And 30 percent of the country still support him... well ten percent of the country is ignorant, ten percent are stupid, and ten percent is evil. Theres your 30 percent

That might make sense as an abstract statement but it dont make sense applied to the specifics of our country or conservatism

Or do you think conservative values are by their nature dysfunctional ?

Im curious of yalls response

I could go on for long describing how it dont make sense for anyone to support the maga movement, but I thought id see yalls responses

### Out-of-body experiences: the evidence explained in everyday language

The paper by Janice Miner Holden is making a pretty remarkable argument: some people who come close to death report seeing things happening around them while they were unconscious, and some of those reports supposedly match what actually happened. Holden argues that the best cases are hard to explain if the brain is the only thing producing consciousness.

Let's walk through the examples in plain English, what investigators did to check them, and how convincing the evidence really is.

The first thing to understand is that there are two different claims here:

* Claim one: People really do experience themselves floating outside their bodies. That's well established as a type of human experience.

* Claim two: Sometimes they actually see things they couldn't have seen with their physical eyes, suggesting consciousness can work independently of the brain. That's the controversial claim the paper is trying to establish.

### 1\. The surgeon's patient who supposedly saw what happened while he was dead


This is probably the paper's most important example because Holden gives a fairly detailed account of it.

### What happened?

A man had a serious heart infection and needed surgery to remove an infected heart valve. The surgeons used a heart-lung machine to keep blood circulating while they operated.

Eventually, the doctors couldn't get his blood pressure to recover when they tried to take him off the machine. They turned the machine off, his blood pressure fell to zero, and the team declared him dead.

The surgeons closed his chest and left the immediate operating area. Roughly 20 minutes later, they noticed signs of heart activity and managed to revive him.

Afterward, the patient reportedly described seeing things from a position above his body.

He described:

* The two surgeons standing in the operating-room doorway.

* The anesthesiologist coming back into the room.

* A string of Post-it notes attached to a monitor.

That last detail is particularly interesting. The lead surgeon, Lloyd Rudy, reportedly had a habit of having his nurse write down telephone messages on Post-it notes and stick each new note beneath the previous one. The patient supposedly described this ordinary workplace routine, which wasn't something the medical team had been discussing aloud.

Rudy's assistant, cardiac surgeon Roberto Amado-Cattaneo, reportedly corroborated the account and said the patient had been heavily medicated and unconscious throughout the episode. Source: Holden's discussion of Case 3.11 in The Self Does Not Die, by Rivas, Dirven and Smit (2023).

### Why is this considered evidence?

Think about it this way. Imagine you were unconscious during surgery, with your eyes closed, and afterward you described a peculiar arrangement of objects in the room that you supposedly couldn't have seen.

The researchers' reasoning is that the patient might have acquired information about the room from a viewpoint outside his physical body.

The evidence consists of three parts:

* The patient's report: He described the scene after recovering.

* The surgeon's testimony: Rudy reportedly confirmed that the patient described events and objects that were actually there.

* The assistant surgeon's testimony: Amado-Cattaneo also reportedly corroborated the account and the patient's unconscious condition.

That's stronger than someone simply saying, "I floated above myself and saw a bright light." The claim involves specific details that other people could check.

### What are the weaknesses?

There are important unanswered questions.

* The account was documented retrospectively, rather than in an experiment designed beforehand.

* We don't have a continuous recording of the patient's brain activity demonstrating that his brain could not support perception or memory at the relevant moment.

* Cardiac arrest, zero blood pressure, and a declaration of death do not automatically establish that all brain activity had ceased.

* The possibility of briefly regaining some awareness, hearing information, or reconstructing a memory must be evaluated against the original medical records and the timing of the report.

Holden discusses the possibility that the patient briefly regained consciousness and saw the notes. She argues that the heavy sedation, prolonged unconsciousness and other circumstances make that unlikely. But an unlikely explanation isn't necessarily an impossible one.

My take: This is an intriguing reported case. If the timing, details and medical circumstances are as described, it deserves investigation. It does not, by itself, prove that consciousness left the body or that the patient was experiencing anything after irreversible brain death.

### 2\. The patient who reportedly knew about a 12-digit number


This is another example Holden highlights from The Self Does Not Die.

According to her paper, one patient reported a 12-digit number displayed on top of a machine in a resuscitation room. The number was reportedly positioned so that it could be seen from a viewpoint near the ceiling but not from the patient's position in bed.

### Why does this matter?

A 12-digit number is a much better test than a vague description of a hospital room.

If somebody says, "I saw a machine," that could be a lucky guess. But if they correctly report a long, arbitrary number that they had no ordinary way of seeing, that is much harder to explain by coincidence.

The scientific question is whether the person reported the number accurately before anyone told them what it was, and whether independent records establish that the number was there at the relevant time.

### What science established it?

Holden includes this case in a collection of reports she considers completely accurate and corroborated by at least one credible third party.

However, the paper does not reproduce the complete original case documentation for every example. To assess this particular report properly, we'd want the original case narrative, the exact wording of the patient's report, the machine records or photographs, and details about when the number was verified.

My take: If independently documented exactly as described, this is the sort of case that could be quite significant. But the fact that a researcher includes a case in a collection of verified reports is not the same as having personally checked every underlying record.

### 3\. The surgeon who made a silent gesture

Holden also describes cases in which patients reportedly remembered an unusual gesture made by a surgeon during resuscitation.

The important detail is that the gesture was allegedly made silently. The patient wasn't supposed to be able to see it from their position in bed, and the gesture wasn't something that would necessarily have been explained afterward.

Why is that interesting?

Because it reduces some ordinary explanations. A patient might overhear doctors discussing a procedure, learn what happened later, and incorporate the information into a dreamlike memory. But a specific gesture that nobody talked about is harder to explain that way.

Still, the crucial question remains: How do we know the patient described the gesture before learning about it?

If the original account was recorded promptly, and the surgeon independently confirmed the detail, the evidence would be stronger. If the patient told the story much later, after conversations with the medical team, the possibility of memory reconstruction becomes more difficult to rule out.

This is a recurring theme in the paper. The most valuable details are unusual, specific, and independently confirmed.

### 4\. The patient who supposedly knew what doctors were thinking

Holden includes reports in which an NDE patient allegedly described the unspoken thoughts of a medical professional who was trying to revive them.

This is a more ambitious claim than seeing a physical object.

If someone correctly describes a doctor's private thoughts, the question is whether they somehow perceived information that wasn't communicated through ordinary speech or behavior.

But this type of evidence has an extra difficulty: How can we verify that someone accurately reported another person's private thoughts?

A doctor may later recognize a description as matching what they remember thinking. That is worth considering, but people can also reinterpret their memories in light of a compelling story.

A stronger test would involve the doctor recording their thoughts or observations independently before hearing the patient's account, followed by a comparison of the two records.

Holden's paper reports these cases as part of the broader collection. It does not provide enough detail about each individual case to judge how well that stronger standard was met.

### 5\. The patient who described a conversation happening somewhere else

The paper also mentions a case in which an NDE patient reportedly described a conversation taking place at a considerable distance from their body during resuscitation.

This is interesting because the patient allegedly acquired information from somewhere other than the immediate area around their body.

For example, if the person were unconscious in one room but later accurately described a conversation in another room, the obvious question would be how they learned about it.

To establish that the information was genuinely anomalous, researchers would need to show that:

* The conversation actually happened as described.

* The patient had no ordinary opportunity to hear it.

* The patient's account was recorded before the conversation was disclosed to them.

* The details were specific enough that they couldn't easily be guessed.

The paper lists this kind of case among the reports collected in The Self Does Not Die. But, as with the other examples, the strength of the evidence depends on the original documentation, not simply on the summary.

### 6\. The doctor who lost his watch

Another case involves a patient who reportedly identified the location of a watch that a doctor had lost during resuscitation.

This is a useful example because it involves an ordinary, concrete fact rather than a spiritual vision.

Imagine being unconscious and later telling a doctor where a missing object was located. If the doctor independently confirms that the object really was there, and you couldn't have learned its location through normal means, that would be unusual.

But we would still want to know whether the patient had any opportunity to see or hear information about the watch before making the claim.

This is why careful case documentation matters so much. A story can be sincere and accurately remembered by everyone involved without establishing that consciousness literally left the body.

### 7\. What did Holden actually do with the scientific evidence?

This is where the paper goes beyond storytelling. Holden describes several different approaches to studying these reports.

### A. She collected 107 published cases

Holden says that in an earlier research project, published in 2009, she gathered 107 cases of supposedly veridical perception (perception that matched real events) from the professional literature.

She sorted them according to whether the reported perceptions were accurate and how they were verified.

Her reported findings were:

### Holden's review of 107 cases

Reported percentages from her review; these are not the results of a randomized experiment.

Completely accurate, objectively corroborated

### 37%

Completely accurate, subjectively corroborated

### 55%

Some errors

### 6%

Completely erroneous

### Less than 2%

The distinction between the first two categories is important.

* Objectively corroborated means the report was checked against evidence such as medical records or testimony from someone other than the experiencer.

* Subjectively corroborated means the report was supported by the experiencer's own account of checking it or by information reported through the experiencer, rather than by the same level of independent documentation.

Holden interprets the findings as evidence that these experiences are predominantly accurate.

That is an important result if the cases are representative and the classifications are reliable. But there is a major limitation: this was a review of cases that had already been reported in the literature, not a random sample of everyone who experienced an NDE.

Researchers might be more likely to publish remarkable successes than ordinary failures. This is called the file-drawer problem: disappointing or negative results may remain unpublished while striking positive results get attention.

Holden argues that the problem is unlikely to account for the whole pattern, partly because some researchers were conducting prospective studies and had reasons to report negative findings. That is a reasonable point to consider, but it does not eliminate the concern entirely.

### B. Researchers tried hidden pictures in hospitals


This is one of the most important scientific approaches because it attempts to test the claim directly.

Researchers placed pictures or other visual targets in locations that a person lying in bed normally could not see, but that might be visible from a viewpoint near the ceiling.

The idea was simple:

* A patient experiences cardiac arrest and is resuscitated.

* If the patient experiences an OBE and can see the room from above, they might see the hidden target.

* After recovering, the patient is asked what they saw.

* Researchers check whether the person correctly identifies the target.

This is much stronger in principle than relying on a memory of something that happened during a medical emergency. The experiment sets up a test in advance, so investigators know what the correct answer is before the patient reports anything.

Holden discusses seven hospital studies, including studies by Penny Sartori, Bruce Greyson and Sam Parnia. None of these studies successfully demonstrated that a patient had identified the hidden visual target.

Holden suggests several reasons the experiments might have failed: very few patients survive cardiac arrest and are able to complete interviews, NDEs themselves are uncommon, and the targets might not attract the patient's attention.

Those are legitimate challenges for designing a study. But they also mean the hypothesis has not yet passed this direct test.

### C. The AWARE II study

The paper discusses the AWARE II study, led by Sam Parnia and colleagues, which involved 567 in-hospital cardiac arrests across 25 hospitals.

Of the 567 cases, 53 patients survived, and 28 completed interviews. Six reported memories or experiences associated with death or an NDE.

None identified the hidden visual target. One identified an auditory stimulus, but the result did not definitively establish that the information was acquired through an out-of-body experience.

This is an important finding because the study was specifically designed to investigate awareness during cardiac arrest under hospital conditions.

It doesn't prove that OBEs are impossible. The number of people who survive and can be interviewed is small, and there are practical difficulties in determining exactly when an experience occurred.

But we shouldn't treat the study's lack of a successful hidden-target identification as if it were positive proof of consciousness outside the brain, either.

### 8\. The biggest scientific question: Can someone be conscious when the brain isn't working?

This is the heart of Holden's argument.

She says the most convincing cases involve people who report accurate perceptions more than 30 seconds into cardiac arrest, when an EEG would ordinarily be expected to show no detectable brain activity.

An EEG measures electrical activity from the brain's surface. If it shows no detectable activity, that is evidence that the brain is not producing the usual measurable patterns of electrical activity.

But there's a distinction worth understanding.

No detectable EEG activity is not the same as proof that every part of the brain has stopped functioning. An EEG has limitations. It cannot measure every neuron, every deep-brain structure, or every possible process that might contribute to consciousness. And cardiac arrest is not the same as irreversible brain death.

There is another problem: even if a patient has no measurable brain activity during part of resuscitation, researchers must establish that the reported experience actually occurred during that interval. A person might experience something before losing consciousness or during recovery, then remember it as one continuous experience.

Holden's argument is that some accounts appear to overcome these difficulties because they include accurate, unusual details that the patient shouldn't have been able to perceive normally.

Her interpretation is that consciousness may sometimes function independently of the brain.

That's a possible interpretation of the reports, but it isn't the only one. The evidence would be considerably stronger if a study could establish the timing of an experience, independently verify its details, and rule out ordinary information pathways.

### 9\. So, is this good evidence for life after death?

Here's how I'd put it to an ordinary person over a cup of coffee.

Suppose someone tells you they floated above their body during surgery and saw something unusual. You might reasonably think it was a dream or hallucination.

But then suppose they tell you about a peculiar object, an unusual gesture, or an event in another room—and a doctor independently confirms the details.

Now you have a more interesting question. You don't have to believe in an afterlife to recognize that the report deserves investigation.

That's the real strength of the cases Holden discusses. Some accounts appear to contain information that deserves a better explanation than simply waving them away as meaningless dreams.

At the same time, we need to be careful not to leap from an unexplained observation to a particular explanation.

* What is reasonably well established: People have vivid out-of-body experiences, including during medical emergencies.

* What some reports suggest: Certain people may have acquired accurate information under circumstances in which ordinary perception seems unlikely.

* What remains unproven: That consciousness literally leaves the body, operates without any functioning brain processes, or survives irreversible death.

Holden believes the cumulative evidence is strong enough to overturn the view that consciousness depends entirely on the brain. I think that conclusion goes further than the evidence currently warrants. Her case collection is worth examining, but retrospective reports and independent testimony are not a substitute for consistently successful, controlled experiments.

The failed hidden-target studies are especially important here. They don't settle the matter against an afterlife, but they remind us that the most direct scientific tests have not yet delivered the result that would make the case compelling.

My bottom line: I wouldn't dismiss this research. The best cases raise a genuine question about consciousness that deserves serious study. But I would distinguish being impressed by the evidence from claiming that science has proved an afterlife.

And from a spiritual perspective, I think there's room to remain open to the possibility that consciousness is more than we presently understand without pretending that every difficult case has already been solved.

Yeah theists are pretty predictable in the ways you said about establishing god. But it should be said more often that tje average or even below average intelligence theist royally sucks at defending their faith

I tend to use christian miracles and god and jesus in nde phenomenon to establish god. Its rare to find people arguing this but to me theyre solid arguments. Ive been pondering the god question for over 20 years and thats the best I got. The philosophical arguments for god like causation are helpful but should be kept at the level of consistent with god theory and helpful but only philosophy and only weakly if at all even evidence to begin with

I think ive heard humans are naturally either serial monogamists or lightly polygamists. They said by measuring shouldar size/width in humans and comparing to other primates they can draw that conclusion as well as observation and historical records