You say you have not been presented with proof, but you have consistently ignored evidence in an attempt to deny my proof. You never replied to my post below because the evidence supporting the afterlife is overwhelming; from that evidence I deduce a creator, so the proof has been provided to you but you chose not to think about it.
Yes, I did present 52 points of evidence for your evaluation; where is your rational response?
www.near-death.com/evidence.htmlYou don't even realize your stories are contradicted by facts because you never investigated the evidence in the first place.
I have told you about the 52 points ...as i told you before
its your brains way of making you feel comfortable before you die..like when you have a bad accident you don.t feel pain till 10 to 15 mins after
what more do you want me to say..
I want you to stop making up stories that equate an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data.
Fact is that there is hard data supporting the idea that brain chemistry cannot explain this phenomena, and you did not read it, so now I have to quote it for you; for example...
Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments are often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Faulty conclusions are often made such as, "Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible." Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical claims are often made without any scientific evidence.
[many points of evidence were mentioned]
...
OK, so this is more than sufficient to demolish your claim that the NDE can be explained by brain chemistry alone; it is obvious that you did not read too much of the evidence...
but as i have stated even if there is an afterlife why would there still be a god would this not just what happens when we die..
I have posted my proof of God, I have refuted your disagreement on the first (inductive/scientific) point, so what is wrong with the rest of my proof which only uses deduction once the survival hypothesis is accepted? Please quote my proof and point out the logical error.
AT LEAST WITH AN ATHEIST WE ASK FOR PROOF AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED ..
Oh really? Maybe a rational atheist can solve a problem by using rational thinking, but you have not.
A pseudo-skeptic like yourself will ask for proof and try to discredit the empirical evidence for the afterlife by making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up his/her stories with facts, or in other words IGNORING the proof; then, s/he will go on believing whatever s/he wants to believe, thinking that the problem is solved.