BLOG

Evidence of the Soul from Our Transcendental Desires II.D: Perfect Beauty

In line with our previous posts on the topic, the very same reasoning applies to perfect beauty as to perfect truth, love, and justice (goodness). At this juncture, it will only be necessary to present the first step of the argument, and you can figure out the other three steps from the line of reasoning given above.

  1. We have the capacity to recognize imperfection in every dimension of every kind of beauty – artistic beauty, musical beauty, architectural beauty, literary beauty – and even beauty manifest in the human heart, human ideals, and human aspirations. Even when we are immersed in the most beautiful of nature walks or along a beautiful seascape, we always seem to strive for another angle – something more interesting – more beautiful. We try to enhance beauty in music by making it more complex – and sometimes by simply “turning up the volume.” We see endless imperfections in the beauty of ourselves and others, and strive to overcome those imperfections.
  2. How can we notice virtually every imperfection in all of the above forms of beauty – continuously and endlessly? You should be able to answer this question – without even being a Platonist philosopher.
  3. What could be the source of our tacit awareness of what perfect beauty would be like? Again, you should be able to answer this question.
  4. What is perfect beauty? Once again, it is the same God we proved in a previous post.

Now you draw the conclusion – what does this say about who God is and how he is present to our consciousness?

March 27th, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul from Our Transcendental Desires II.C: Perfect Justice/Goodness

As you might suspect, the argument concerning our desire for perfect justice/goodness, follows the very same lines as the one for perfect love, expounded upon in our last post. It too can be set out in four steps:

  1. We have the ability to notice imperfection in justice (goodness) – in both others and ourselves – in virtually every conceivable context. We not only notice unfairness (and evil) in individual people, but also in virtually every organization and institution. We can see unfairness in economic systems, judicial systems, educational systems, cultural institutions, and so forth. Our capacity to recognize imperfection in justice (goodness) seems to know no limits – resembling our capacity to recognize imperfection in knowledge and love. Again, little children have the ability to recognize unfairness in parents and teachers – even though their parents and teachers did not teach them how to do so.
  2. How can we notice virtually every imperfection in the justice (goodness) of others, ourselves, organizations, institutions, systems, and society — endlessly, if we do not have some idea of what perfect justice (goodness) would be like? Stated the other way around, if we had no sense of the perfect ideal of justice (goodness), we would never notice any imperfection in justice (goodness) – we would simply count “survival of the fittest” as our lot in life.
  3. Once again we must ask what could be the source of our awareness of what perfect justice (goodness) would be like. The source of this awareness cannot be any kind of justice (goodness) which we have experienced in the outside world. Again, it is precisely this justice (goodness) that causes us to recognize imperfection in it. This has led many philosophers to believe that the only possible source of our awareness of what perfect justice (goodness) would be like is perfect justice (goodness) itself.
  4. What is perfect justice (goodness)? As you might suspect, it is the one God we proved in a previous topic.

What can we conclude from this? If the above reasoning is correct, then God is not only perfect intelligence and perfect love, he is also perfect justice (goodness). Furthermore, he is present to our consciousness as perfect justice (goodness), creating a horizon of perfect justice (goodness) which incites us to strive for ever greater forms of justice and goodness in ourselves, others, organizations, institutions, laws, ideals, government, culture, and every other aspect of human endeavor.

Next week, we will delve similarly into the next transcendental: perfect beauty.

March 23rd, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul from our Transcendental Desires II: The Five Transcendental Desires Considered Individually — Part B: Perfect Love

If our last post on perfect truth didn’t thoroughly exhaust you, then let’s move on to our desire for perfect love. You will notice that this argument follows the same lines as the argument from our desire for perfect truth. We will give this argument in an abbreviated way in four steps, but you will be able to see the point.

  1. We have the ability to notice imperfection in love – in both others and ourselves – in virtually every conceivable context. Amazingly enough, very small children can notice imperfection or inauthenticity in the love of parents, teachers, brothers and sisters, and friends – almost as well as adults.
  2. How can we notice virtually every imperfection in the love of others and ourselves – continuously and endlessly, if we did not have some idea of what perfect love would be like? Stated the other way around, if we had no sense of the perfect ideal of love (what perfect love would be like), we would never notice any imperfection in love – we would be satisfied with any manifestation of affection – much like my wonderful dog — who is not perturbed by my inauthenticity, distraction, desire to do something else, etc.
  3. Once again we must ask what could be the source of our awareness of what perfect love would be like. The source of this awareness cannot be any kind of love which we have experienced in the outside world. Let’s face it – it is precisely this love that causes us to recognize imperfection in it. This has led many philosophers to believe that the only possible source of our awareness of what perfect love would be like is perfect love itself.
  4. What is perfect love? As you might suspect, it is the one God we proved in a previous topic (The Five Transcendental Attributes of God).

If we assume that the source of our awareness of perfect love is the one God (proved in the metaphysical proof), then we move to a two-fold conclusion – first, God is perfect love, and secondly, the perfectly loving God is present to our consciousness. Furthermore, when that perfectly loving God is present to us, we have a tacit awareness of what perfect love would be like, and this in turn, enables us to see imperfection in our love and the love of others – helping us to grow to evermore perfect kinds of love.

Visit the Magis Blog again next week for our topic’s next installment, “Part C: Perfect Justice/Goodness.”

March 16th, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul from our Transcendental Desires II: The Five Transcendental Desires Considered Individually — Part A: Perfect Truth

In this post, we’ll start breaking down the evidence of the soul from our transcendental desires starting with the desire for perfect truth. We can explore this in four steps:

  1. We have a very interesting ability. Every time we give an answer to a question, we have the ability to know whether that particular answer is the knowledge of “everything about everything.” As you may have discovered by now, you always seem to think that your answers are not the “knowledge of everything about everything” – that your knowledge is imperfect. And so you ask another question. We not only have a desire to know everything about everything, we have the capacity to know whether we have reached that goal at any point in our inquiry, and if we have not reached it – which at least for me has not yet occurred – we keep asking questions. We won’t be satisfied until we have finally gotten to our goal – the whole truth – knowledge of everything. By the way, if you did not know that your answer was not “everything about everything,” you would not ask another question – you would simply marvel blankly at the answer you have already gotten. But the fact is, we relentlessly ask questions because we are aware that our knowledge is imperfect and incomplete.
  2. Now here is the crucial question. How can we always know that our knowledge is imperfect – and that we have not yet reached the goal of perfect knowledge – unless we had some idea of what perfect knowledge would be like? Think about it – if you had absolutely no awareness of what perfect knowledge would be like, you would not recognize any imperfection in your current knowledge – and so you would have no desire to ask a question – indeed you would not even be aware that there was a question to be asked. In a sense then, without this awareness of what perfect knowledge would be like, we would be unintelligent and uncreative because we would ask no questions. That would be too bad because Aristotle said – asking questions is the beginning of all knowledge and creativity.

Note: So what is this awareness of perfect knowledge? Well, it can’t be the knowledge of perfect knowledge, because if you knew that, you wouldn’t have any further questions – you would have perfect knowledge. So philosophers have talked about this as a tacit or notional awareness of what perfect knowledge would be like. It is something we can sense as a goal of our inquiry, but we have not yet brought it into focus – so that we explicitly know it. Many philosophers, such as Karl Rahner, call it a horizon – we are aware of a horizon of perfect knowledge, but like any horizon, it is beyond our reach — we have not yet reached its full extent.

  1. What could possibly be the source of our tacit awareness of “everything about everything?” Well, as you can imagine, it cannot be anything in this world – because all of the objects of our experience and all the ideas that we have are imperfect – inciting us to ask further questions. So we clearly did not get our tacit awareness of everything about everything from either our experience of the outside world or the ideas we already grasp. So where did we get it from? Philosopher’s from Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, to Rahner, Lonergan, and Coreth all say it must come from perfect knowledge itself – “perfect truth itself” – “the complete set of correct answers to the complete set of questions.” No other reality can produce the idea of perfect knowledge except the idea of perfect knowledge itself.
  2. So what is the idea of perfect knowledge itself? As you might suspect, it is God. This proof was given in a previous topic (The Five Transcendental Attributes of God). Recall that this God must be an unrestricted act of thinking (shown in both the contemporary Thomistic metaphysical proof and the Lonerganian proof).

If the above reasoning is correct, then God is present to your consciousness – and not only that – his presence to  you as “the idea of perfect knowledge” gives you a horizon of perfect knowledge, enabling you to ask questions ceaselessly and to create new ideas continuously in the wake of that questioning. God not only exists – he incites our continuous questioning and creativity.

This concludes our analysis of the desire for perfect truth. In our next post, we’ll take a closer look at the evidence of the soul found in our transcendental desire for perfect love.

March 13th, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul from our Transcendental Desires I: The Basic Argument from Plato to Lonergan

There are five Transcendental Desires that were recognized around 400 BC by Plato and Aristotle. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other philosophers have spoken of these same desires through the centuries. Let’s look at how these transcendental desires indicate the presence of God to your consciousness.

What are these transcendental desires? They are our built-in desires for:

  • Perfect and unconditional Truth
  • Perfect and unconditional Love
  • Perfect and unconditional Justice (Goodness)
  • Perfect and unconditional Beauty
  • Perfect and unconditional Being (Home)

Here is the basic argument of Plato which has influenced generations of philosophers:

  1. One of the most basic experiences we have is the experience of imperfections in the world around us. We seem to be instinctively aware of imperfections in our understanding of things (truth), imperfections in the love of others and even ourselves, imperfections in the justice or goodness of others and ourselves, imperfections in the beauty of the world around us, and imperfections in our sense of “being at home in the world.” Indeed, we seem to recognize every imperfection in these five areas – instinctively and endlessly.
  2. How could we recognize these imperfections unless we had an awareness of what perfection in these five areas would be like?
  3. As we shall see below, the source of our awareness of these five kinds of perfection would have to be the five kinds of perfection themselves – and these five kinds of perfection – perfect truth, love, justice/goodness, beauty and home/being – turn out to be the one perfect God.

It looks like we have a lot of explaining to do. Check back next week for subsequent posts on the subject!

March 11th, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul and Heaven from Near Death Experiences VI: Conclusion

The studies of near death experiences mentioned in previous posts give considerable probative evidence of transphysical consciousness after bodily death which is not explained by current physicalist explanations and unlikely to be explained by future ones. In view of this, and the preponderance of evidence for a positive, loving experience after bodily death, we now have an ultimate context in which to interpret happiness and suffering. We no longer need to limit happiness to our physical existence and our bodily lifespan, but can explore transcendent and eternal happiness both now and in our eternal future.

At this point, the evidence and methodology of experience, reason, and science fall silent. For even though near death experiences point to a future of intense love, we are left with many questions that NDEs, natural reason, and experience cannot answer. How do we orient ourselves toward this post-mortem life of love? Is the “being of light and love” God? Does God help us, protect us, guide us, and inspire us in this life? If so, how? In view of the fact that about 85% of children undergoing clinical death have near death experiences, why do only 9 to 18% of adults have one?  Is there something that adults must decide or do before they can transition to a heavenly domain (with the being of light, deceased relatives, and Jesus)? Why do some adults (around 1%) have negative post-mortem experiences? Does God or the being of light have a specific purpose for each of us? Can we pray to God or the being of light before we die? These and many other questions go beyond the data of near death experiences – yet they beg for an answer in light of them.

Does God or the being of light stop his revelation (about our transcendence and post-mortem future) with near death experiences – or does he provide additional revelation that can answer the above questions? I find it incomprehensible that a loving God who gives us a glimpse into our eternal existence with Him (through NDEs) would leave us completely in the dark about the above questions – especially if they have significance for that eternal existence with Him. If this conjecture is correct, then God must have given us another source of revelation to answer the above questions. What could be the source of that revelation?

I would submit that it is the revelation of Jesus Christ – not only because many people see Jesus in near death experiences, but also because the being of light is intensely loving – resembling Jesus’ revelation of God as “Abba” and “the father of the Prodigal Son.”

For Jesus, God is not only our Father, but “Abba” (the word used by little children to address their fathers). Jesus compares him to the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son – a father who is unconditionally forgiving, compassionate, affectionate, accepting, and humble. Jesus not only reveals His Father to be unconditional love, but also He Himself. His miracles, teachings, love of sinners, and self-sacrificial death all show this unconditionally loving heart which gives credibility to his claim to be the only begotten Son. Moreover, many members of the early Church were witnesses to his resurrection, and reported that his risen body was transformed. Some aspects of this transformation resemble near death experiences. Furthermore, Jesus’ view of the resurrection as a state of unconditional love is corroborated by the vast majority of near death experiences. These parallels between Christianity and near death experiences suggest that Jesus does hold the key to the additional revelation we need to orient ourselves from this life to the next.

If the above reasoning seems plausible to readers of this website, you might want to explore Jesus’ revelation further. This can be done by clicking on the fourth pillar of intellectual evangelization – the “Reality of Jesus.” In addition to the free video, you can explore the evidence from the Shroud of Turin and the free Jesus Wiki on the latest historical evidence supporting his claim to be the only begotten Son of the Father.

March 9th, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul and Heaven from Near Death Experiences V: Love and Near Death Experiences

In our last post, we promised to discuss the important element of love in regards to near-death experiences.

As we have seen, there is considerable evidence of survival of human consciousness after clinical death, implying a transphysical dimension of human nature and a transphysical origin of consciousness. However, it does not show that this transphysical dimension of consciousness is   eternal. Nevertheless, there are some clues that this transphysical condition is eternal – e.g. the love and benevolence of the white light as well as the love of Jesus and deceased relatives and friends, which seem to betoken the intention of a loving deity to fulfill our greatest desire, namely, unconditional love and joy with that deity throughout eternity. This last point deserves special consideration because in every instance of an encounter with the “being of light” in all of the above studies patients reported the experience to be one of intense love. The following case resembles hundreds of others reported by the above researchers:

I became very weak, and I fell down. I began to feel a sort of drifting, a movement of my real being in and out of my body, and to hear beautiful music.  I floated on down the hall and out the door onto the screened-in porch.  There, it almost seemed that clouds, a pink mist really, began to gather around me, and then I floated right straight on through the screen, just as though it weren’t there, and up into this pure crystal clear light, an illuminating white light. It was beautiful and so bright, so radiant, but it didn’t hurt my eyes.  It’s not any kind of light you can describe on earth.  I didn’t actually see a person in this light, and yet it has a special identity, it definitely does. It is a light of perfect understanding and perfect love….  And all during this time, I felt as though I was surrounded by an overwhelming love and compassion.

This experience of overwhelming love by those who encountered the “being of light” may legitimately provoke the intuition that this being’s intention is not only transitory benevolence, but to give unconditional and eternal love — which corresponds to the fulfillment of our greatest desire.

Part VI will be posted soon, bringing this riveting topic on the evidence of the transcendent from studies done on near-death experiences to a close; check back soon!

March 6th, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul and Heaven from Near Death Experiences IV.B: Response to Physicalist Explanations

At the present time, neuroscience is not able to generate a credible physical explanation for the verified out of body phenomena in near death experiences. There is reason to believe that such explanations will never be able to do this. First, there is a radical discontinuity between those experiencing NDEs and those experiencing physically induced illusory states (e.g. in the studies of Blanke, Whinnery, Jansen, and Persinger). The former group (NDEs) has no electrical activity in the cerebral cortex (marked by a flat EEG) and virtually no electrical activity in the lower brain (fixed and dilated pupils and absence of gag reflex). However, the latter group (physically stimulated illusions) has both a functioning cortex and lower brain. Susan Blackmore presents the only case of a “dying brain” in which electrical activity is being diminished because of anoxia. Though this hypothesis resembles the diminished electrical activity in the brain during clinical death, it falls prey to both van Lommel’s criticism (since 100% of dying people experience anoxia, 100% should have a near death experience if anoxia is the cause of NDEs), and Parnia’s criticism – (there are patients who have NDEs without anoxia).

The second major difference between NDEs and physically stimulated illusion (hereafter “PSI”) is that the latter do not resemble the former. Blanke’s PSI gives rise to abnormal bodily experiences and a false sense of reality (instead of a clear and accurate perception of reality and one’s place in it), Whinnery’s PSI gives rise to a state of confusion and anxiousness in its aftermath (instead of clarity and lifelong positive transformation). Jansen’s narcotically induced hallucination gives rise to false and weird images and exaggerated perspectives (unlike NDEs), and Persinger’s PSI gives rise to psychic states associated with epilepsy (which are quite distinct from those associated with NDEs).

The third major difference between NDEs and physicalist explanations concerns the accurate veridical experience of both sighted and blind people during clinical death. There is no evidence of this occurring during anoxia or any of the above PSI phenomena. Even if PSIs could produce these effects, it would not prove that those effects had their origin in physical reality alone—i.e., that there is no transphysical dimension of consciousness. Indeed, there must be such a transphysical dimension of consciousness so that clinically dead individuals can accurately see and hear apart from and above their physical bodies.  PSIs have certainly not given a physical explanation of how clinically dead individuals can see and hear apart from their physical bodies. Thus, even if PSIs could produce the effects of NDEs (which they are currently unable to do), it would only show that they had caused a transphysical state of consciousness to occur—a state of consciousness that can accurately see and hear apart from and above a clinically dead physical body. If PSIs could produce the same effect as NDEs it would only serve to show that stimulation of the brain caused a separation of a transphysical dimension of consciousness from the physical body—it would not disprove the existence of that transphysical dimension.

In sum, it is highly unlikely that physicalist explanations will ever be able to account for this last line of reasoning because it would require them to prove that merely physical phenomena can have unmistakably transphysical effects—which is at best a contradiction.   Physicalist explanations per se are limited to showing how physical causes produce physical effects—nothing more.  Therefore, the physicalists will have to either open the door to transphysical explanation, or leave the explanation of near death experiences to those who are open to the transphysical domain.

In Part V, we’ll take a closer look at how many near death experiences contain some aspect of love and give some indication of the eternal.

March 4th, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul and Heaven from Near Death Experiences IV.A: Response to Physicalist Explanations

As noted in previous posts, several physicians and neuroscientists have tried to explain near death experiences by making recourse to hallucinations and other possible physical triggers. Dr. Mario Beauregard, neuroscientist at the University of Arizona, has responded to these physicalist explanations in his recent book, Brain Wars (2012a). His findings and responses have been verified by the Parnia et al. study which concludes that known physical explanations do not account for visual awareness, clarity of thought, and positive emotions associated with NDE’s.   The following is a brief summary of some of Beauregard’s responses excerpted from that book.

Perhaps the most famous physicalist explanation of OBEs (out of body experiences) was proposed by Olaf Blanke in 2003 which received an accolade from the journal Nature claiming that Blanke’s research discovered the part of the brain in which OBEs are induced. Blanke and his team placed electrodes in the angular gyrus of the parietal lobe which triggered an “OBE-like” experience in a 43-year old patient with epilepsy. She claimed that she had left her body, but could only see the lower half of her body – her legs and lower trunk. As the experience progressed, she perceived her legs to be getting shorter and shorter.  In 2004 Blanke and his team reported that they had induced an atypical and partial OBE in three patients and autoscopy in four patients – in which the patient perceives a double from the vantage point of her physical body.

Beauregard responds to this with van Lommel’s critique – first Blanke’s stimulations of the parietal lobe produce abnormal bodily experiences, and secondly these abnormal experiences give rise to a false sense of reality  (e.g. legs growing shorter and seeing body doubles). These experiences are illusory whereas typical OBEs are not illusory. Patients leave their body, and see (and accurately remember and report) what is going on inside the operating room and how their physical bodies are situated relative to the people, events, and instruments in that room. Greyson adds to van Lommel’s criticism by noting that if we accept Blanke’s stimulations as typifying an OBE, we would be constrained to think that OBEs are illusions, but as we have seen throughout this chapter, there is nothing illusory about them – they give accurate descriptions of verifiable data almost all the time (only 8% minor inaccuracies according to Holden).

Beauregard then turns to Susan Blackmore’s hypothesis (1993) that anoxia (oxygen deprivation in the dying brain) could lead to the firing of neurons responsible for visual perception – possibly leading to an experience of a white light at the end of a tunnel.  Beauregard responds first with van Lommel’s criticism (2001) – that 100% of dying people suffer from anoxia; so if anoxia is the cause of near death experiences, 100% of patients should have them (but in fact only 18% of adults do).  Furthermore, the studies of Sam Parnia (2008 and 2014) show that several people have had near death experiences while feeling well – and therefore not suffering from anoxia.

Beauregard also looks into James Whinnery’s hypothesis that “dreamlets” are a possible explanation of NDE’s.  “Dreamlets” occur in the stressed brain (e.g. of fighter pilots) immediately prior to unconsciousness. This does not seem to be a plausible explanation of NDEs because Whinnery’s research indicates that these individuals wake up confused and anxious – instead of having lucid recollections and positive life-transforming experiences.

Beauregard then turns to the hypothesis of narcotically induced hallucination as a possible explanation of NDEs. Researcher Karl Jansen conjectured that he could produce an NDE by inhibiting NMDA receptors (by ingesting small quantities of ketamine – a veterinary anesthetic).  Though this did induce a sense of being out of body, the images in the hallucination were “weird” and perspectives were exaggerated.   In contrast to this, patients having a near death experience perceive their surroundings in precisely the way they exist – e.g. inside the operating room (many of these perceptions have been verified by independent researchers after the fact – see Part III.A).

Another recent explanation has been offered by neuroscientist, Michael Persinger, who proposes that he too can stimulate an NDE by using weak transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the temporal lobes.  Beauregard, citing Greyson and the literature of epilepsy, shows that NDEs do not resemble the psychic states experienced by epileptic patients, and that transcranial stimulation of the temporal lobes does not result in experiences similar to NDEs, but rather in the psychic states associated with epilepsy.

In 2013 (after Beauregard’s book), Jimo Borjigin proposed another possible physicalist explanation for NDEs. During his experiments with rats, he discovered that a surge of electrical activity occurred in the brain (which he hypothesized might produce consciousness and an image) when rats experienced cardiac arrest.  This hypothesis is not on the same level as the ones mentioned above for three reasons: (1) it was restricted to rats (not humans), (2) there is no evidence that the electrical surge in the brain produced either consciousness or an image, and (3) even if there were evidence that it produced consciousness and an image, there is no evidence that this consciousness-image resembles near death or out of body experiences. In short, this hypothesis does not give researchers anything to compare to NDEs or OBEs – it is a pure speculation without an identifiable frame of comparison, meaning that it does not yet qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

In Part IV.B, we will move on to discuss how neuroscience is not able to generate a credible physical explanation for the verified out of body phenomena in near death experiences by highlighting the major differences between NDEs and physically stimulated illusion.

March 2nd, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments

Evidence of the Soul and Heaven from Near Death Experiences III.D: Conclusions Concerning Verifiable Evidence of Transphysical Consciousness

We may now briefly summarize the four kinds of evidence for transphysical consciousness after clinical (bodily) death:

  1. Remarkable consistency surrounding ten features of the experience, seven of which are unique to near death experiences, two of which are shared with physical embodiment (positive emotions and visual/auditory perception), and one of which is shared with out-of-body experiences (seeing one’s body from above) – in all 15 studies cited in Sections II and III above.
  2. Corroborated, veridical, sensorial knowledge by patients who were unconscious (more than thirty seconds after cardiac arrest) – in all 15 studies cited in Sections II and III above.
  3. Corroborated, veridical, sensorial knowledge by blind patients who were unconscious (primarily Ring, Cooper, and Tart – 1999, Ring and Valarino – 2006, and van Lommel 2001).
  4. Reports of encounters with deceased people who were unexpected or unknown, and reports of unknown information disclosed by deceased people (primarily Greyson 2010, van Lommel 2010, Moody 1993, Cook et al. 1998, and Kelly et al. 2000).

As we shall see, physicalist explanations of near death experiences do not (and probably cannot) explain these combined phenomena. Though they can explain how a hallucination might be possible during clinical death, they do not explain how people can accurately report empirical data, how the blind can see, and how people can acquire previously unknown information about deceased individuals during the time of clinical death. A brief examination of the six major physicalist explanations, which we will address in our next post, will make this clear.

February 27th, 2017|Categories: Our Immortal Soul and Weakened Nature|0 Comments