What comes to mind is that Christian Existentialists want to disregard reason when it comes to faith. I can't make any sense of this idea. As far as I can see, this leads to nonsense. When you take the leap of faith, you may as well jump into the abyss. Throw out reason and you may as well throw out your brains. I'm using reason in the very broad sense, not just reason as it pertains to logic, but reason that is behind language and our experiences.

It seems as though Christian Existentialists want to throw up their hands because they can't answer certain questions. I contend that reason is what is needed to answer the questions, and if we can't get the answers, we keeping working at it, we don't give up (like the Christian Existentialists). — Sam26

Sam!

Well, let's see where should I begin... :snicker: . Since you put that out there , of course I will ask for justification to support your assertions. But of course, relative to the human condition, the use of reason and the intellect is very useful in a practical or pragmatic sense, to say the least. However, unless you can explain the nature of your own conscious existence, your clinging to reason will not help you there, will it?

How much thinking will change that? Can you think your way out of brute mystery and/or the existential things in life? Can science save you?

Assuming you are a believer (perhaps you're a Fundy, not sure), was Jesus' resurrection logical, supernatural or something metaphysical and transcendent?

That's just a very minor sampling of the existential questions for you to think about... . If your salvation is in reason itself, you will have to explain all of existence to me. And whether it is the nature of consciousness, the nature of the Universe/Cosmology and all its phenomena, or the nature of Love and the human condition (Ecclesiastes), I challenge you to provide logical explanation to all of it!

(You may start another thread if you care to...and no pun intended, but I would love to debate you on these things; the nature of existence!)

Why do you classify a dream as a brain malfunction? — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't classify a dream as a brain malfunction. I gave a list of explanations of NDEs, and among them are brain malfunctions. I probably could have worded that better.

Whether a hallucination is veridical is impossible to determine. — Hanover

It's not impossible to determine, what makes something a hallucination, IS, the fact that it's not veridical, which is why some people call NDEs hallucinations. How do you think psychiatrists determine what is, and what is not a hallucination?

Assuming you are a believer (perhaps you're a Fundy, not sure), was Jesus' resurrection logical, supernatural or something metaphysical and transcendent? — 3017amen

If you've been reading my posts you should know I'm not religious (and definitely not a Fundy). To answer your questions I would need to start another thread. However, at this time, I'm not up for it, sorry.

To answer your questions I would need to start another thread. However, at this time, I'm not up for it, sorry. — Sam26

That's what I thought, LOL

How do you think psychiatrists determine what is, and what is not a hallucination? — Sam26

Via cultural biases - which may or may not be correct - their own estimations of the person they are dealing with and their own experiences.

It's not impossible to determine, what makes something a hallucination, IS, the fact that it's not veridical, which is why some people call NDEs hallucinations. How do you think psychiatrists determine what is, and what is not a hallucination? — Sam26

I presume the psychiatrist draws conclusions based upon what he perceives, which is what I do, yet all that begs the question of whether the psychiatrist or that I am hallucinating. If you've posited that there are certain perceivers whose perceptions cannot be trusted (i.e. those that are hallucinating), you can't then just declare that you're not one of them or that certain others are exempt. You can rely on pragmatism to get through this and then go about living your life as if this objection does not matter on a practical level, but you can't make the larger philosophical claim you've asserted, which is that some claims are veridical (that is, they comport to external reality) based upon the support of other perceivers.

From time-to-time I reiterate some of my earlier points because I know people won't read all that's been posted. What I want to do, is, and this is based on what I believe I know after reading thousands of NDEs, is share what other conclusions we can infer based on the testimonial evidence?

First, though, I would like to add that some of these conclusions are based on the most in-depth of all the NDEs. What I mean is, those NDEs that give us the most information about the afterlife. These are what I call category 3 NDEs. There are thousands and thousands of category 3 NDEs, so these conclusions are not based on just a few testimonials.

Second, I don't want to give the impression that these testimonials give us all the answers, because they don't, but they, at the very least, give us some answers. Third, sometimes you can infer things based not only what is said, but what is not said. In other words, when people describe their conversations with those in the afterlife, sometimes what's left out of the conversation is very important.

In this thread I've argued that one of the strongest conclusions one can reach based on the strength of the argument is that we as individuals survive the death of the body. So, who we are continues after the death of the body, i.e., our memory continuity, and the continuity of our experiences continues. We don't just survive as energy, but we survive as individuals. This can be seen when people describe their sensory experiences, which by the way is very expanded, and it can be seen in the way they interact with deceased relatives and friends. For example, many people report having a life review, and in this review they remember their lives, and how they responded to others in their lives. Some people also remember their choice to become human, suggesting that their life pre-existed coming to Earth. We also know that we survive as individuals based on seeing deceased relatives and friends, i.e., they survived death, so we can infer that we too will survive death as the persons we are. We don't cease to exist. If anything our existence is expanded, i.e., who we are is much greater than who we are as humans. Part of what makes us who we are is the continuity of memory, and that remains intact.

Before I forget, I do want to mention something that I've not mentioned before (I might have mentioned it in passing), viz., that based on some of the discussions people have had in their NDEs with beings in the afterlife, we do have free will, or at least limited free will. This can be seen as people experience their life review, i.e., they know as they review their life (Earthly life) that different choices have better outcomes, suggesting that we're not locked into a fixed outcome, at least in some things. On the other hand, there seem to be things that we are meant to experience, so there maybe some things that are pre-determined. For example, who we will marry, and who our children will be, among other things. However, these things vary from person to person based on what our goals are in coming here.

Another conclusion that seems clear is that our memories are affected by our choice to come here. This can be seen in how many people describe their experiences. They report remembering who they really are, or they remember that their home is not here, but there, in the afterlife. Some actually remember their choice to come here, and who they would come with. Some remember choosing who their parents and siblings would be. Some also remember living out many other lives in other places besides Earth. In fact, it seems that we are able to choose to live out just about any life we can imagine. Another way in which our memories are affected, is that when we make the choice to come here, we forget who we are, what we are, where we're from, and why we've come here. I compare it to entering a dream, in a dream we forget where we're from, and we think that what's happening in the dream is what's real. The dream is real in a sense, i.e., we're really experiencing it, but it's not as real as our waking life. In the same way, when we return to the afterlife, this life seems dreamlike by comparison. Many people describe their NDE as more real than real, and that this life seems dreamlike, not the other way around.

Another important thing to remember in terms of the dream analogy, is this life is important, much more important than our dream life. I say this to point out, that because I use the analogy of dreams, I'm not suggesting that this life is unimportant. It's very important. We've come here for very important reasons, most of which we will not understand until we return to the place we come from. Much of this is hidden from us for very good reasons. One reason might be that if we did remember who and what we are, it would probably affect the goals we have in coming here, or the way in which we live our lives here.

Another conclusion based on very strong testimonial evidence is that our time on Earth is fixed. We see this over and over again, when people have an NDE they're told that it's not their time, they have to go back and accomplish their tasks or goals. Is it fixed in absolute terms? Probably not, but it's generally fixed for all of us. Because of this, I look at death much different from the way I looked at it prior to studying NDEs. No one should be afraid of death, we're just returning home.

One can also conclude that communication is much different from how we experience it in this life. We communicate mind-to-mind, which is a more perfect way of communicating, because we get the full sense of what a person means when they communicate with us.

These are just some of the conclusions that follow from the testimonial evidence.

Before I go on about what other conclusions follow from the evidence, I want to add a few things that are speculative. However, even this speculation has some merit based on the case studies, but the testimonial evidence isn't very strong.

My guess is that we are eternal beings, and that we can experience anything we want, sometimes for growth, sometimes to help others achieve what they need to achieve, and sometimes just for fun. So, what can you do for all eternity? The answer is, anything you like. If you can imagine it, then you can experience it. Imagine living forever, but also imagine being able to experience any experience. My best guess is that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possible worlds, and lives to choose. Some of these places are very difficult, and require a lot of courage to experience (for e.g. the life we are currently living). It's your choice, live whatever life you want. You're not forced to do anything. However, it does seem to be the case that we made a kind of agreement before we come here. One of the things in the agreement has to do with the time we are allotted here. Some of us choose to come for a short time, others a little longer, and still others, a life of 90 or 100 years. We come to test ourselves in various ways, we come to help others experience what they want to experience, and we sometimes probably come to fulfill a certain narrative. There are multiple storylines that we can choose. However, the most prevalent storyline is the family.

My final speculation is based on no evidence. It's this, if we create these worlds to experience, is it likely that some of the people in these worlds are simply part of a program? Think of it like these giant MMO games, some of the so-called people in the game are simply part of the game, part of the program, not real. It might not be so far fetched as it may seem. Especially if we want to control the game to a degree, or to have a certain kind of experience.

We've come here for very important reasons, most of which we will not understand until we return to the place we come from — Sam26

Sam!

Sounds very Existential to me, no? :chin:

Sounds very Existential to me, no? :chin: — 3017amen

We must have very different understandings of what it means to be an existentialist.

...you think?

For example you said

We've come here for very important reasons, most of which we will not understand until we return to the place we come from. — Sam26

Are you saying that the reasons why we are here, are important, yet not understandable?

Are you saying that the reasons why we are here, are important, yet not understandable? — 3017amen

No, I'm saying that we may not understand all the reasons, but we may understand some of the reasons. That's true of almost everything, we understand some things, but not everything. Christian Existentialists, at least the ones I've read, are more about taking a leap of faith against reason, which is a religious move. I'm not religious, and when I claim to know something, I give reasons or evidence to support it, unless I'm speculating.

No, I'm saying that we may not understand all the reasons, but we may understand some of the reasons. — Sam26

Sure, and that would be existential.

Christian Existentialists, at least the ones I've read, are more about taking a leap of faith against reason, which is a religious move. — Sam26

I wouldn't say it is a "religious move" (or maybe elucidate some on your meaning there). Instead I would say taking a leap of Faith would involve not only the idea behind the Wager as it were, but also associating much of life's phenomena and conscious existence with a propose/Deity.

More specifically, the idea of sacrifice, in the form of death and resurrection (which is part of what you're exploring in the NDE), is beyond logical explanation, no? In other words, you are positing metaphysical forms of conscious states. Metaphysical phenomena. And if much of this transcends logic, what is wrong with that? Is the super natural logical? Is the 'religious experience' logical?

To embrace the illogical is your savior. To limit your self to logic is your... (?).

Otherwise, while inductive reasoning provides a very useful tool in processing the NDE phenomenon, aren't you essentially taking a leap of Faith in proposing your theories? And is that a bad thing?

Much of that is another reason why I suggested including a definition chapter to your book's beginning. A good example would be theoretical physicist Paul Davies book The Mind of God. The 1st chapter devotes lucid discussion to age-old "Reason and Belief" (from Aristotle/Plato to Hume/Kant), and the various meanings of same. Then he explores all the technical stuff that argues for a more plausible existence of purpose... .

Just trying to help.

I don't want to turn this into a thread on Existentialism, you keep wanting to go there.

What comes to mind is that Christian Existentialists want to disregard reason when it comes to faith. I can't make any sense of this idea. As far as I can see, this leads to nonsense. When you take the leap of faith, you may as well jump into the abyss. Throw out reason and you may as well throw out your brains. I'm using reason in the very broad sense, not just reason as it pertains to logic, but reason that is behind language and our experiences.

It seems as though Christian Existentialists want to throw up their hands because they can't answer certain questions. I contend that reason is what is needed to answer the questions, and if we can't get the answers, we keeping working at it, we don't give up (like the Christian Existentialists). — Sam26

AND:

I don't want to turn this into a thread on Existentialism, you keep wanting to go there. — Sam26

I think it was you--ahem--who raised the specter of Existentialism by the forgoing comments. And as such, you seemed interested (or at least opinionated) about same.

Again, just trying to help.

I found an interesting video that is worth watching if you have an interest in this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGZSC8odIU

for those who believe in concept of consciousness beyond death you must first answer the question of how prevalent consciousness is in the world?

do you believe all living things are conscious?
if you don't, then you must also believe that consciousness is a function of brain complexity
at a certain point the brain gets complex enough to create consciousness
but this of course means that there can be no consciousness without brain activity
so there can not be consciousness after brain death

do you believe all living things are conscious? — dazed

What, then, is the result, if the answer is yes?

at a certain point the brain gets complex enough to create consciousness
but this of course means that there can be no consciousness without brain activity
so there can not be consciousness after brain death — dazed

How is that possible?

do you believe all living things are conscious?
— dazed

What, then, is the result, if the answer is yes? — 3017amen

if you believe all living things are conscious then of course there can be consciousness after brain death since lots of living things have no brains

if you believe all living things are conscious then of course there can be consciousness after brain death since lots of living things have no brains — dazed

Is the idea of metaphysical will, the same as consciousness in all of nature?

After a long break from any discussions, I thought I might come back to add more information to this thread. Although at 70 I don't always have the patience to deal with many of the topics and/or questions in this forum.

In this thread I tried to steer clear of religious beliefs, although there is some overlap because we're talking about an afterlife. I've tried to use evidence that's not based on religious ideology, and I think I've succeeded. The testimonial evidence is from a wide range of cultural perspectives and beliefs, which gives a better picture of the NDE experience. The picture that I've formed is based on examining many thousands of these experiences. I don't believe you can conclude much by watching a few testimonials, other than to dismiss or agree with them based on your particular world view.

As has already been mentioned earlier in this thread, my view is that consciousness survives the death of the body. To say it another way, I believe we survive as persons, i.e., whatever it is that makes us who we are is not dependent upon the body/brain. For me, the testimonial evidence is overwhelming, which is why I took an epistemological approach to answering the question of consciousness surviving death. My main argument was inductive, and based on the rules of good inductive arguments I concluded that consciousness survives death. Do I know it with absolute certainty, of course not, but I do claim to know it with a high degree of certainty, and that's all that's needed. That's all that's needed in our everyday lives, and that's all that is needed in science, because much of what we claim to know is based on what is probably the case.

I see that you have started your old thread. Someone mentioned it to me, because I began a thread on the subject of consciousness when we die less than a month ago. I have looked at some of your post but certainly not all of it as it is 21 pages long, and I read this site on my phone.

I did look at near death experiences and had dialogue with some current members in my post, but even though I keep an open mind, I cannot see much evidence for the afterlife and looking at some of the posts you have written it seems to be mere speculation. Do you think that there is a case for life after death?

Some of what I posted is speculation (and I've stated it as such), i.e., it's based on no testimonial evidence or very little testimonial evidence. However, the thrust of my argument, which I've given a couple of times in this thread, is based on thousands and thousands of first hand NDEs, and these experiences are evidence. Keep in mind that there are millions of people who claim to have had an NDE. Now some people write these off as hallucinations, but I think there is to much similarity between them to say they're hallucinations. What distinguishes a hallucination from a veridical experience is that many others are experiencing that same thing, i.e., we generally agree that we are having the same or relatively the same experience.

And yes, I do think there is a strong case for an afterlife, but I don't agree with the Christian perspective or an afterlife. In fact, I don't agree with any religious idea of an afterlife. Although it could be that religion arose from these experiences.

I am interested in the whole area and did get some debate going but generally I found that some of the members on this forum found the whole topic to be ridiculous. The reductionist materialist view seems to be very popular.

In the very last post I wrote I shared my most personal experience on the topic. I wrote it last because I did not want to voice it too publicly, because it is personal. It was just as my post was fading out that I wrote it, so it is possible that no one has read it at all. My post is called, What happens to consciousness when we die? and was last logged into 9 days ago, if you are interested and you could access it under the list of the viewed sites for this month.

I read it, but it doesn't sound like an NDE. I'm not saying the experience wasn't real, only that it doesn't seem to fit into the experiences of NDEers. For example, if I want to know if person x,y and z went into my bedroom, I would compare what each of them saw, generally there is some overlap. They might not all see the exact same things, but some of what they saw would have to be the same, at least generally.

I can see what you mean that my experience was more of an unusual experience than an actual near death experience, but perhaps what you are saying about my experience is true of near death experiences too, because the individuals did not die in the permanent sense.

However, it is interesting if you are saying that near death experiences are not identical but similar.

Personally, I am also fascinated by the whole area of out of body experiences too.

I'm re-posting this from page 14 with minor changes. The original post was in response to a question.

There are two ways to use the word proof, one is in reference to an inductive argument, i.e., I have sufficient evidence to conclude that X follows from the evidence. Inductive arguments are either strong or weak based on the evidence. They follow with a low, medium, or high degree of probability. You've proved your inductive argument if the evidence used to support the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability.

The second way we use the term proof in philosophy is when referring to deductive arguments, i.e., the conclusion follows with absolute necessity if the argument is sound (it's valid and the premises are true).

Although I can use both arguments, the deductive argument is less convincing, so I mainly use an inductive argument.

My claim is that there is sufficient testimonial evidence to reasonably conclude that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, I'm making the claim that I know the conclusion is true. And although I believe that I could make other claims based on the evidence, i.e., claims of knowledge, I'm limiting the scope of the conclusion. By limited, I mean I'm not trying to give evidence of a god, heaven, that we are eternal beings, or any other spiritual or religious idea; nor am I trying to give evidence of many of the other claims people are making while having such an experience. Although I do believe there is strong evidence to support other conclusions, and these conclusions have varying degrees of certainty, just as many of our everyday rational conclusions have varying degrees of certainty.

The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? As some of you know, the criteria for a good inductive argument is much different from the criteria of a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:

(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency

First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say X happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers, because numbers in themselves are not sufficient.

Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. Remember that when examining the conclusion of an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. The difference being what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), verses what necessarily follows (deductive arguments).

Third, scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph. It means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are much harder to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend.

Fourth, truth of the premises. Clearly this means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that makes a good deductive argument, i.e., a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness has to do with whether the deductive argument is valid, plus the premises must be true).

(a) Also, since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, in order to know if the testimonial evidence is true we need corroboration, i.e., we need an objective way to verify some of the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the testimonial evidence, and since the evidence is testimonial evidence, it helps to establish the fourth criteria of a good inductive argument, viz., the truth of the premises.

(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal.

(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture.

Fifth is cogency. You rarely here this criteria, but it's very important in terms of effectiveness. Any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:

The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux.

If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true. You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. Thus, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an arguments effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.

The next post will give the actual argument. This post simply tells us what makes a good inductive argument.

The Inductive Argument:

The following argument is based on the testimonials at the following site:

https://iands.org/ndes/nde-stories.html

The following argument is based on the testimonial evidence of those who have experienced an NDE, and the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.

Each of the aforementioned criteria (in the above post) serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous post works hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and these criteria serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on the criteria above, then we can say with confidence that we know that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, and that is all that is needed.

Again, if there is a high degree of probability that these testimonials reflect an objective reality, then we can also say with confidence, that we know consciousness survives the death of the body. Thus, our knowledge is based on objective criteria, not on purely subjective claims.

We will now look at the testimonial evidence in terms of the five stated criteria, and how these testimonials support the conclusion.

First, what is the number of people who claim to have had an NDE? According to a 1992 Gallop poll about 5% of the population has experienced an NDE; and even if this poll is off by a little we are still talking about hundreds of millions of people. Thus, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to decide the veracity or accuracy of the testimonials, and much higher that what is normally needed to draw a proper conclusion.

Also, as was mentioned in the previous post, numbers in themselves are not enough, which is why the other criteria must be coupled with numbers. It's not numbers alone.

The second criteria of good testimonial evidence is variety, i.e., do we have evidence from a variety of sources? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. NDEs also span every age group, from young children, to the middle-aged, and finally to the aged. The testimonial reports come from doctors, nurses, scientists, atheists, agnostics, literally from every imaginable educational level and background. NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc. People have also reported having shared an NDE with someone else, although rarely. They have happened when there is no heartbeat, with the blood drained from the brain, and with no measurable brain activity. They have been reported to happen with a minimal amount of stress, i.e., without being near death. Finally, there have been many thousands more reporting these and similar events happening to those who have taken DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine), which is an illegal schedule 1 drug. These DMT reports are also reports that are happening without being near death.

The third criteria is scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death.

The fourth criteria is truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It lends credence to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on Youtube.

Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?

1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, and also intense feeling of peace.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving through the tunnel towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected to.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, viz., feeling that one is having an ultra real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life-review by a loving being who is not judgmental in any way, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though consciousness is at the bottom of everything.
13) Memories of who they really are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities.

These are just some of the reports from those who experienced an NDE, and some of these reports are confirmed by those who have taken DMT.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence are firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are literally thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near Death Studies. And according to polling, there are hundreds of millions of firsthand accounts of NDEs.

The fifth criteria is cogency of the premises. Whether the argument is cogent for you depends on many factors, but many people have heard of near death experiences, so the concept is not an unfamiliar one. It is not going to be cogent for everyone, but with a little study and reading it can be cogent. It is not difficult to understand the concept. Although it is probably going to be difficult to understand how it is metaphysically possible. This argument is claiming that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for strong inductive arguments.

The further claim of this argument is that I know that I know the conclusion is true. Is it possible the conclusion is wrong? Of course it is possible, but we do not want to base a belief on what is possible, but on what is likely the case. All kinds of things are possible, but that does not mean we should believe them.

I can see what you mean that my experience was more of an unusual experience than an actual near death experience, but perhaps what you are saying about my experience is true of near death experiences too, because the individuals did not die in the permanent sense. — Jack Cummins

You don't have to die in the permanent sense to know that there is life after death. There are millions of accounts of people seeing their dead relatives while having an NDE. This testimonial evidence alone tells us that those who have died in the permanent sense are still around. Sure we can't answer many questions about the afterlife, but that doesn't mean we can't answer some questions, viz., that we survive the death of the body.

The evidence for the argument I give in this thread is overwhelming. Only those people committed to a materialist world view, or those who seem unable to understand how testimonial evidence can be very strong, reject the argument.