Pass.

Of course you do.

*

↪Sam26 The teleological argument for God is by far the best of the core 3, but it suffers from a crippling counter point.

Essentially, you are saying people and the world are too complex to simply have formed. But have you applied that same criticism to a God? Once you do, the argument falls apart. God is at least as complex as a human being, so therefore the same argument would apply to a God. Something would have to create a God. But then, something would have to create that as well! The only logical conclusion is that the origin point of causality must have existed without prior cause. That origin could be a God, but it could also be a universe without a God. I have post on it here if you want to look into it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 — Philosophim

I'm not quite saying that the "world is simply too complex to simply have formed," i.e., it's logically possible for the world to have simply come about by chance or some first cause (naturalistic first cause). In other words, there is no contradiction (it's logically possible) in proposing this as far as I can tell. Although it may be metaphysically impossible, I'm not sure. I don't want to get side-tracked with modal logic. I'm trying to keep the arguments as simple as possible.

I don't have to apply your criticism to an intelligence behind the universe (not necessarily God, any intelligence). It's perfectly reasonable to pick what you think the first cause might be based on the evidence and use that as your starting point. Also, why would you think that consciousness (I prefer to use consciousness or mind) is complex, it might be simple, we don't have enough information to say one way or another, However, even if it's complex and it might be, I'm trying to point out that a mind behind the universe is the best explanation based on all the data, especially specified information, which I haven't got to yet.

It certainly doesn't follow that if you believe that consciousness is the first cause that that would have to have a creator. It just is. Many naturalists propose that something naturalistic is that point of origin, that first cause, I just go back one more step and start with consciousness/mind based again on the evidence.

I agree with much of your logic in that link, maybe not all of it, but much of it.

I'm not quite saying that the "world is simply too complex to simply have formed," i.e., it's logically possible for the world to have simply come about by chance or some first cause (naturalistic first cause). — Sam26

Then I misunderstood your argument, my apologies.

I don't have to apply your criticism to an intelligence behind the universe (not necessarily God, any intelligence). It's perfectly reasonable to pick what you think the first cause might be based on the evidence and use that as your starting point. — Sam26

True. My point is that there doesn't seem to be anything that necessarily points to a creator as a starting point. The same arguments that would point to a creator, would point to the creator of a creator, and so on. What I'm not saying, to be clear, is that its impossible that there is a creator. Only that the argument does not give a compelling logical reason to believe that a creator is an origin vs not.

Also, why would you think that consciousness (I prefer to use consciousness or mind) is complex, it might be simple, we don't have enough information to say one way or another, — Sam26

To be clearer, I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about an 'intelligent designer'. I actually believe there is varying level of consciousness, and that consciousness is really just another part of the brain that has been granted the ability to monitor and adjust certain portions of the body beyond autonomous reaction. I think dogs are conscious for example, just not intelligent enough to have a consciousness that can build a cities and shuttles to the stars.

And that's my point about an intelligent designer. Humans are the only one's that have been able to build something more complex and complicated then simple tools with sticks. So while there can be simple consciousness and simple intelligence, there is a level of conscious intelligence both needed to create a certain level of complexity, and to be aware of it. So if a God is an intelligent designer, and assuming it must be as intelligent of a designer as our greatest engineer, if our complexity is evidence we were designed, then logically so too must God have been designed. So we don't get anywhere, and we're back with a question.

That question of course is what I answer in the paper I linked. The answer is that inevitably, the 'first cause' or 'where there is no prior explanation for a things existence,' must inevitably be uncaused, or not caused by something else. Which means the reason for its existence is, "It simply is." While this leaves God as a plausible explanation for what caused the universe, it does not mean that God is necessary. That also pulls the idea of a God out of faith, and into one that now requires evidence. That evidence must be enough to show that a God necessarily occurred, while the universe simply being did not. And in regards to any particular claim of what God is like, that also would require evidence.

And so far, there is no such evidence for the necessity of our universe being created by God, nor any evidence of the existence that such a being is still around, would be good, all powerful, evil, etc. The most likely scenario is that such a creator is not all powerful, all knowing, and not around anymore. Further, that creator may have been made by another. There is certainly no viable evidence of eternal life, heaven, miracles, or any supernatural claims.

I'm trying to point out that a mind behind the universe is the best explanation based on all the data, especially specified information, which I haven't got to yet. — Sam26

I didn't quite see that. Would you like to elaborate more and present what else you have? I'm listening.

I'm trying to point out that a mind behind the universe is the best explanation ... — Sam26

What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"?

It depends on what you're looking for and what your questions are. In some contexts, it may not add anything, in other contexts, it may extend our ideas and research beyond the physical (e.g. consciousness). In the context of this thread, it may add to the evidence of a mind behind what people are experiencing in NDEs.

I don't like using the word God because it carries too much religious baggage, but whatever the source of what we are experiencing it's far greater than anything we can imagine.

It depends on what you're looking for and what your questions are. — Sam26

Since it's your posit, Sam, again I ask you:

What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"? — 180 Proof

:chin:

the source of what we are experiencing — Sam26

Apparently, this "we" excludes p-naturalists (i.e. immanentists, pandeists), strong atheists, freethinkers, absurdists et al. For us, evidently and parsimoniously, "the source" is the universe ‐ natura naturans – itself; we don't bark at shadows (pace Plato). :fire:

Your mind is made up, why bother? You seem to think the question is settled, but It's far from settled, not even close. Your dogma is just as bad, if not worse than many on the religious side of these beliefs.

What is explained? How about the source of this reality? How about consciousness surviving death? How about a metaphysical reality? How about the information in cells that point to intelligence? How about the source of mathematics? How about the source of individual consciousness?

You may disagree, but a mind or consciousness behind the universe can explain a lot of things. It may not give a perfect explanation, but most theories don't. At the very least it opens the door to a whole slew of explanations.

You remind me of many people in politics who get captured by a narrative and can't think for themselves. All they do is repeat the narrative ad nauseam.

The more we discover about reality the weirder it will get; our puny minds can't even imagine what's coming. Dogmatism is a huge red flag, which is why many reject religion.

Your mind is made up, why bother? — Sam26

My mind is made up about what? You've no idea what my mind is or is not made up about so stuff the ad hominems & strawmen and stick to the questions raised by your muddled dogma.

What is explained? 

An unknown – unknowable – mystery (re: "intelligence behind the universe") doesn't explain anything because answering with a mystery only begs the question of the how/why of anything. And so my straight forward question remains, Sam, and it appears you can't answer non-fallaciously or suported by sound reasoning:

What exactly is explained by "a mind behind the universe"? — 180 Proof

:chin:

An unknown – unknowable – mystery (re: "intelligence behind the universe") doesn't explain anything because answering with a mystery only begs the question of how/why of anything. — 180 Proof

I agree. What needs to be examined is a) the assumption that there must be an agent, whether personal or impersonal, and b) the illusion that having posited an agent that we have done more than simply assert this assumption as if it were an explanation. Rather than provide an explanation it forecloses the search for explanations, as if a mystery behind the mystery does more than multiply mysteries.

Rather than provide an explanation it forecloses the search for explanations, as if a mystery behind the mystery does more than multiply mysteries. — Fooloso4

:100: :up:


@Sam26

In respect of the question of identity, Buddhists will respond, if you ask them, ‘are you the same person you were as a child?’ ‘No’. ‘Then are you a different person?’ Also, ‘no’. There is a continuity, but also change. I don’t think Buddhism has a difficulty with that. Overall, I find the Buddhist attitude congenial in these matters.

So I’m not really seeing your philosophical objection at this point. — Wayfarer

I'm not objecting to Buddhist sentiment to the extent that they understand that identity relations are arbitrary psycho-linguistic constructs that necessitate their semantic conclusions. In the case of the no-soul rebirth paradox, if concepts related to personhood aren't part of one's fundamental ontology, for example because one considers concepts of personhood to be unreal because one considers persons to be semantically reducible to impersonal forces of nature, then rebirth follows as a tautological conclusions, since the personhood concepts of life and death are both eliminated in the final analysis of of reality. In which case empirical evidence for rebirth is meaningless.

By contrast, if one conceives of persons as being fundamentally real and local token-objects whose existence is ontologically fundamental, then permanent death without reincarnation follows as a matter of tautology, and there cannot exist evidence to the contrary - for even allegedly successful past-life regressions must be discounted as illusory if one holds ones concept of persons as tokens as sacrosanct.


So the idea of persons as real and local spatial-temporal objects with objective physical boundaries is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that persons can be reincarnated. One of the concepts must give way to the other, and the question cannot be settled by appealing to empirical evidence, for the very meaning of "empirical evidence" lies downstream of this ontological decision.

:up: :up: Profound comments from you both.

In the case of the no-soul rebirth paradox, if concepts related to personhood aren't part of one's fundamental ontology, for example because one considers concepts of personhood to be unreal because one considers persons to be semantically reducible to impersonal forces of nature, then rebirth follows as a tautological conclusions, since the personhood concepts of life and death are both eliminated in the final analysis of of reality. In which case empirical evidence for rebirth is meaningless. — sime

Buddhism also rejects as nihilistic the view that actions do not have consequences in future forms of existence. In that sense, the death of the subject does not bring to an end the process which results in future re-birth. The principle of no-self (anatta) does not amount to an assertion that there is no self tout courte as this verse illustrates The Self-Doer.

So the idea of persons as real and local spatial-temporal objects with objective physical boundaries is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that persons can be reincarnated. — sime

Beings are not only objects, they are also subjects of experience, and the nature of subjective experience is not necessarily describable in those terms. Also consider the discovery of tulkus in Tibetan Buddhism. They are sought out by various means and subjected to examination and are said to be clearly discerned as incarnations of previously-existing figures. As already mentioned, Buddhist culture assumes the reality of rebirth as a matter of course, even despite the tension with the no-self principle. (And even that is an open question, there was an influential ancient school called the Pudgalavada, a personalist school of Buddhism, EIP entry here. In my view the philosophical conundrum that underlies much of this confusion about the real nature of self, subject or being is the reflexive and deeply-rooted tendency towards ‘objectification’. This manifests as trying to answer the question ‘what is self?’ or ‘what is the subject?’ in objective terms, as being ‘this kind of being’ or ‘this combination of elements’ and so on. In the early Buddhist texts, there are discussions of the futility of attempting to ‘objectify’ the ‘non-objectification’ which characterises meditative awareness.)

What needs to be examined is a) the assumption that there must be an agent, whether personal or impersonal, and b) the illusion that having posited an agent that we have done more than simply assert this assumption as if it were an explanation. Rather than provide an explanation it forecloses the search for explanations, as if a mystery behind the mystery does more than multiply mysteries. — Fooloso4

It still leaves open the question of where does any agency whatever arise, or whether all agency, and by implication, all subjectivity, can be seen as anything other than a consequence (epiphenomenon) of the interplay of meaningless physical forces. For argument’s sake, that is very much the view of Daniel Dennett, who straightforwardly claims that organic life is analogous to a form of spontaneous chemical reaction, which becomes self-organising and then continues to survive, mutate and evolve through what he describes as the ‘algorithm’ of natural selection. Dennett as is well known goes on to argue that this means that any sense of agency is ultimately illusory, but that we are compelled to behave as if we are agents who make free choices. Of course it is true that Daniel Dennett’s is not a majority view, but it could be said that he courageously gives voice to the logical implications of the kind of materialism that underlies the so-called ‘neo-Darwinian synthesis’.

For materialists, mysteries are simply annoying, unsolved problems that will one day be cleared up by the inexorable progress of Science. :naughty:

Throughout history, time after time, claims of the supernatural as the only viable "explanation" for a wide variety of phenomena have given way to natural, rational, demonstrable, transmissible scientific knowledge. This is not to say that we will eventually have a complete explanation of everything, but it does suggest that based on prior examples the appeal to supernatural because we do not have a natural explanation seems unconvincing.

Throughout history, time after time, claims of the supernatural as the only viable "explanation" for a wide variety of phenomena have given way to natural, rational, demonstrable, transmissible scientific knowledge. — Fooloso4

That is obviously true to some extent, but the nature of the questions change as culture develops and new discoveries are made. The argument that religion is bronze-age superstition replaced by scientific knowledge is rather too near the kind of thing that Richard Dawkins is fond of saying for my liking.

I'm not all in on intelligent design-style arguments but I will say this: that the assumption of naturalism, that life arises from the self-assembly of chemical constituents, is deficient in my view, along many different lines. First because of the inherent unlikelihood of anything of the kind happening, and secondly because of the role assigned to chance. In that sense it's 'irrational' from the outset, as it is conceived of happening without cause, so to speak. It is true, of course, that natural selection doesn't appeal to 'pure chance' as the entire processes is embedded in a deep series of constraints regarding possibilities, but there is a sense in which the whole phenomenon is still understood as being a result of chance as distinct from purpose.

Secondly, that naturalism doesn't explain natural principles. We observe natural principles and extrapolate what will occur by the application of mathematical hypotheses. All well and good, but the fact why there are natural regularities and laws is not itself a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical one. Scientists may venture hypotheses about it but they are by nature metaphysical speculation at that point (and usually underwritten by the very naturalist assumptions that they are seeking to establish.)

I've been reading from a mid-last-century book of phenomenological philosophy, The Phenomenon of Life, Hans Jonas. He points out that at the time of the Greek philosophers, it was simply believed that the Universe was alive - a form of simple animism and panpsychism. Precisely the kind of consciousness that was to be shed in the so-called 'great disenchantment' of modernity. At that early stage, life was assumed to be omnipresent, and death an anomaly. Hence the mythology of overcoming death in the cosmic religions. Whereas since the Renaissance and the advent of materialism, the whole picture has been inverted, as inanimate matter is presumed to be real, and living organisms the anomaly:

The tremendously enlarged universe of modern cosmology is conceived as a field of inanimate masses and forces which operate according to the laws of inertia and of quantitative distribution in space. This denuded substratum of all reality could only be arrived at through a progressive expurgation of vital features from the physical record and through strict abstention from projecting into its image our own felt aliveness. In the process the ban on anthropomorphism was extended to zoomorphism in general. What remained is the residue of the reduction toward the properties of mere extension which submit to measurement and hence to mathematics. These properties alone satisfy the requirements of what is now called exact knowledge: and representing the only knowable aspect of nature they, by a tempting substitution, came to be regarded as its essential aspect too: and if this, then as the only real in reality.

This means that the lifeless has become the knowable par excellence and is for that reason also considered the true and only foundation of reality. It is the "natural" as well as the original state of things. Not only in terms of relative quantity but also in terms of ontological genuineness, non-life is the rule, life the puzzling exception in physical existence.

Accordingly, it is the existence of life within a mechanical universe which now calls for an explanation, and explanation has to be in terms of the lifeless. Left over as a borderline case in the homogeneous physical world-view, life has to be accounted for by the terms of that view. — Hans Jonas, The Phenomenon of Life: Towards a Philosophical Biology

This is the source, I think , of the deep animus towards any idea of the sacred, the supernatural, the life beyond, etc, which lies behind these debates. I think it's because for the "non-believer", the case is closed, God is dead, and to admit otherwise is to re-open many large questions we'd rather not have to contemplate.

the assumption of naturalism, that life arises from the self-assembly of chemical constituents — Wayfarer

It is not as if one day there are chemical constituents and the next that they have assembled themselves to form "life". There is not even a clear borderline between living and non-living, as can be seen in the case of viruses. The root of this problem is conceptual. Both in the categorical sense of the way we divide things in the world and our inability to conceive how life emerges.

The Phenomenon of Life, Hans Jonas. — Wayfarer

Yes. I have read Jonas, but it has been many years. If I remember correctly, I agree with the idea that we should not lose sight of the human dimension of scientific inquiry. The question of the meaning of life need not and should not be forbidden from scientific inquiry, but, in my opinion, this does not mean that the supernatural has thereby earned a place at the table of what is fundamentally an investigation of nature.

So the idea of persons as real and local spatial-temporal objects with objective physical boundaries is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that persons can be reincarnated. — sime


Beings are not only objects, they are also subjects of experience, and the nature of subjective experience is not necessarily describable in those terms. — Wayfarer

Are subjects of experience observable and identifiable or not?

Also consider the discovery of tulkus in Tibetan Buddhism. They are sought out by various means and subjected to examination and are said to be clearly discerned as incarnations of previously-existing figures. As already mentioned, Buddhist culture assumes the reality of rebirth as a matter of course, even despite the tension with the no-self principle. — Wayfarer

So Tulkas are observable subjects of experience who are interpretable in terms of types of objects?

The question of the meaning of life need not and should not be forbidden from scientific inquiry, but, in my opinion, this does not mean that the supernatural has thereby earned a place at the table of what is fundamentally an investigation of nature — Fooloso4

:fire: :100:

@Wayfarer

If I remember correctly, I agree with the idea that we should not lose sight of the human dimension of scientific inquiry. The question of the meaning of life need not and should not be forbidden from scientific inquiry, but, in my opinion, this does not mean that the supernatural has thereby earned a place at the table of what is fundamentally an investigation of nature. — Fooloso4

But the problem is, the 'human dimension' was explicitly eliminated from the scientific image of man in the early modern period. The division between natural and supernatural, in that context, amounts to the division between what can be explained and understood through physical causes and mechanistic analogies, and revealed religion (which, remember, had also absorbed and was the vehicle for much of classical metaphysics and philosophy. The division between the sciences and the humanities is being discussed in another thread.)

Hans Jonas anticipates many of the ideas of autopoesis and systems science that were to develop in the decades after him. 'Jonas sees metabolism as the building and perpetuation of a self-distinct unity. Organisms never fully coincide with their material constitution. In constant flux, they maintain an organization which assures durability in the face of randomizing events and gives them an identity where form prevails over matter.' ¹ He argues that there is an an ontological distinction between the organic and inorganic domains. That is what is denied by materialism, as it developed in an intellectual culture which had divided mind from matter and then attempts to explain the former as dependent on, or derived from, the latter.

There is what amounts to a phobia ( ) around admitting anything which suggests the supernatural, it's an implicit prohibition, mainly drawn on cultural and historical grounds, on what can and can't be considered scientific. But as to what is supernatural, the boundaries are always shifting. There are emerging perspectives in evolutionary biology which, while not appealing to the supernatural, nevertheless challenge neo-darwinian materialism (such as the Third Way).

I don't accept that there can be an empirical argument for a higher intelligence as a matter of principle, but that there are reasonable philosophical arguments against reductionism, for instance the design argument from biological information. Again I see it in terms of adopting a philosophical framework which sees life, and human life in particular, as something other than 'the accidental collocation of atoms' (Russell.)

Are subjects of experience observable and identifiable or not? — sime

I would put it this way: the nature of being can only be realised in the first person. There can't be a complete 'third person' or objective description of it (per 'the hard problem'). We ourselves understand being at least in some degree because we are beings. But we know it insofar as it comprises the ground of our own existence, not as an object of experience. What can be known to exist objectively is only a sub-section of the sum total of our knowing.

(if) one considers persons to be semantically reducible to impersonal forces of nature — sime

The no-self principle in Buddhism makes no such claims, although it is often interpreted that way. But that description would be designated nihilistic in Buddhist philosophy. It's a fact that belief in, or rejection of, the reality of rebirth is a major divide between secular Buddhism as it has been adopted in Western culture and Buddhism as it is practiced in traditional cultures, but in the context of the OP, Buddhist principles at least provide an interpretive framework for a view of consciousness (or being) which is not defined in purely physicalist terms (again see Bhikkhu Analayo Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Current Rebirth.)

There is what amounts to a phobia (↪180 Proof ) around admitting anything which suggests the supernatural, — Wayfarer

:sweat:

Not "phobia" so much as principled disregard for woo-woo-of-the-gaps nonsense which you've always fetishized, sir. To invoke "the supernatural" as idealists (antirealists) / subjectivists / mysterians / new agers like you, Wayfarer, often do amounts to nothing but an appeal to ignorance (i.e. this aspect of some X is (currently) unknown / (apparently) unknowable, therefore that aspect is/must be "supernatural" or "explained by mystery"). :sparkle:

With respect, this is an obviously wrong, and obviously biased interpretation of what is going on in these scenarios (acknowledging many of those 'types' DO do what you've suggested.

Entertaining possibilities is not an appeal to ignorance. Point blank period. Entertaining possibilities is how we figure out what goes in the gaps. That you are apparently reticent to admit yourself to a discussion of (what currently appear to be) super/supranatural explanations for phenomena we simply have no clue about is a similar type of commitment to thinking that something science cannot explain will fill the gap - as that is an appeal to ignorance quite directly. What Wayfarer is doing is canvassing options that may eventually fall to science to explain but are currently not in it's gaze. If what you are trying to get at is that certain options under the light are not logically possible and so would require an epistemic supernaturality, I can't see how this is what's being discussed, but accept all you say in that light. Good stuff.

If you are not open to this game, why bothering commenting on the players? Let them have their game.

My name was taken in vain first (see the quote). Also, Wayfarer and I have been jousting for about fifteen years so ...

LOL fair enough then mate.

But the problem is, the 'human dimension' was explicitly eliminated from the scientific image of man in the early modern period. — Wayfarer

Science does not operate according to unchanging truths and immutable doctrines.

Hans Jonas anticipates many of the ideas of autopoesis and systems science — Wayfarer

And this is entirely natural. A rejection of reductive materialism is not a rejection of naturalism. Jonas' naturalism owes much to Aristotle's.

Jonas sees metabolism as the building and perpetuation of a self-distinct unity. — Wayfarer

Aristotle's term for this is entelecheia. Joe Sachs translates this: being at work staying the same. It is descriptive of physis or nature.

I am confused by the original post. It says it wants to clear up some things before making an argument, and then doesn't seem to make an argument. The follow up post describe strong testimonial evidence. I would guess that the implied argument (which I don't see stated anywhere) is that the abundance of testimonial evidence for life after death is good evidence for life after death?

Once I found a youtube channel that posted nothing but testimony of NDE (Near Death Experiences). I listened to the first 13 I heard and wrote down claims (like whether there was hell or not). I don't remember the exact numbers, because it was so long ago, but I remember concluding 2 things. 1. If you assume nothing about an afterlife, other than that it is consistent, then it is possible that 60% of the testimonies I heard could have been true. 2. If you assume Christian theology, then only 25% of the testimonies could have been true.

Some NDE testimonies said that there was a heaven/hell, and others said there was no hell. Some saw Muhammad, and some saw Jesus. One saw God the father as an old man, which is against the theology I was taught because God the father isn't supposed to have a body. So, these are the types of things I looked at when deciding whether or not the testimonies could have been true.

Given the large amount of disagreement on what life after death looks like, I concluded that NDE are subjectively experienced phenomena of a dying brain, rather than of an objective reality.

If I recall correctly, 2/13 of the testimonies claimed to have been able to see things while "dead" which they could not have seen, such as details about the operation that was being performed on them. I have no explanation for how this could have happened, if the testimony is true. Maybe sometimes people make lucky guesses, or maybe they guess in retrospect after they have the information and neglect to tell you that.

But the problem is, the 'human dimension' was explicitly eliminated from the scientific image of man in the early modern period.
— Wayfarer

Science does not operate according to unchanging truths and immutable doctrines. — Fooloso4

But it does assume the division between object and subject as a limiting step, which has many consequences beyond it's range of application. And there certainly is such a stance as dogmatic scientism - for physicalism, the laws of physics are both immutable and fundamental. But I'll take that up in some other place.

Given the large amount of disagreement on what life after death looks like, I concluded that NDE are subjectively experienced phenomena of a dying brain, rather than of an objective reality. — Brendan Golledge

You can't go on YouTube and read a few testimonials and come to a decent conclusion. I've studied and read over 5000 testimonials, and many others have studied NDEs for years and there is no doubt, at least for me, if you have an ounce of objectivity in you that there is something veridical about these experiences. If they were purely subjective without an objective component I'd agree with you, at least partly. However, any large number of testimonials will have differences that seem contradictory and even may be contradictory. You can take 20 people who were at the scene of an accident, and you may find contradictory statements, but that doesn't mean the accident didn't happen. You have to look for consistency to make sense of what happened at the scene. And that consistent testimony must line up with objective facts.

If someone who has had an NDE comes to you and describes their experience and says they saw a doctor do X and say Y, or that they can describe what someone was talking about in a waiting room while they were under anesthesia, sure I'd be skeptical. But if you then verify that the doctor did do X and say Y and that the conversation in the waiting room was also verified to be accurate, you're at least going to be curious and ask questions. True, you may also just dismiss thinking there's another explanation. But let's take it a step further, suppose you have thousands of objectively verifiable experiences like this, how can you just dismiss all of the objective components? People who claim that it's all subjective are refusing to see the obvious.

There are also other explanations why people are claiming to see Jesus, angels, or some other religious figure, viz., because all of our experiences are filtered through cultural beliefs, so if you're a Christian you may see a being as Jesus or some other religious figure. Again, you have to look at what's consistent and proceed from there, and there is a lot of consistency. You could take 100 people who were at a concert and some of the reports would be completely different, but that doesn't mean they weren't at the concert. You could take another 100 people who were at the theatre watching a play and you would get many different interpretations of what the play was trying to convey. People always misinterpret what they see and hear, but that doesn't mean the play didn't happen. Evaluating testimonial evidence is like detective work, it takes time and careful examination of the testimony. You don't have to do some experiments in a laboratory to always confirm your findings a careful examination of what people say is often enough to come to a definitive conclusion, i.e., that X is what probably happened. You may not know with absolute certainty, but you don't have to know with absolute certainty to claim knowledge, which is what I'm doing.

Many of the arguments in this thread are based on pure speculation. There's not a shred of evidence that these are hallucinations, drug-induced, a dying brain, dreams, lack of oxygen, or whatever else people want to attribute to these experiences. This is pure speculation. Not one argument in this thread has even come close to defeating the evidence. There are reasons to be skeptical, but those reasons can't be maintained if you carefully study the evidence, that's my position.

Furthermore, these experiences have all the hallmarks of veridical experiences, clear memories of what they saw, general consistency when looking at a large number of testimonials, memories that are sustained over time, the impact of the memories on their lives, etc.

By the way, you haven't read the thread if you're saying I haven't given an argument. The inductive argument was given at least three times.

p. 35 about halfway down

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p35