Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
And that's how any kind of science starts.
It's the same with experiences themselves. Every single kind of report is worth it's own conclusion.
But the most important part of all of it is that NDEs make our lack of understanding of life quite evident. They don't prove much of anything, except for one thing – they prove that we don't have the full picture.
Ah, but you do not need cherry-picking to make a conclusion from inconsistent data.
You just make an “inconsistent” conclusion.
Here's the thing. The so called “NDEs” are themselves already an inconsistency in another phenomenon, namely – death.
Normally dead is dead, yet some times, as has been recorded multiple times already, dead come back to life. Not even talking about so called “clinical deaths”. There are rare cases of people “snapping out of it” days after being declared dead.