For me, it can only be my own experience, though most of the things you mention can help with understanding your own experiences. 

I try to be open minded, yet skeptical.

That's the thing 'the truth is out there' as they say. I find it frustrating that some people are suffering because they essentially think that the world is a meaningless accident: I don't think its any accident that a number of prominent athiests suffer from clinical depression: I think of depression (at least that not directly caused by chemical imbalance) as a disconnect from Source. On the other hand blind faith does'nt do it either; after all its blind faith which allows religious zealots to kill unbelievers with alacrity.

Some people think that an interest in the afterlife is morbid- after all why not just concentrate on the life  now? But our attitudes towards death affects greatly how we live our lives now.For instance actions might have no consequences beyond physical life so treat people how you like or the way which we react to a diagnosis of terminal illness (although of course all physical life is terminal!).

I guess the evidence which people find most compelling depends on their backgrounds and characters. For an intuitive-type person personal symbols and meaningful coincidences are powerful validations while hard-headed scientists types might find their own senses untrustworthy but find a highly statistically significant controlled study much more persuasive.

Gman wrote on May 8^th, 2016 at 8:03am:


NDEs such as the Pam Reynolds case and Eben Alexander are pretty compelling.

To me, none of the suggested were really compelling evidence when I researched every aspect of them and found believable causes to doubt for any of them.

It would have been compelling for me if the Aware study had come forth with verifiable recognitions of the pictograms they had in emergency rooms, however it did not. This is not evidence that there is no afterlife, but also no evidence to the contrary.

Soooo - as things are now, I think personal experience is the only thing that can really be convincing.

Hello Heisenberg69,

I have to admit I don`t remember what it was with the Eben Alexander case, but with Pam Reynolds, I read a detailed account of the procedure and the moments when she was possibly aware and when she was not. This account showed that it is at least possible that Mrs. Reynolds was only aware during those parts of the procedure when there was still substantial brain activity. I could search for the link, but I don`t like to post links. It was a medical site of some sort.

What casts some doubt on the whole thing as well as gives credit to this version of events is that of all the many hypothermic procedures that take place, only this account has become known. One would think that at least one or two more would have surfaced if those were true OBEs.

However: This, for me, does not mean that Mrs. Reynolds did not have a true OBE and that her account was not very astounding and may have been a true case of leaving the body. However, for me to accept something as compelling evidence, I must be free of all reasonable doubt. In this case, some doubt that it was "just" an amazing case of awareness during anaesthesia (which does happen) remained.

If I remember correctly (but I`m not sure), my problem with Eben Alexander`s account and similar is that they were very interesting, but there was no objective evidence that it was not all in his head, so to say. During the time when I researched NDE`s, I read dozens of accounts. Some are a  lot less known. They are not all structured and many suggest a dreamlike state or some sort of hallucination. Clear, more or less lucid experiences do not seem to be the norm. When they happen, however, I agree that they are very fascinating and possibly could point to the existence of an afterlife. But nothing has convinced me 100%.

On the contrary, I struggle how to believe in an afterlife when the personality and memory of a human being with, say, severe dementia or substantial brain damage changes so drastically. I personally know of some cases where a brain tumor changed a person quite substantially. Operating it, the old personality resurfaced. How can this be if the "us" doesn`t sit in the brain?

This is why, for me, only personal experience and verifiable personal experience at that would change things. Regrettably.

Chris

Especially, regarding the brownie points, who wouldn't want those...you know?  I feel that I could especially use some brownie points.

And more brownies.

Heisenberg69,

I agree. However, your question was "what is the most compelling evidence for you" 

Among all these, the NDEs are the most compelling for me, but not sufficient (yet) for conviction, that is what I meant.

Chris