is our default conclusion that there's no evidence, thus we can't know if we're just elaborate flesh robots?
here is my response to someone who tried debating this with me... what say ya'll?
"Complete and total BS. The most you've ever presented are anecdotal stories of NDE's which is not science."i presented evidence that out of body experiences are almost always accurate or consistent with reality. there's more than one scientific experiment that shows that this is true. either there are people who can verify what happened outside the dead person's body when they were dead, or the description is at least consistent with reality. the AWARE study had someone describe the operating room with specific details that no one who was being operated on could have known, and they also had auditory ability in a dead person when they were dead. this is a good example of 'accurate or consistent with reality'. then there's lots of stories like pam rynolds and other common stories that the dead person coudln't have known the details. this is more than just one or two anecdotes, this is a trend that is almost always accurate.then there's the blind people coming to grips with seeing for the first time while dead.these things are objectively evidence of the afterlife. it's good evidence. the most i see anyone here do with this stuff, is ignore it. the few times they respond to it, it's irrational ramblings. incoherent.so yes, i maintain that there's ample evidence and other common sense things that point to humans being more than elaborate flesh robots. yet, you irrationally ignore or respond to it... then have the complete lack of awareness to say we can't even know if humans are more than elaborate flesh robots.
plus there's the arguments for God's existence. while it's objectively possible to say it' not actually evidence, it is completely lacking in common sense to argue that.
evidence: God, christianity, miracles, NDEs, the afterlife
it is irrational to argue that there's no evidence for the afterlife