onyenze123:


I understand. I am an open-minded person. All I am saying is let's not rule it out completely; let's ask questions and investigate in order to understand the world we live in

seconded

spacetacular:



So my opinion is irrelevant right? Ok then sir I suppose this article isn't from the same reputable medical journal you posted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2322888/

You can start reading from postgraduate medical training to understand the dishonesty in trusting journals without verification.

Like I said at the start I have on the field experience and can tell you what works and what doesn't. I am not a paper pusher.

Boo hoo. Dishonesty in medicine.
If it was just one author publishing, then I might have considered your argument.
But different authors across different journals hardly counts as dishonesty.
You are yet to provide proof that they lied. All I have is your opinion of your own experience which don't count in the grand scheme of things. So I should discard 40 articles since 1982 for your own one case? Is that how it is done in medicine.
This is just a variant of Appeal to common practice fallacy. Because some people cheat in journals, then all journals are worthless.

felixomor:


Please who accepted ?

People who matter. Of which you're not among.

CatfishBilly:

Boo hoo. Dishonesty in medicine.
If it was just one author publishing, then I might have considered your argument.
But different authors across different journals hardly counts as dishonesty.
You are yet to provide proof that they lied. All I have is your opinion of your own experience which don't count in the grand scheme of things. So I should discard 40 articles since 1982 for your own one case? Is that how it is done in medicine.
This is just a variant of Appeal to common practice fallacy. Because some people cheat in journals, then all journals are worthless.

Funny enough
You dont have the 40 articles

I can beat my chest on that.

CatfishBilly:

People who matter. Of which you're not among.

There is no organization called "people who matter"
Besides acceptance of an observation, doesnt explain its mechanism.

felixomor:

Your points are contradicting each other

You will be making sense, if you point out the contradictions.

akintom:

You will be making sense, if you point out the contradictions.

You cant be unsure of something and totally rule out the possibility of another mutually exclusive event, at the same time.
Its simple Logic

felixomor:


For him, any "journal" is truth.
Yet he lampoons religious people for believing books.

Not one journal, journals which are constantly updated and revised and whatever that is found to be false is removed.
I can't say that about religious books though.

felixomor:


You cant be unsure of something and totally rule out the possibility of another mutually exclusive event, at the same time.
Its simple Logic

You're not making any sense still.

I numbered those points, quote the very numbers that are contradictory.

akintom:
The crux

1. do we yet understand the human physiology absolutely? No

2. is there a 100% (absolute) medical procedure, by which death can be certified, in ALL cases of death suspicion? No

3. can we have a case of revitalization, after death has been certified, based on present level of medical procedures? Yes

4. do we have absolute medical explanation, for the rare cases of revitalized dead? No

5. Is whatever responsible for the revitalization, part of physiology of the dead? Yes

6. Could words (prayer), be responsible for the unknown? No

7. Therefore, "miraculous revitalization" is a religious assumption for the unknown.

Your thesis sir is quite contradictory. Since you term number 6 as unknown how then can you be emphatic with your conclusion regarding prayer especially when Medicine is baffled by it?

CatfishBilly:

Not one journal, journals which are constantly updated and revised and whatever that is found to be false is removed.
I can't say that about religious books though.

There are many dishonest conspiracies that have occurred in the past in science.
Sometimes, it took decades before they were exposed.

You are just too shallow to know these.
because your science is dogma driven

akintom:


You're not making any sense still.

I numbered those points, quote the very numbers that are contradictory.

Why will it make sense to u?

Please explain how points 4 and 5 co-exist?

spacetacular:


Your thesis sir is quite contradictory. Since you term number 6 as unknown how then can you be emphatic with your conclusion regarding prayer especially when Medicine is baffled by it?

If you read the OP well, it's stated that, there were other revitalized dead, who were never prayed for.

Again, there were dead (decapitated, disembowelled etc), that never revitalize despite ocean volume of prayers and fasting.

akintom:


If you read the OP well, it's stated that, there were other revitalized dead, who were never prayed for.

Again, there were dead (decapitated, disembowelled etc), that never revitalize despite ocean volume of prayers and fasting.

Even in the bible. Did prayer revitalize everything?
Does prayer not have terms and conditions?

felixomor:


Why will it make sense to u?

Please explain how points 4 and 5 co-exist?

Do you have to always assume, that you're sensible?

You're the one alleging contradictions, you will be making rational sense, if you explain how 4 contradict 5.

akintom:

Do you have to always assume, that you're sensible?

You're the one alleging contradictions, you will be making rational sense, if you explain how 4 contradict 5.

Gerrarahia abeg
Thank God another person has even showed u sef.

felixomor:

Even in the bible. Did prayer revitalize everything?
Does prayer not have terms and conditions?

This was not addressed to you. This your straying, is a symptom of been childish.

Who cares about what your Bible says about prayer.

akintom:

This was not addressed to you. This your straying, is a symptom of been childish.

Who cares about your Bible says about prayer.

Oh so people can practice what they dont know its origin and expect it to work?

Hian
Hmmmm

felixomor:


Gerrarahia abeg
Thank God another person has even showed u sef.

You thought you could carry out the hog wash, you perch on at the outset of this thread?

Now that you can't defend your foolish accusations, you have resulted to your usual tantrums.

akintom:


If you read the OP well, it's stated that, there were other revitalized dead, who were never prayed for.

Again, there were dead (decapitated, disembowelled etc), that never revitalize despite ocean volume of prayers and fasting.

Your statement here is not an answer sir. I asked how you could be emphatic with an answer when you even termed your observation as unknown.

You cannot offer a leaning conclusion on an issue that is inconclusive and unknown by and to everyone. That's gross dishonesty in observation sir.

akintom:

You thought you could carry out the hog wash, you perch on at the outset of this thread?

Now that you can't defend your foolish accusations, you have resulted to your usual tantrums.

Keep quiet, agbaya
I explained that your point contradicted each other
You said show the number, i did

After that, u still kept fooling yourself.

felixomor:

Oh so people can practice what they dont know its origin and expect it to work?

Hian
Hmmmm

You have never made sense in any discussion. Be it religious or scientific thread. The fact that you lied unashamed, makes your case nauseating.

You alleged, yet you can't prove it.

spacetacular:



Your statement here is not an answer sir. I asked how you could be emphatic with an answer when you even termed your observation as unknown.

You cannot offer a leaning conclusion on an issue that is inconclusive and unknown by and to everyone. That's gross dishonesty in observation sir.

Akintom,
Are you hearing her?

felixomor:


There are many dishonest conspiracies that have occurred in the past in science.
Sometimes, it took decades before they were exposed.

You are just too shallow to know these.
because your science is dogma driven

See, that is the beauty of science. It is constantly updated. Every scientist sees the other as a rival and they are constantly trying to discredit each other.
If any conspiracy or falsehood is found, it is quickly discarded and the author disgraced.
My science is not dogma driven, it is based on evidence. I can't say same about your religions though.

akintom:

You have never made sense in any discussion. Be it religious or scientific thread. The fact that you lied unashamed, makes your case nauseating.

You alleged, yet you can't prove it.

Listen above.
The writer above me has said virtually what I said.
I dont even know her b4

CatfishBilly:

See, that is the beauty of science. It is constantly updated. Every scientist sees the other as a rival and they are constantly trying to discredit each other.
If any conspiracy or falsehood is found, it is quickly discarded and the author disgraced.
My science is not dogma driven, it is based on evidence. I can't say same about your religions though.

I thought u earlier said there is no dishonesty when different journals are involved?
You are removing your own footing by yourself
In other words all u have been saying could be wrong.

Thats minus the lies u told at the beginning.

spacetacular:



Your statement here is not an answer sir. I asked how you could be emphatic with an answer when you even termed your observation as unknown.

You cannot offer a leaning conclusion on an issue that is inconclusive and unknown by and to everyone. That's gross dishonesty in observation sir.

This is a variant of God of the gaps argument/Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because it is unknown therefore it must be prayers.

CatfishBilly:

See, that is the beauty of science. It is constantly updated. Every scientist sees the other as a rival and they are constantly trying to discredit each other.
If any conspiracy or falsehood is found, it is quickly discarded and the author disgraced.
My science is not dogma driven, it is based on evidence. I can't say same about your religions though.

You say your science is based on evidence yet you disregard myself who has on the job daily experiences as evidence? You are another dishonest fellow sir.

Your idea of science isn't based on personal evidence but literature on the purported evidence given by others. The only time you gave an evidence was when you said you have also through probable CPR brought a dead person back but even those are just words with nothing to prove your claim.

Even if I chose to go with your claim can you explain the process that took place which brought about the death and revival of that person and who certified the person dead.

spacetacular:



Your statement here is not an answer sir. I asked how you could be emphatic with an answer when you even termed your observation as unknown.

You cannot offer a leaning conclusion on an issue that is inconclusive and unknown by and to everyone. That's gross dishonesty in observation sir.

6. Could words (prayer), be responsible for the unknown? No

Unknown = certain revitalized dead.

Could prayer be the reason? No

Why?

* certain revitalized dead, had occurred without prayer

So, prayer couldn't have been the cause of the unknown.

spacetacular:


You say your science is based on evidence yet you disregard myself who has on the job daily experiences as evidence? You are another dishonest fellow sir.

Your idea of science isn't based on personal evidence but literature on the purported evidence given by others. The only time you gave an evidence was when you said you have also through probable CPR brought a dead person back but even those are just words with nothing to prove your claim.

Even if I chose to go with your claim can you explain the process that took place which brought about the death and revival of that person and who certified the person dead.

The man does not even have the 40 literatures he claims to have.

CatfishBilly:

This is a variant of God of the gaps argument/Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because it is unknown therefore it must be prayers.

God of the gaps or whatever you call it isn't my point. I am talking medicine and not Religion. Absolutely nobody can offer a leaning conclusion to an unknown matter. This shows that for such even an observation is lacking. So no observation, no conclusion!

Can we stick to medicine sir?

akintom:


6. Could words (prayer), be responsible for the unknown? No

Unknown = certain revitalized dead.

Could prayer be the reason? No

Why?

* certain revitalized dead, had occurred without prayer

So, prayer couldn't have been the cause of the unknown.

Your answer should have been "I don't know" and not an emphatic no. That's when you would have made sense sir Especially when medical assistance was not available when spirituality was applied with probable results.