Doctor: Heaven is real

[Yogurtmaster]

Omnipotence and free will defeated in 4 easy steps:

1. God is all powerful. He can choose A or B.

2. God is all knowing. He knows he's going to choose A.

3. He cannot choose B otherwise point 2 is false.

4. He has to choose A which means point 1 is false.

What you posted doesn't make sense and your ignorance is really horrible.

That is all from your opinion and based on nothing but your own warped reality.

If you are going to be an Atheist, then be a better more intellectual Atheist that makes some sense and understands simple concepts.

Anyone can put anything out there that doesn't really mean anything. I mean I can't begin to answer this because it's so stupid. Where do you get all of these limits? Did you pull them out of your warped mind?

[Praetor]

And what do you suggest as a solution, Simply accept every non-falsifiable claim ?

No, of course not; but then again I'm not going to the other extreme of rejecting everything that science can't prove.

jokes on you, I'm not going to come back and tell you **** :)

hope not, that would be as scary as s***!

[TPreston]

No, of course not; but then again I'm not going to the other extreme of rejecting everything that science can't prove.

Placing all of these claims in the big box of unproven claims along with Russell's teapot != rejecting them.

[Yogurtmaster]

Not to be a grammar Nazi but the scientific method doesn't prove anything in itself. Anyway yes if a new method of discerning truth from fiction was discovered not jut lowering the bar so jesus can limp on in (Which would also prove islam)

And this claim is indistinguishable from any other non-falsifiable claim

So, in other words you are not seriously looking into it, because you don't believe. You are not willing to do the research it takes to find out on your own, amirite?

I know a lot of people like you, they are Atheists in which they are too lazy are not really into finding the answer. They care just enough to call everyone who believes as crazy, but not interested enough to look to do research to find the answer.

Science will never find any answer that doesn't agree with science. In other words, even if something would be found that they can't explain, you will never hear them explain it as the obvious.

So are you willing to learn and research about finding God, yes or no?

[Praetor]

Placing all of these claims in the big box of unproven claims along with Russell's teapot != rejecting them.

and then again, not referring to any claim or to anyone in particular. it's that the society i live in is tending more and more to be science centered; quoting Grey's Anatomy "we are all just meat". And that bothers me, because we aren't just meat.

[TPreston]

So, in other words you are not seriously looking into it, because you don't believe. You are not willing to do the research it takes to find out on your own, amirite?

Find out an entire new way to determine the truth of non falsifiable claims, Yeah ill get right on that :rofl:

I know a lot of people like you, they are Atheists in which they are too lazy are not really into finding the answer. They care just enough to call everyone who believes as crazy, but not interested enough to look to do research to find the answer

Watching testimonials from liars4jesus != learning the truth.

Science will never find any answer that doesn't agree with science. In other words, even if something would be found that they can't explain, you will never hear them explain it as the obvious.

This happens all the time, boson ?

So are you willing to learn and research about finding God, yes or no?

Personally no because if a god exists ill find out when I die and if that god will punish me for not worshiping him then I wouldn't want anything to do with him to begin with so its a whole waste of time.

[FightAndLive]

The other thing I thought of while I was watching the science channel was when they talked about the universe acts like its a single living entity what if God is literally the universe?

there is just to much we don't know it shocks me sometimes how atheists can use science to prove god doesn't exist

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

Great, you can give us the scientific method, that is used in the NATURAL world. Can you give me the same thing outside of the natural world? LOL

That is like going to a medical doctor to get work done on your car.

I'll counter with a much better analogy:

I take my car in for an oil change, and the mechanic also replaces the engine and charges me an extra $2000 claiming that "the engine needed repairing desperately". Would you simply pay over the extra $2000 without seeing evidence that the engine was indeed about to explode, or even a second opinion by another mechanic?

There is more proof than natural scientific proof.

Eyewitness proof can be used in courts every day. You guys have been brainwashed into thinking the scientific method fits everything.

Possibly, but scientific proof always overrules anecdotal or unreliable testimony. Every. Single. Time.

It's interesting that you bring up eyewitness testimony, since it's its notoriously unreliable and very lowly regarded in the justice system because of it's unreliability and the ability for memories to be altered or replaced completely by using leading questions in an interview. Check out the research done by Elizabeth Loftus, particularly her work on the misinformation effect.

It's for NATURAL SCIENCE in the NATURAL world. Just because you can't prove it using the scientific method does not mean it does not exist. That is very limited thinking and very closed minded.

Very true. After all, all scientists should assume that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You'll never hear a pragmatic person ever say such a thing. In the case of God, many of the greatest scientists that have ever graced our world agree that there could well be a God, and that just because we can't prove it doesn't mean that we can eliminate the possibility that there is a supernatural being behind our existence and the universe as we know it.

It's okay to be skeptical and question, but it's not okay to close everything off in your mind when it doesn't fit your method.

If you are an intellectual, you know that it's not okay to ignore everything that doesn't fit your world view.

To be sceptical of something is a good thing, it means we don't jump to conclusions just because something matches our world view. We've spent enormous amounts of time money over the last few years looking for the Higgs-boson particle, because the scientific community wouldn't just "take it on faith" that Peter Higgs' claim about the particle's existence was a fact.

In fact, even though we're 99.99999% sure that it exists now, Scientists are still willing to accept that there's a 0.00001% chance that they're wrong. Scientific method ALWAYS allows for the fact that the theory could be wrong, and given adequate proof, the theory must be false.

---

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

Although the quote above is from a fictional character in a book, it's a good quote to live by. What it means that for a claim to be true, every alternate explanation must be tested and proven to be false. So in the case of the Doctor, we must first rule out that this guy's experience of "heaven" was not in fact just a dream, or caused by drugs or something. Once all the other more likely explanations have been tested and proven wrong, we can safely assume that the guy did actually see heaven.

---

TL;DR: The burden is on YOU to prove that heaven exists, not on me to prove that it doesn't (See TPreston's comment about Russell's teapot).

[FightAndLive]

Possibly, but scientific proof always overrules anecdotal or unreliable testimony. Every. Single. Time.

How can their be scientific proof of something that science doesn't have a way to describe? Science describes the universe around us, God could easily not be describable or provable by science as we understand it.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but I think we are going about things the wrong way to find tangible proof of god and heaven. One thing that will define what a soul is, is when we do a brain transplant, or gain the abilty to download someones brain. If I transplant your brain into someone else's body and you don't come with it we know the soul isn't the brain. If I download your brain to a computer, will that just clone a shadow of you and not actually take you with it?

The first step "scientifically" to figuring out God and Heaven is to figure out what makes you, you.

[Yogurtmaster]

Find out an entire new way to determine the truth of non falsifiable claims, Yeah ill get right on that :rofl:

Watching testimonials from liars4jesus != learning the truth.

This happens all the time, boson ?

Personally no because if a god exists ill find out when I die and if that god will punish me for not worshiping him then I wouldn't want anything to do with him to begin with so its a whole waste of time.

Well, then you have already made up your mind. So, if you are burning in hell for all eternity for rejecting God, then that is your fault and your choice and you are willing to accept that?

Why do you have so much pride in your life? Why are you willing to outright reject God and pay a price for doing that?

As many posts have shown that people have gone to hell, experienced it, and came back to tell about it. Why would you want that? I would never want that and only arrogant and stupid people would want that.

I don't know where many people are going to go when they die because I can't see their hearts, but an outright rejection of God can't be good no matter how you measure it and nobody serious would want to go there.

There are some people in which it's obvious (Hitler probably isn't in Heaven) and people that outright reject God probably isn't going to be in Heaven either when they die (unless they repent and accept God before they die).

Do you have so much pride that you are willing to put your spiritual life on the line?

[FightAndLive]

Well, then you have already made up your mind. So, if you are burning in hell for all eternity for rejecting God, then that is your fault and your choice and you are willing to accept that?

Why do you have so much pride in your life? Why are you willing to outright reject God and pay a price for doing that?

As many posts have shown that people have gone to hell, experienced it, and came back to tell about it. Why would you want that? I would never want that and only arrogant and stupid people would want that.

I don't know where many people are going to go when they die because I can't see their hearts, but an outright rejection of God can't be good no matter how you measure it and nobody serious would want to go there.

There are some people in which it's obvious (Hitler probably isn't in Heaven) and people that outright reject God probably isn't going to be in Heaven either when they die (unless they repent and accept God before they die).

Do you have so much pride that you are willing to put your spiritual life on the line?

To say you go to hell because you don't believe in god is also extremely rediculous. There have been plenty of good people, that have done more good deeds than a good amount of religous people have ever done. I don't get how people could have seen heaven or hell when they die, people don't get judged until the end of days(this is a common "fact" amongst all the major religions in the world).

[Rippleman]

then if "its" so awesome doc, why stop people from going there sooner? If its TRULY as you say it is, why would you want to prolong a torturous existence any farther? Abortions would be perfect then, how can ANY doctor be against it?

[TPreston]

Well, then you have already made up your mind. So, if you are burning in hell for all eternity for rejecting God, then that is your fault and your choice and you are willing to accept that?

No then it would be the gods fault for

creating hell

sending anyone who doesn't worship him there

Its also a human rights violation (not including the whole hell thing) :)

Why do you have so much pride in your life? Why are you willing to outright reject God and pay a price for doing that?

Because im not a spineless wimp who lets a tyrant pervert me.

As many posts have shown that people have gone to hell, experienced it, and came back to tell about it.

From other religions for other gods, Cant all be right, Can all be wrong

[Yogurtmaster]

I'll counter with a much better analogy:

I take my car in for an oil change, and the mechanic also replaces the engine and charges me an extra $2000 claiming that "the engine needed repairing desperately". Would you simply pay over the extra $2000 without seeing evidence that the engine was indeed about to explode, or even a second opinion by another mechanic?

If I know the guy and trust him sure. However, nobody is paying any money here, only eyewitness testimony. So you are out nothing if you believe him. So, your analogy fails here and thus it does not make sense.

Possibly, but scientific proof always overrules anecdotal or unreliable testimony. Every. Single. Time.

It's interesting that you bring up eyewitness testimony, since it's its notoriously unreliable and very lowly regarded in the justice system because of it's unreliability and the ability for memories to be altered or replaced completely by using leading

questions in an interview. Check out the research done by Elizabeth Loftus, particularly her work on the misinformation effect.

yeah, but thousands of people can't be wrong can they? Where there is smoke there is fire. Scientific proof only works when in the natural world. If you die and you have an out of body experience, how can your prove that scientifically and if you can, nobody who is a scientist will take you seriously. There is a difference in following all the facts and leading where they may and only following the scientific method. You have to consider ALL of the FACTS. Not just the scientific ones.

You think this is the only guy that has ever had a death experience? There is a website with many studies that can document a lot more, but science will never touch this, because it's a natural world view and only a natural world view will ever be seen, so therefore it's automatically flawed if you want to look at all of the facts to begin with. Facts are facts and all of them do not have to be scientific.

Very true. After all, all scientists should assume that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You'll never hear a pragmatic person ever say such a thing. In the case of God, many of the greatest scientists that have ever graced our world agree that there could well be a God, and that just because we can't prove it doesn't mean that we can eliminate the possibility that there is a supernatural being behind our existence and the universe as we know it.

To be sceptical of something is a good thing, it means we don't jump to conclusions just because something matches our world view. We've spent enormous amounts of time money over the last few years looking for the Higgs-boson particle, because the scientific community wouldn't just "take it on faith" that Peter Higgs' claim about the particle's existence was a fact.

In fact, even though we're 99.99999% sure that it exists now, Scientists are still willing to accept that there's a 0.00001% chance that they're wrong. Scientific method ALWAYS allows for the fact that the theory could be wrong, and given adequate proof, the theory must be false.

I never said being skeptical is bad, but being too skeptical is. I think it's fantastic that we ask the hard questions and be skeptical. What I am talking about is being too skeptical about everything.

Sometimes you can be too blind to the facts at hand and that is a bad thing.

Anything in life can be too much if you do not use it with moderation. If you are too skeptical, it will stop you from seeing the truth beauty in life. Nobody is asking you to open your minds an just accept everything, some people just want you to open your view a little wider so you can see the entire picture of the Universe.

The higgs-boson is great, but it doesn't get us anywhere to the answer of who created the Universe. Why are all of these people seeing things after they are brain dead?

We need those kinds of answers and science is never going to be able to answer them because they in themselves are too skeptical to give the real answer.

If your world view is humanism, how are you going to reach beyond a world that you don't think exists? The proof be damned, how are you going to understand something when your mind is so closed and your world view so narrow, you are never going to find any proof of anything not in your world view.

In programming this is like an infinite loop. You will never find proof of something you can't understand and you don't believe in to begin with.

Although the quote above is from a fictional character in a book, it's a good quote to live by. What it means that for a claim to be true, every alternate explanation must be tested and proven to be false. So in the case of the Doctor, we must first rule out that this guy's experience of "heaven" was not in fact just a dream, or caused by drugs or something. Once all the other more likely explanations have been tested and proven wrong, we can safely assume that the guy did actually see heaven.

How can you dream when you are dead? How can drugs affect you if you are dead? If your brain is not functional then you can't do any of that.

TL;DR: The burden is on YOU to prove that heaven exists, not on me to prove that it doesn't (See TPreston's comment about Russell's teapot).

So millions of people have the same thing happen to them (even in a lab) and we just automatically dismiss it? Really? Is that how science works?

We only look at SCIENTIFIC evidence and dismiss everything else and thus the proof is on people that believe an afterlife.

Do you understand how simple minded that sounds?

Honestly, I don't care about Russel's teapot, it's intellectually dishonest. I care about FACTS.

[majortom1981]

I have been in 3 comas . Two of witch I am supposed to be dead from . only thing that saved me was my mom saying no to pulling me off of life support. What this surgeon probably saw was the brief glimpses of doctors working on him and his family at his bed side.

I remember seeing people at my bed side and the doctors working on me in like 20 second clips. I would see 20 seconds worth of things but couldn't move or say anything and then would fall back into the coma.

As somebody has been in 3 comas I can say that what this doc saw was mixed signals from his brain. I have been through this and right after it might seem like heaven until some time later when you can process what you saw and put it together with your families and doctors accounts of that time.

PS I am not lying about the comas. I wish I was .

[Yogurtmaster]

To say you go to hell because you don't believe in god is also extremely rediculous. There have been plenty of good people, that have done more good deeds than a good amount of religous people have ever done. I don't get how people could have seen heaven or hell when they die, people don't get judged until the end of days(this is a common "fact" amongst all the major religions in the world).

The amount of people say that they are good is actually hokum as well. If you measure yourself by God's standards on the 10 commandments do you honestly think you are good?

Have you ever stolen something? Have you ever lied or cheated?

Then you are not good, only God is good.

I have cheated, stole, committed adultery in my mind (not physical) and on and on. I have broken all of the 10 commandments except murder at one time or another.

Everyone has sinned. If everyone was honest with themselves, all of them are guilty of Sin. Everyone.

The thing is that you can ask for the forgiveness of your sins.

Remember, the world was never supposed to be this way.

Good deeds will get nobody into heaven.

I have been in 3 comas . Two of witch I am supposed to be dead from . only thing that saved me was my mom saying no to pulling me off of life support. What this surgeon probably saw was the brief glimpses of doctors working on him and his family at his bed side.

I remember seeing people at my bed side and the doctors working on me in like 20 second clips. I would see 20 seconds worth of things but couldn't move or say anything and then would fall back into the coma.

As somebody has been in 3 comas I can say that what this doc saw was mixed signals from his brain. I have been through this and right after it might seem like heaven until some time later when you can process what you saw and put it together with your families and doctors accounts of that time.

PS I am not lying about the comas. I wish I was .

Comas and Dying are not the same. It's not even close. With dying you have NO brain activity.

[majortom1981]

The amount of people say that they are good is actually hokum as well. If you measure yourself by God's standards on the 10 commandments do you honestly think you are good?

Have you ever stolen something? Have you ever lied or cheated?

Then you are not good, only God is good.

I have cheated, stole, committed adultery in my mind (not physical) and on and on. I have broken all of the 10 commandments except murder at one time or another.

Everyone has sinned. If everyone was honest with themselves, all of them are guilty of Sin. Everyone.

The thing is that you can ask for the forgiveness of your sins.

Remember, the world was never supposed to be this way.

Good deeds will get nobody into heaven.

Comas and Dying are not the same. It's not even close. With dying you have NO brain activity.

The article posted said the guy came to the conclusion from being in a coma with no brain activity. I was in the same situation .

[theyarecomingforyou]

there is just to much we don't know it shocks me sometimes how atheists can use science to prove god doesn't exist

Atheists don't use science to disprove God. Science can be used to discredit theories that support the notion of a God but that's a very different matter. There's nothing "shocking" about trying to understand the universe around us and the aim of such research is knowledge, not a vendetta against religion (though they're not mutually exclusive).

The first step "scientifically" to figuring out God and Heaven is to figure out what makes you, you.

There's nothing scientific about believing in God. In fact, faith is defined as a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" - that is the antithesis of science. The discovery of evolution should have discredited religion... but it didn't. The discovery of carbon dating should have discredited religion... but it didn't. The discovery of genetics and the ability of mankind to manipulate genes should have discredited religion... but it didn't. Every decade, every century, every millennia we make new discoveries that fundamentally undermine the very notion of religion and yet people don't stop believing in it because it is based on faith and not science. It won't be many more decades or centuries until mankind is able to fully understand genetics and use it to create new species and to eliminate genetic disorders... yet even that won't stop people from believing in religion. If we are ever to discover the existence of God it will be through advances in psychology which will teach us why people feel the need to cling on to unverifiable, unreliable and illogical concepts. So God may be scientifically provable but not in the way that Christians, Muslims and Scientologists would like.

yeah, but thousands of people can't be wrong can they? Where there is smoke there is fire. Scientific proof only works when in the natural world. If you die and you have an out of body experience, how can your prove that scientifically and if you can, nobody who is a scientist will take you seriously. There is a difference in following all the facts and leading where they may and only following the scientific method. You have to consider ALL of the FACTS. Not just the scientific ones.

Yes, thousands of people can be wrong. No, an out-of-body experience isn't a fact - it's a subjective experience. Further, there is medical science that explains why people believe they see things during near-death experiences. I don't know why I'm even bothering though, as your entire post is nonsensical.

[Andre S. Veteran]

It does show that intense experience and memory is possible without much brain activity at all, which does hint at something like an "afterlife". For all we know, those we currently consider "dead" may be still having these "dreams" or this "afterlife", however you want to call it, for God knows how long after our brain scanners have ceased to detect activity. This might be an entirely natural phenomenon! There's certainly not enough to declare humans have immaterial, immortal souls, but enough to contemplate the idea that human experience and brain activity may in fact be two different things, and that "life" after "biological death" may be a reality.

As others have pointed out, individual testimonies like this one are only weak evidence and not sufficient proof to assert anything as certain - but it is evidence in the broad sense of the term and shouldn't be brushed aside on ideological grounds.

[FightAndLive]

Atheists don't use science to disprove God. Science can be used to discredit theories that support the notion of a God but that's a very different matter. There's nothing "shocking" about trying to understand the universe around us and the aim of such research is knowledge, not a vendetta against religion (though they're not mutually exclusive).

Semantics :), I never said I was against science I merely said Science only applies to the Universe, and stops working when you talk about what happens outside of the Universe. I am not saying science has a vendetta against god, but to describe God with science and use that description to justify the lack of God doesn't make sense because if science is incapable of describing stuff outside of the Universe, maybe science is the wrong approach to finding tangible proof of god.

There's nothing scientific about believing in God. In fact, faith is defined as a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" - that is the antithesis of science.

I'm not talking about religion or faith, I'm talking about getting tangible proof of God which may not be attainable to begin with.

It does show that intense experience and memory is possible without much brain activity at all, which does hint at something like an "afterlife". For all we know, those we currently consider "dead" may be still having these "dreams" or this "afterlife", however you want to call it, for God knows how long after our brain scanners have ceased to detect activity. This might be an entirely natural phenomenon! There's certainly not enough to declare humans have immaterial, immortal souls, but enough to contemplate the idea that human experience and brain activity may in fact be two different things, and that "life" after "biological death" may be a reality.

As others have pointed out, individual testimonies like this one are only weak evidence and not sufficient proof to assert anything as certain - but it is evidence in the broad sense of the term and shouldn't be brushed aside on ideological grounds.

Exactly right. The thing that could trigger your concousiness to leave your body could be something as simple as your brain losing connection with your "soul", and effectively timing out. If this "time out" occurs you enter the state you exist in, in what we call the "after life". Under this explanation, you could be clinically dead and once the connection is re-established your "soul" returns to your body.

This brings interesting possibilities because we could in theory revive a person who has been dead a long time. This is 100% speculation.

[Yogurtmaster]

Atheists don't use science to disprove God. Science can be used to discredit theories that support the notion of a God but that's a very different matter. There's nothing "shocking" about trying to understand the universe around us and the aim of such research is knowledge, not a vendetta against religion (though they're not mutually exclusive).

There's nothing scientific about believing in God. In fact, faith is defined as a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" - that is the antithesis of science. The discovery of evolution should have discredited religion... but it didn't. The discovery of carbon dating should have discredited religion... but it didn't. The discovery of genetics and the ability of mankind to manipulate genes should have discredited religion... but it didn't. Every decade, every century, every millennia we make new discoveries that fundamentally undermine the very notion of religion and yet people don't stop believing in it because it is based on faith and not science. It won't be many more decades or centuries until mankind is able to fully understand genetics and use it to create new species and to eliminate genetic disorders... yet even that won't stop people from believing in religion. If we are ever to discover the existence of God it will be through advances in psychology which will teach us why people feel the need to cling on to unverifiable, unreliable and illogical concepts. So God may be scientifically provable but not in the way that Christians, Muslims and Scientologists would like.

Yes, thousands of people can be wrong. No, an out-of-body experience isn't a fact - it's a subjective experience. Further, there is medical science that explains why people believe they see things during near-death experiences. I don't know why I'm even bothering though, as your entire post is nonsensical.

How do you explain people who have died and met people that they didn't know before they were born and then they come back and see the photo in someone's photo album and then they now know that person?

There have been many cases like this.

Or

How do you explain people who have died (ie no brain function) be able to tell what the doctors were saying and doing in other rooms on the other side of the hospital?

The fact is that you can't and there are many cases like this. How can you just say, well they were just seeing light or it wasn't real. That is what I am talking about, you can explain anything away.

I don't believe that proof is subjective. It is what it is, even if you don't want to accept it.

I have been laid off of work, I can sit here and choose not to accept it and be blind to the truth or I can go out and create a business which is what I am doing. Blinding your own self with delusions is not a good idea.

[Yogurtmaster]

It does show that intense experience and memory is possible without much brain activity at all, which does hint at something like an "afterlife". For all we know, those we currently consider "dead" may be still having these "dreams" or this "afterlife", however you want to call it, for God knows how long after our brain scanners have ceased to detect activity. This might be an entirely natural phenomenon! There's certainly not enough to declare humans have immaterial, immortal souls, but enough to contemplate the idea that human experience and brain activity may in fact be two different things, and that "life" after "biological death" may be a reality.

As others have pointed out, individual testimonies like this one are only weak evidence and not sufficient proof to assert anything as certain - but it is evidence in the broad sense of the term and shouldn't be brushed aside on ideological grounds.

Nope, I completely disagree. How is that some people obtain knowledge that is impossible to get if they are brain dead?

I just gave two examples of this. There have been many cases were people have died before the person is born and that person has no knowledge of the person that died before they were born. They meet them on the other side after they die and they come back and describe that person that they never knew in life only to find out that they were a real person.

Does not compute

Also the second case that I described also happens a lot. In which people will describe in detail what was happening on the other side of the hospital while they were brain dead at the time that they were dead.

Also what about Vicky who was blind and when she died she could see everything and she described everything in detail (wait a minute, she is blind),

There, are many, many, many, many, many cases like this. It is not hokum. Once you do the research, you will understand that this is real and your denial only makes you more desperate.

As I told you guys, I have debated with Atheists a lot and I did a lot of research and the more research that I did, the more convinced I was that it is all true. All of it is true.

The only reason the doctor is on this thread is because he is a man of science. MILLIONS of people have had very similar experiences and any person which is not closed minded and is looking for the truth

will understand that all of this can't be fake or just a mind trick. That is something we tell ourselves when the truth is too much to handle. We go into denial.

This is why I said that the Atheists are fooling themselves, they don't want proof like they say they do. They will never believe it because it is simply a rejection of God.

[Yogurtmaster]

I want everyone to also watch this entire video. Please be objective and open your mind just a tiny bit.

About Scientific research on clinical death.

[seta-san]

I have yet to come across an afterlife experience, where a person visited hell.

there's books written about it.

[Brian Miller]

Angels are not female and are more akin to males.