IMEs show the existence of an invisible reality in our ordinary state

This argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.

This argument is an objection to Showing the existence of an invisible world is nonsense.

Keywords: none

Summary

Our ordinary state of consciousness is quite limited: we perceive only a tiny fraction of reality. At the physical level alone, we are unable to perceive certain frequencies (colors, sounds, etc.). IMEs are twofold: in the first sequence, the experiencer "leaves his body", sees himself from the outside, and sometimes - often - finds himself in other places far from his body, sees scenes from a distance, etc. Then he "goes through a tunnel" and "sees" himself from the outside. Then he or she "goes through a tunnel" and enters a completely different dimension, as if the earthly world were fading away and it were possible to be in a completely different reality. For want of a better term, this is what we call the "invisible world", but which is only invisible at a certain level of ordinary consciousness, and becomes visible in altered states of consciousness. The issue here is this: if the experiencer, in a comatose state and with eyes closed, did indeed perceive scenes consistent with what was happening in the physical world (e.g. his resuscitation, the nurses' conversations, the doctors' gestures etc.), then what he then saw in the invisible world is also real. Either the experiencer's testimony is an end-to-end hallucination (he dreamed), or, if he correctly saw physical reality, he also perceived a hyperphysical reality.

Quotes

References

Justifications

Objections

Such concepts have more to do with new-age belief than scientific rigor.

Parent debate