You have predicated this line of reasoning on a false statement. Occam's Razor refers to complexity and simplicity, not likelihood. It has not been invoked in this discussion precisely because it does not apply.

You actually repeat my point when you say 'the next question would be what are the odds of those sections being triggered randomly in an accident.' Likelihood is exactly the crux of the issue. Is it more likely that a mild concussion incurred during the crash affected his parietal lobe, or that he experienced magical reanimation?

Since concussions and vehicular crashes go hand in hand, and concussions have been known to affect the parietal lobe, the first case is quite likely.

Since magical reanimations have never been documented to even the lowest standards of international science, the second situation is extremely unlikely.

That was a pretty cool video. Thanks for sharing it.

He's describing an out-of-body experience, which is a repeatable phenomenon attainable by practicing shamans and other trance meditators. I've experienced similar things, though I interpreted them differently than this gentleman. My experiences weren't triggered by trauma, and I didn't have any damage to my parietal lobe.

A bunny appearing from an empty hat is a repeatable phenomenon attainable by practicing stage magicians and other prestidigitators. I've experienced similar things, as have myriads of spectators around the world. That does not, however, mean that a bunny can materialize in an empty hat - it's only an illustration that things happen that look like something don't, necessarily, have to be what they look like. It is an example of our faulty perceptions.

Much like the perception 'a bunny materialises in an empty hat' can be repeatably and consistently triggered in people, so too can the perception 'I am no longer inside of my body'. Now, I won't go so far as to say that's actually impossible. All I'm saying is that it being "a repeatable phenomenon attainable" and so on does not actually prove anything as long as it's not an effect suitably measured and described by objective sources, that is to say measurement equipment and deductive reasoning.

I think Vox's most relevant point isn't that 'We can simulate result A, thus A can't exist'. It's that we can simulate result A and create the exact same effect, ergo claiming it to be a miracle is kind of like claiming indoor plumbing is a miracle or acid (the drug) is a miracle. Even if you believe in them it kind of cheapens the definition of the word.

The problem is that cannot and will not ever happen. Just look at the current political climate of the world, not even just the US. Islam writes the law in numerous countries (Iran and Saudi Arabia for example). In India Hinduism is a driving political force. Even in Israel you have Orthodox Judaism playing much the roll of the Fundamental Christian sector of US politics, demanding gender segregation, etc.

So all damage to the pariatal lobe induces an out of body experience? I somehow doubt that.
Let me break down what I am saying here-
1) the man *did have* an out of body experience. Experiences by their nature are subjective. I have had an alien abduction experience but do not believe that I have been abducted by aliens.
2) Skepticism is not the same thing as proof of non-existance of a phenominon. Alternate explanations are not proof of non existance of a phenominon.
3)Life isn't always about simplification and rationality.
fact - this man had an out of body experience
fact - he believes he was dead and came back to life
fact - there is a lack of evidence to either corroberate or dispell this particular claim
claiming that he *could not* have come back to life because all out of out of body experiences are a result of brain damage is as close minded, bigoted, and reallistically non-scientfic as claiming that he absolutely did in fact come back to life.
At best a scientific response would be that we don't have teh facts to say one way or another for certain but the odds are he was not fully brian dead, and miraculous reanimation does not fit within a scientific model of the universe.
What is close minded is assuming that only thinkgs that can fit within a scientific model of the universe can exist. It is in its own way the same as when the church insisted the earth was flat because that was their model handed down from on high.

Nobody has said he could not have been magically resurrected. We're just saying it's incredibly unlikely and that there is no reason to leap to any wild conclusions. That IS the realistic scientific response. Science is founded on the search for the likeliest explanation for events. Anybody who tells you differently is NOT a scientist.

The Church never insisted the Earth was flat. It had been proved as round since well before the birth of Christ. If the Church had tried to claim the Earth was flat, navigators and natural philosophers in Europe would have thrown a fit. Stop promulgating that myth. It has been refuted soundly by historians and the Catholic Church itself.

It is not close-minded to assume that only things that can fit within a scientific model can exist. The methodology of science assures that if something DOES exist, it will become folded into the newest scientific theories. If you believe that science can never have theories for everything, you are basically saying that the universe does not operate by knowable rules and everything is magic. THAT is close-minded. Science does not have all of the answers, nor does it claim to. It simply says that as answers become available, science will address them rationally.

To summarize:

Nobody said his resurrection was impossible.
The Church never taught that the Earth was flat.
Science is by definition open-minded.

Sorry to sideline, but citation needed. :P

Right here.

Or here.

Or any textbook on medieval cosmology.

1) to believe that things can exist which ar eoutside the purview of science does not mean that everything is outside the purview of science. The methodology of science is *not* designed to be all inclusive, it is designed to produce models which produce predictability of results. Anything whihc is inherantly unpredicatable, such as for example, faeries, demons, or Gods, if they do exist, is automatically outside the purview of science. The fact that science will refuse to consider such thinsg does not mean they cannot exist. As a physics professor once said in lecture "We don't care if all matter is actually comprised of faeries holding hands and dancing in circles, as long as the dance conforms to teh predictions of the models we make, then the theory works."

2) Never? i understand that the Greeks had already determined it was round, and at some points in the middle ages thos eteachings would have been included in the church, but never? If this waas invented in the 19th century Why would Magellan comment on it in the 17th?

Magellan never said that.

Citation.

If any of those things did exist, we would eventually collect evidence of their existence. At that point, we would start developing theories about how they came to exist, how they interact with nature, etc. The fact that so many things have supposedly existed for so long without leaving any trace isn't proof that they don't exist, but it is a VERY good reason not to believe in them.