Jump to content
Science Forums

Who/What is God?


questor

Recommended Posts

Do you accept quantum mechanics?

Sorry you blocked me, you did not see my post. How therefore could you be responding to it?

 

Or is this a Quantum Event?

 

But for sake of discussion, Yes I do accept QM, QED, Uncertainty, and both Schrodinger's Cat and Kittens. And for that matter to a lessor extent Strings and 'branes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In December, 1943, George Ritchie died of pneumonia. Nine minutes later, miraculously and unaccountably, he returned to life to tell of his amazing near-death experience in the afterlife. His near-death experience was the one that profoundly moved Raymond Moody to begin seriously investigating the near-death experience. Since Dr. Moody is considered to be the "father of the near-death experience," Dr. Ritchie's near-death experience is in a class of its own. You will find his experience to be one of the most profound near-death experiences ever documented.

 

 

Before his near-death experience, Rev. Howard Storm, a Professor of Art at Northern Kentucky University, was not a very pleasant man. He was an avowed atheist and was hostile to every form of religion and those who practiced it. He often would use rage to control everyone around him and he didn’t find joy in anything. Anything that wasn’t seen, touched, or felt, he had no faith in. He knew with certainty that the material world was the full extent of everything that was. He considered all belief systems associated with religion to be fantasies for people to deceive themselves with. Beyond what science said, there was nothing else.

On June 1, 1985, at the age of 38, Howard Storm had a near-death experience due to a perforation of the stomach and his life was forever changed. His near-death experience is one of the most profound, if not the most profound, afterlife experience I have ever documented. His life was so immensely changed after his near-death experience that he resigned as a professor and devoted his time to attending the United Theological Seminary to become a United Church of Christ minister.

 

 

Here are two I could find in about fifteen minutes. So much for there not being any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not what I meant. Those could easily be illusions or even lies.

Hahaha, yep the ones you don't like are lies and the one you do like, which are just as invalid and for the same reasons, are not? I love the selective application of logic so typical to believers. My fairy tales are more real than your fairy tales!

There's nothing logically mystical about something in the realms of science, or something that could be a fictional account. Only if there was no way they could have made it up.

And as soon as you provide verifyable examples of ones that "there was no way they could have made it up" we can discuss it further. And we can apply the same level of rigor you want to use to reject the other claims made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did before you posted that. The ones I found are not from a site where you can submit an experience that has happened to you, they are by a person who has researched them to separate the fictional from the real. All the people in these OOBEs were legaly and physically dead. Yet they had memories and knowledge of things that happened during there short period of death. This is what I meant by "could not have possibly made it up." You also cannot assume that an athiest would give up his views and search after God for no reason at all. He would never make up such a wild story, because that would promote faith in the very thing he did not believe existed. Furthermore, it could not have been an illusion that convinced him, as his mind was incapable of creating or storing them (it was dead). That is why he "could not have made it up".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a white tunnel could be used to support ANY religion, not simply the christian one.

-Will

Actually what it supports is the loss of blood flow causing reduced peripheral vision and cerbral cortex.

 

"The reason for this lies in the structure and functioning of the blood supply of the retina. The macula is the optical center of the retina; it has the greatest blood supply, while the flow of blood to the retina decreases with distance from the macula according to the inverse square law. Yet the oxygen consumption of each part of the retina is much the same, so oxygen starvation will cause failure of peripheral vision before causing total visual failure. Indeed, experiments with oxygen starvation in human volunteers prove this fact."

 

(Darkness, Tunnels, and Light; Skeptical Inquirer May 2004) http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small five year old was brought up in an athiest household.... The little girl waived her hand and said "I do! I do! That's the man that was holding me the night my parents died."

I love these idiotic stories. No one can ever quite find the actual names or provide specifics for these "REAL" happenings! But it sure charms the suckers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do I know that actually happened? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where did this happen? When did it happen? etc, etc. This is a science forum, after all.

-Will

You'll never get any verification. These are made up to, as Abe Lincoln said about his inclusion of god in his speeches, "It pleases the fools".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well, I have posted numerous other things similar to this that I know to have happened because I was there. In this case I'll admit that it may have been made up, though I don't see why anyone would do it. Please to be explaining the others.

You want us to explain your delusions? Do I look like Dr Phil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong, OOBEs happen in hospitals, these people were declared dead, they're not so dead anymore. I bet you could call those people up and ask them if they imagined it. Especially the second guy in the post I made. You forget, these are real people, there names and the dates of the happenings are listed. And they have given very long and detailed accounts in the collective scores of books. You can look for every one of them and find them. Type there names on google. Look them up in phone books. They exist, and enough information is given to find them. So try to before you say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. But FrT is using the fact that:

 

1) there are open issues on the topic

2) there is substantial disagreement on core issues

3) Intelligent,informed people disagree on the interpretation of many of the facts

 

to suggest that theism is not intellectially coherent. All of the above apply to quantum theory (and or M theory) which he readily accepts.

Ignoring many of the fallacies you present, one major difference is that QM and M Theory have predictive and identifyable explanitory abilities. Theism has none of this.

He also uses a recurring dodge that because some people are not coherent about theism, then no one is.

OK show me ANY THEIST that is logically consistant ANY! ONE that does not have self contradictory beliefs.

There are several intellectually valid proofs for the existence of God.

WOW! You can be the first in recorded history to provide "intellectually valid proofs for the existence of God". Don't make the world wait any longer. Please share your incredible insights for us!

They are not scientific method proofs.

Ah I hear squirming already! Get ready for the ole "YOU might not accept them, but..." And I know Irish is in the shadows hoping I don't ask about the math proof she promised some time back.

 

Yep here we go again. Those famous proofs that never seem to develop.

Frt is (I suspect) fully aware of these.

Ya but I stopped reading my kids Mother Goose and Grimm when my kids got older, so have not heard them for a while.

To discharge them as invalid becasue some people use theology to promote violence is the height of disingenuity.

Which is why I use the application of Critical Thinking to "discharge" them instead.

FrT is not an atheist. He is an anti-theist. He spends an inordinate amount of time attempting to destroy theistic values. Even his signature is anti-theist. If he were an atheist, he would probably quit participating in these theological fora. Not a chance.

*A*thesit - NOT a Theist. as with *A*symmetric, NOT symmetric.

 

Perhaps too confusing for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what he may have meant. Someone who didn't believe in God would have absolutely no reason to try to convince others there was no God. We who believe have the reason of trying to convince you in order to save your soul. You are here posting for no reason on a subject that should not consern you, and yet it does to an incredible extent. I doubt you have even realized the absurdity of such an obsession nor are willing to accept the validity of his argument. Not only do you not believe in God, but you are for no reason in particular convinced that it is your responsibility to impart your unbelief to the rest of the modern world. If you really didn't believe, you shouldn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*A*thesit - NOT a Theist. as with *A*symmetric, NOT symmetric.

Perhaps too confusing for you?

None of us who have read your posts were confused by Bio's use of the prefix "anti" where you choose to use "a." I guess one can be an atheist and not be an anti-theist, but Bio has been perceptive in his assessment of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several intellectually valid proofs for the existence of God. They are not scientific method proofs. Frt is (I suspect) fully aware of these. To discharge them as invalid becasue some people use theology to promote violence is the height of disingenuity.

 

I've read a fair amount of philosophy and theology, and have never read a "proof" for the existence of God. Please point me toward one.

 

FrT is not an atheist. He is an anti-theist. He spends an inordinate amount of time attempting to destroy theistic values. Even his signature is anti-theist. If he were an atheist, he would probably quit participating in these theological fora. Not a chance.

 

And he has his views. The fact of the matter is that religion isn't something that can be defended purely on a basis of logic. I'm with Hume, no rational person can believe in a miracle, it takes a certain surrender of logic to believe. It is, in fact, an act of faith.

 

And there are many theists who wage a war on science. Its good to see someone attacking back a bit, even if he is a bit abrasive.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...