Evidence for God from Science

Kurieou, you're absolutely right, of course. For a full picture, one should really read, as I have, not only every page of this forum's Turin Shroud thread, but also all of the now defunct but still accessible shroudstory, and even the often boorish and unpleasant forum at internationalskeptics, all 584 pages of it. To balance that I recommend Steven E Jones's very pro-authenticity theshroudofturin.blogspot, and while 'God and Science' was off the air yesterday I ran across half a dozen others which were new to me. Almost every investigation ever made into the Shroud of Turin has been written up in detail, and often published in journals, and can be found at shroud.com and the individual websites of individual researchers such as Pam Moon, Mario Latendresse and Colin Berry. And yes; I've not only read them all (except the ones I only discovered yesterday!), but wherever possible corresponded, sometimes at length, with their authors. The experimental and observational evidence is vast, and, in my opinion, finely balanced. I have no quarrel with those who, like Dan Porter or Barrie Schwortz, know all the evidence and have come to a different conclusion. However I do argue, at length, with those of either opinion who claim that there is "almost no evidence" for an opposing view. The reason I was challenging Bippy was not that there is no evidence for his point of view, but that, in a 'God and Science' thread, he seems unable to remember any, relying instead on vague recollections, blind faith, and more recently, insults.

As I say, first-hand write-ups of investigations into the Shroud abound, but the same cannot be said of the Sudarium. It is not a subject to which I have devoted a huge amount of attention, but I know Mark Guscin's book well, and was pleased to be introduced to the more recent work of Janice Bennett quite recently. Sadly her account of the scientific investigation of the Sudarium is minimal. She does not, for example, even mention who bloodtyped the blood on the Sudarium, let alone what evidence there may be for most of the stains to be due to pulmonary edema fluid. She is however dismissive of the work of Pierluigi Baima Bollone in a different context (radiocarbon dating).

I have corresponded with holders some of the most peculiar ideas about the Shroud, from those who think it was a gnostic artifact, to a lady who went to lecture given by Jesus, but I never mock or scoff. I do not accuse people of being stupid or unkind. I listen to their arguments, and either explain why I disagree, or ask for further clarification. I have even changed my mind on various things from time to time. That's why I enjoy it all!

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/ ... al-moments

Another science website that carries the rat study

Now try to do a search on the same site for parnias aware study . That's right a big fat zilch even though parnias study was on humans and a veridical Nde was timed as having happened during cardiac arrest

Same with this link . Yep Hugh you've convinced me science is impartial and non atheistic in its leanings
Don't you find it astonishing that sites like these don't carry the largest peer reviewed Nde study ever conducted but do carry a rat study and don't even try to refute it ??

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... ess-118311

Hmm I wonder why I found these links yet Hugh didn't ?

Yes, K is correct - I initially thought the shroud was just another (and well scientifically discredited) Catholic relic. But the incredible attributes and its many hidden and scientifically discovered/impossible to have been faked details very powerfully changed my mind.

And again everyone why can most people see the swelling here in this pic and Hugh cannot ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sp ... _sinay.jpg

The ridge of the brow, the eyes etc reddening of the cheek all on the left side .
Are we all blind ???
Or maybe it's Hugh that sees the light

Philip wrote:Yes, K is correct - I initially thought the shroud was just another (and well scientifically discredited) Catholic relic. But the incredible attributes and its many hidden and scientifically discovered/impossible to have been faked details very powerfully changed my mind.

Correct Philip but then again there will always be people that not only don't want to see it but will campaign against it dogmatically

Bippy, there's no credit in sending me off on a wild goose chase and then "finding" an article you clearly knew all about beforehand. You have mentioned "late brain surge" several times in the last few days, and, as I have told you, no such phrase appears on the internet. As soon as you gave clearer details, I was able to find and quote from the study, something you failed to do at all. Now you mention "parnias aware study." I bought Sam Parnia's research paper, which is more than you ever did, to find out what it really says. Out of 2060 cardiac arrests, one single man reported "seeing" what was about him in the room, all of which was readily available to him from memory and the fact that he was conscious during his attack. Attempts to check out of body experiences by placing large clear black shapes on the the top of high shelves failed, as his cardiac arrest wasn't near any of them. Nowhere does Sam Parnia claim that any of these states of awareness demonstrate that consciousness is separate from brain function.
Sorry, Bippy, but I feel you're grasping at straws.

Back to the Shroud, and no, the Pantocrator image does not show injuries nor look like a boxer to me.

Hugh now I know that you are dogmatically biased and you are putting a spin on the veridical Nde .
You claimed that all that he recalled was already readily available in the room to the guy .

This is clearly a bold faced lie lol and shows me that you clearly have a dogmatic anti materialistic stance .
How could he have recalled the events that had happened during his resuscitation when he was clearly not in a position to see any of it .
He recalled it in his interview and it was determined by dr Parnia and his staff that what he saw during (not before or after ) his cardiac arrest really happened .

This is a quote directly from Parnia who says .
"""We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.
“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”""

After this Parnia who himself was a sceptic of ndes as he was quoted here in 2010 in his interview on skeptiko he stayed that ndes are probably an illusion caused by the dying brain

http://www.skeptiko.com/sam-parnia-clai ... -illusion/

But reverses his position after the evidence from his own study changes his mind

""Many people have assumed that these were hallucinations or illusions but they do seem to corresponded to actual events.""

And Hugh you actually went against the scientific consensus in the Nde science community and used dr Susan Blackmore to back your side of the story on professor Patricia church land

Let's see what dr Blackmore had to say about the current research on nde shall we ?

This is directly from her mouth from her most recent interview on skeptiko

http://www.skeptiko.com/near-death-expe ... o-critics/

"""Blackmore continues, “… I gave up all of this stuff so many years ago…if you are a researcher in the field it behooves you to read as much as you can of the best work because otherwise you can’t be a researcher in the field. I’m not a researcher in the field. I have not been for a long time.”""

So Hugh uses the research from someone who isn't even current in the Nde field and expects us to believe he has a genuine interest in using true rational enquiry in using real science to seek truth . I have some beach front property in Alabama to sell you Hugh if your interested







Now Hugh are you accusing the telegraph of misquoting Parnia ? If so then please show is where Parnia refuted their misquote of him .

Hugh what I'm doing now is to slowly expose your bias to everyone here .

And again your trying to deceive and twist the study around .you claimed that out of 2060 patients in the study only one had a veridical Nde . I believe the actual number was probably 2 because the second patient either died or decided against future interviews .

But since you claimed that you did thorough research you would have given us the more accurate number which is much lower then 2060 because around80-85% actually died after cardiac arrest .

You clearly don't know much about ndes and yet you clearly formed an a priori position against them . Your abandoning rational and scientific thought in order to hold onto an emotional position .

Slowly the chinks are showing in your armor Hugh .

hughfarey wrote:Bippy, there's no credit in sending me off on a wild goose chase and then "finding" an article you clearly knew all about beforehand. You have mentioned "late brain surge" several times in the last few days, and, as I have told you, no such phrase appears on the internet. As soon as you gave clearer details, I was able to find and quote from the study, something you failed to do at all. Now you mention "parnias aware study." I bought Sam Parnia's research paper, which is more than you ever did, to find out what it really says. Out of 2060 cardiac arrests, one single man reported "seeing" what was about him in the room, all of which was readily available to him from memory and the fact that he was conscious during his attack. Attempts to check out of body experiences by placing large clear black shapes on the the top of high shelves failed, as his cardiac arrest wasn't near any of them. Nowhere does Sam Parnia claim that any of these states of awareness demonstrate that consciousness is separate from brain function.
Sorry, Bippy, but I feel you're grasping at straws.

Back to the Shroud, and no, the Pantocrator image does not show injuries nor look like a boxer to me.

Its better for you Hugh that you get back to the shroud because your emotional bias is much easier to expose in ndes.

Hugh of course the pantocrator doesn't look like this to you but let's have the other members in here look at it and let's get their opinion .i guess I'm a bit more delusional than that because I can clearly see the difference .

Ok Hugh my advice on ndes is to stay awAy from them because of you change your mind on them and on the fact that the mainstream scientific community has a clear dogmatic bias against anything supernatural or against atheism then you might get osyrisized by your fellow secular Brits And be called a lunatic and they might smite you for daring to challenge the holy word of the clearly unbiased scientific community .

But at least now Hugh you know that the Nde evidence is much stronger then you dared imagine .
Next time be a good scientist and give us the mainstream view on ndes from themsinstream Nde scientific community .

As far as the pantocrator lets have everyone on this thread take a look at it and give us their opinion . Hopefully they can be as unbiased as you are Hugh

hughfarey wrote:Kurieou, you're absolutely right, of course. For a full picture, one should really read, as I have, not only every page of this forum's Turin Shroud thread, but also all of the now defunct but still accessible shroudstory, and even the often boorish and unpleasant forum at internationalskeptics, all 584 pages of it. To balance that I recommend Steven E Jones's very pro-authenticity theshroudofturin.blogspot, and while 'God and Science' was off the air yesterday I ran across half a dozen others which were new to me. Almost every investigation ever made into the Shroud of Turin has been written up in detail, and often published in journals, and can be found at shroud.com and the individual websites of individual researchers such as Pam Moon, Mario Latendresse and Colin Berry. And yes; I've not only read them all (except the ones I only discovered yesterday!), but wherever possible corresponded, sometimes at length, with their authors. The experimental and observational evidence is vast, and, in my opinion, finely balanced. I have no quarrel with those who, like Dan Porter or Barrie Schwortz, know all the evidence and have come to a different conclusion. However I do argue, at length, with those of either opinion who claim that there is "almost no evidence" for an opposing view. The reason I was challenging Bippy was not that there is no evidence for his point of view, but that, in a 'God and Science' thread, he seems unable to remember any, relying instead on vague recollections, blind faith, and more recently, insults.

As I say, first-hand write-ups of investigations into the Shroud abound, but the same cannot be said of the Sudarium. It is not a subject to which I have devoted a huge amount of attention, but I know Mark Guscin's book well, and was pleased to be introduced to the more recent work of Janice Bennett quite recently. Sadly her account of the scientific investigation of the Sudarium is minimal. She does not, for example, even mention who bloodtyped the blood on the Sudarium, let alone what evidence there may be for most of the stains to be due to pulmonary edema fluid. She is however dismissive of the work of Pierluigi Baima Bollone in a different context (radiocarbon dating).

I have corresponded with holders some of the most peculiar ideas about the Shroud, from those who think it was a gnostic artifact, to a lady who went to lecture given by Jesus, but I never mock or scoff. I do not accuse people of being stupid or unkind. I listen to their arguments, and either explain why I disagree, or ask for further clarification. I have even changed my mind on various things from time to time. That's why I enjoy it all!

Hugh, it seems you've taken a quite detailed investigation, to say the least.
I see also that you are even quite passionate about the shroud when I research the Internet.
Guess this is just one of those things we as two different people have a different judgement upon.

Hugh, a question. What do you make of the Sudarium's relationship to the Shroud? I'm talking of:

Three-dimensional reconstructions of the face of the man on the Shroud are compatible with the stains present on the Sudarium. “Once the cranial proportions in both relics are known, and after its comparison, it is checked that they concur, what has permitted the sculptor D. Juan Manuel Miñarro López to make a reconstruction of the face of the Man on the Shroud of Turin; said reconstruction is absolutely compatible with the face of the Man of the Sudarium of Oviedo, not only in his anthropometric proportions, but also in the traumatic wounds that both present.” (Stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo coincide with those on the Shroud)

bippy123 wrote:Ok Hugh my advice on ndes is to stay awAy from them because of you change your mind on them ...

I have not changed my mind on NDEs at all. Whatever makes you think that?

... and on the fact that the mainstream scientific community has a clear dogmatic bias against anything supernatural or against atheism ...

This is transparently untrue.

then you might get osyrisized by your fellow secular Brits And be called a lunatic ...

I have been insulted many times on the internet, and, as I can easily document, by far the worst insulters are fanatical Christians, not atheists.

and they might smite you for daring to challenge the holy word of the clearly unbiased scientific community.

I have also been told I am going to Hell, but again, not by atheists but by Christians.

But at least now Hugh you know that the Nde evidence is much stronger then you dared imagine.

No, it isn't.

Next time be a good scientist and give us the mainstream view on ndes from themsinstream Nde scientific community.

The mainstream view from the mainstream scientific community is that there is currently insufficient evidence to show that NDEs are not caused by neural activity. I agree with it.

HuGh notice the little trick of words you use . This is why i said the consensus view from the Nde scientific community .i could care less what the view is from the scientists who aren't experts in this field and haven't done any research into this .

The majority of Nde scientists lean towards ndes not being caused by the brain .
You really want to debate this Hugh .

I'll make it easy on you
Name a few Nde scientists that don't believe this view.

I'll throw out 5 quickies that do and they are Giants in their field

Dr Bruce Greyson
Dr Raymond moody
Dr Sam Parnia
Dr penny sartori
Dr Jeffrey long

Your turn

My apologies to dr pim van lommel who should have been included in that list lol
My apologies dr

bippy123 wrote:You really want to debate this Hugh.

No, I really don't.

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:You really want to debate this Hugh.

No, I really don't.

Cool could it be because there are almost no Nde experts that back your view of it