Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Two fascinating articles:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... study.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ences.html

They are about perception of moving.
My close family member claims it is only perception. There were experiments in which they placed numbers above high furniture and nobody who claimed having nde could say the numbers.
So, I am curios about such article.

On the other hand, B.W. experienced that and could see a certain spot which could be seen only from a ladder.

Edit: link to b.w.'s post

Thanks Hana.

Yes, perception. False perception? I haven't read the studies.
But sounds like they just surveyed patients.

There still seem to be some interesting NDEs out there.

I don't really believe B.W.'s. False prophet methinks.
Just a grab for money and being able to travel to speak to congregations around the place.
Kidding! Just kidding. (but there is truth to every joke, right? )

Another link that summarises 3 source links.

One of which I found rather extraordinary..

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... ing-brain/

B. W. May wish to clarify this, but the difference between the typical nde(near death experience), and B. W.'s experience, is that B. W. wasn't near death. He was dead. And it seems he was dead for quite a while. Most nde stories have the person dead just long enough to see a bright light that seems peaceful. Well, B. W. went way past that light. And his experience tells us that the bright light can be quite the opposite of peaceful.

It seems maybe the bright light is a deception for those who are just seeing the first part of death. A deception so that when the person(non believer) awakens, he is deceived into believing all will be well when he dies.

Now I'm not sure if I said it quite how B. W. would have. Maybe he can chime in. And I apologize beforehand if I wasn't accurate.

B.W., is it possible to get your book on Kindle?
I wouldn't mind reading your story.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:This:

If you are flawed, and God is perfect, how does a flawed person like yourself verify God is perfect if we assume you are not using blind faith?

Is not the same question you asked before. It was worded a little differently. You asked:

unless you are perfect, (I am assuming you are not) how would you recognize perfection when you see it? In other words; how does a flawed person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)

The reason I didn't answer you is because you were not sticking with the topic. Nevertheless, I'll answer you.
Asking how to recognize God is perfect, is different than recognizing if a person is perfect.

Logically, we don't have to see God to know He's perfect. If God is not perfect, He's not God. God, by definition is perfect. He lacks nothing. Otherwise He wouldn't be God.
So, we know by logic, God is perfect.
We've discussed this before, and you can't grasp it. It's really basic stuff.

Ahh! So were going with the ole circular argument huh? If that's the game you wanna play; lemme see if I can top that one.

I don't have to actually see "Joe Blow" preform magic tricks in order to know he is a able to do magic; Joe blow is a magician and by definition magicians are capable of magic. Other wise he wouldn't be a magician. So we know by logic that Joe Blow is capable of magic! It's really basic stuff.

Now I know my argument wasn't quite a circular as yours, but I'm a little rusty with my circular logic; its not quite as polished as yours. (LOL)

Ken

Circular logic Kenny? Seriously? This is why people get frustrated and give up talking to you.

Here Kenny. This explains God's perfection. Don't return to this thread until you understand it enough to have a proper discussion about it.

C’mon bro, Don’t be sore! I was just joshin with ya. Don’t take it the wrong way; I ain’t trying to be like that. So your argument is; we know God is perfect because by definition God is perfect and if he wasn’t perfect he wouldn’t be God? Now you gotta admit; that is about as circular as it gets! If I were to toss up those type of “soft ball” arguments, you would knock em out of the park! Everyone would. Go ahead and give it another shot my friend!

Ken

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Under your view do you consider the mind/consciousness to be immaterial?

I'm not talking about the brain.

First of all, I never claimed to be a materialist, that was your claim. I was just making the point under the assumption that everything you said about me was actually true. But to answer your question; yes.

K

I didn't say you were an outright materialist Kenny. In any case I was loosely generalising because you seem to hold to a number of positions to some point that I can't put my finger on.

But anyway let's drop that I've given up trying to work you out.

Okay so based on the mind being immaterial do you think it is logically possible for the mind to be disembodied?

No. I beleive the mind can only exist in reference to an actual person; it can't exist on it's own.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:Two fascinating articles:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... study.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ences.html

Interesting articles. If true, the second one looks like a perfect case for James Randi! That way they can shut up the outspoken skeptic and get rich by claiming his million dollar prize!

Ken

Kenny wrote:
C’mon bro, Don’t be sore! I was just joshin with ya. Don’t take it the wrong way; I ain’t trying to be like that. So your argument is; we know God is perfect because by definition God is perfect and if he wasn’t perfect he wouldn’t be God? Now you gotta admit; that is about as circular as it gets! If I were to toss up those type of “soft ball” arguments, you would knock em out of the park! Everyone would. Go ahead and give it another shot my friend!

Kenny,

It's not a circular argument. Did you read the link? It explains, in detail, why God HAS TO BE perfect. Just like a triangle HAS TO HAVE 3 sides. Kenny, arguing against God's perfection is like arguing against a triangle having 3 sides.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
C’mon bro, Don’t be sore! I was just joshin with ya. Don’t take it the wrong way; I ain’t trying to be like that. So your argument is; we know God is perfect because by definition God is perfect and if he wasn’t perfect he wouldn’t be God? Now you gotta admit; that is about as circular as it gets! If I were to toss up those type of “soft ball” arguments, you would knock em out of the park! Everyone would. Go ahead and give it another shot my friend!

Kenny,

It's not a circular argument. Did you read the link? It explains, in detail, why God HAS TO BE perfect. Just like a triangle HAS TO HAVE 3 sides. Kenny, arguing against God's perfection is like arguing against a triangle having 3 sides.

I kinda glanced over the article; it seems to come from the position that because God is genuine/origional and all else are copies; the standard of perfection is the origional kinda like the dollar bill scenerio you presended earlier.
My problem with this logic is, when people refer to God’s perfection, they aren’t talking about origional, they are talking about the absolute best in all the good stuff like love, justice, forgivness, compassion, etc. In theory if perfection is about the origional….. if the origional were a jerk; and all else were copies, it would be the perfect jerk! Now nobody considers a jerk perfect.

Ken

Kenny,

It's pretty obvious you didn't read it all, if that's all that you got from it.

Once again, you're not taking this seriously.

RickD wrote:Kenny,

It's pretty obvious you didn't read it all, if that's all that you got from it.

Once again, you're not taking this seriously.

I did read over it again, and there were a couple of things that caught my attention.

1.God is not only perfect, but His perfection contains the perfections of everything else. Aquinas argues for this point of view by observing that since God is the first efficient cause of created things, and since causes contain their effects, therefore God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible.

My problem with this logic is it will have to apply to the created flaws and bad stuff as well, which would mean God must contain the ultimate flaws and mistakes of all created things in the highest manner possible. Nobody would consider a perfect being as one who also contains such flaws and mistakes.

2. God is a self-subsistent being, containing the full perfection of existence. Since the movement of potentiality to actuality involves the coming to be of that actuality, created things are perfect inasmuch as they exist in some way. God, being the efficient cause of that being, must contain that being most perfectly within Himself.

My problem with this logic is; going from potiential to actual is not how we define perfection. There are lots of stuff that is better to remain in the potiential state than the actual state; diseases for example.

When people speak of perfection, we are talking aboout the ultimate of all things good which is subjective not objective; thus there is no standard that everybody will agree on; and if there were, nobody would be able to recognize it because of our flaws which was the point I was trying to make. If you try to make perfection about the ultimate of everything that exist, that is basically changing the definition of the word to include all the flaws and mistakes that exist as well.

I do appreciate you clearing this up though, and I will say of all the people I’ve asked this question; I believe you were the only one who gave an answer. Even though I don’t agree with the answer, I appreciate it.

Thanx
Ken

Is it just me or has this just gone full circle again?

Kenny,

There is a lot of metaphysics behind what's said above. It is basically adhering to Aristotelian / Scholastic metaphysics. What's not said is God is pure act (actuality) itself. Now a potential is by itself just that, no potential can make itself actual, and must be actualized by something outside it. When a potentiality has been actualised further potency (potentiality) could be actualized and so on. Note in what I am describing here now there is actuality (act) mixed with potentiality (potency). Here's a very simple illustration for example. A piece of rubber has the potential to be a ball, but let's say it is actualised by heat and a mold. Now the ball has been actualised it has further potentialities. For example the potential to bounce, or roll, but cannot until something actualises that potency (potential). Notice the rubber and ball requires a cause distinct from it in order for it to have actualized it potentialities as well.

With a good grasp of Scholastic/Aristotelian metaphysics which includes act, potency, powers and a theory of causation etc, monotheism makes complete sense and why God is also separate from creation. Under the view you read it is understood that God is pure act (actuality) itself with no admixture of potency whatsoever. Pure act itself is complete/perfect. Also under this view God is existence / being itself, pure intellect itself (note this is used analogously) and so on. Potentiality (potency) simply has the capacity for perfection. Our physical reality is actuality with potentiality as such, it is not pure act (actuality) itself. To say God is not perfect is to confuse God with the physical world. God is separate from it. Again, since God is existence itself, the physical world has existence (but is not existence itself). There is a clear distinction under this metaphysical view. Thus your responses are based on a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the metaphysics behind what is being said.

I am probably not doing this justice because there is a lot to this, way too much to attempt to flesh out here...

There is a lot of reading to understand it fully, I am still in the middle of a Scholastic Metaphysics book which is taking a while to get my mind around. I avoided getting into this earlier because there is a lot to go through metaphysically in order properly understand it all. Mind you I am still pondering on things myself. Another aspect to take into account is that with Aristotelian/Scholastic views of act, potency and causation are all observable and as such with further thought it is rational to conclude pure act itself must exist. ie: An unmoved mover, ie: God.

Anyway I wasn't going to say anything for fear of entering into another drawn out frustrating loop, to then

So please let's not enter into this.. I more did this for extra informational purposes..

I'm happy for you to go toe to toe with a long tradition beginning with Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas through to some of the current Neo-Aristotelian/Neo-Scholastics metaphysicians like Edward Feser or David Oderberg for example.

Cheers

Squible wrote:Kenny,

There is a lot of metaphysics behind what's said above. It is basically adhering to Aristotelian / Scholastic metaphysics. What's not said is God is pure act (actuality) itself. Now a potential is by itself just that, no potential can make itself actual, and must be actualized by something outside it. When a potentiality has been actualised further potency (potentiality) could be actualized and so on. Note in what I am describing here now there is actuality (act) mixed with potentiality (potency). Here's a very simple illustration for example. A piece of rubber has the potential to be a ball, but let's say it is actualised by heat and a mold. Now the ball has been actualised it has further potentialities. For example the potential to bounce, or roll, but cannot until something actualises that potency (potential). Notice the rubber and ball requires a cause distinct from it in order for it to have actualized it potentialities as well.

With a good grasp of Scholastic/Aristotelian metaphysics which includes act, potency, powers and a theory of causation etc, monotheism makes complete sense and why God is also separate from creation. Under the view you read it is understood that God is pure act (actuality) itself with no admixture of potency whatsoever. Pure act itself is complete/perfect. Also under this view God is existence / being itself, pure intellect itself (note this is used analogously) and so on. Potentiality (potency) simply has the capacity for perfection. Our physical reality is actuality with potentiality as such, it is not pure act (actuality) itself. To say God is not perfect is to confuse God with the physical world. God is separate from it. Again, since God is existence itself, the physical world has existence (but is not existence itself). There is a clear distinction under this metaphysical view. Thus your responses are based on a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the metaphysics behind what is being said.

I am probably not doing this justice because there is a lot to this, way too much to attempt to flesh out here...

There is a lot of reading to understand it fully, I am still in the middle of a Scholastic Metaphysics book which is taking a while to get my mind around. I avoided getting into this earlier because there is a lot to go through metaphysically in order properly understand it all. Mind you I am still pondering on things myself. Another aspect to take into account is that with Aristotelian/Scholastic views of act, potency and causation are all observable and as such with further thought it is rational to conclude pure act itself must exist. ie: An unmoved mover, ie: God.

Anyway I wasn't going to say anything for fear of entering into another drawn out frustrating loop, to then

So please let's not enter into this.. I more did this for extra informational purposes..

I'm happy for you to go toe to toe with a long tradition beginning with Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas through to some of the current Neo-Aristotelian/Neo-Scholastics metaphysicians like Edward Feser or David Oderberg for example.

Cheers

Thanks. I appreciate your explanation and information, and will respect your wishes to not take this any further with you

Ken

You know, when I ran around as an atheist, I recall a question once asked me:

What do you believe?

From my former atheist stance, I would claim science, facts, truth was what I believed in and founded my morality on. I did so with complete smug indifference. The truth of the matter was that these provided no solid foundation upon which to stand. Like shifting sand, science changed as did relative truth, and facts gelled into a grey mass of moral confusion. Though I claimed truth, I rejected, during that time, the objective nature of truth, unless I could twist the fact into my favor such as the golden rule. I did it so well that I could never see how I broke it daily and only applied as to how other must treat me. I, however was exempt.

Science, psychology, and philosophy become my idols and I bowed to facts that always changed back. Nothing was solid. I just fooled myself as atheist still do so today. There is no moral guidance to science, relative truth, or facts as these are amoral. However objective truth is there that serves as a reminder that one day, we will pass on and die. In this, the atheist, if he or she is really truthful, has no hope - no anchor for the soul - nothing to get them through the heartaches and trials of life - they have nothing and only offer nothing. Though I used to claim I had hope in science, facts, truth, psychology, and philosophy these offered no hope beyond the grave we all will someday face.

So with that, as the objective relative of truth confronted me - atheist - what do you believe in?

What is the importance of your life anyways?

Atheism offers no reason to be responsible other than to fade into nothingness and therefore any good or evil they do is, well, pointless. So what do you believe in what hope do you have? A future that changes as sand shifts on the dunes? Your guiding principles are pointless and will not help you when you take your last breath at which time you will awake into a reality of truth you denied all your mortal life course - that is a fact.

I am not concerned in the least about how one thinks ADE and NDE's are mental illusions or real. Nor do I care about claims of moral superiority of atheist holding on to science, psychology, philosophy, that guides their truths and spins facts in such manner as granting the illusions that they are exempt. Fact is, one day, you'll pass on and meet the one you denied existing. He will answer your objections and expose what you are really like on the inside. His great love will reveal how you hide your heart from one willing to grant you a truer purpose for life than what you supposed. So how have you wasted your life in what you believe? Can what you believe in, science, psychology, philosophy, really save you from yourself? What hope do you have?

When I was an atheist, I had my pat answers and come back quips to obfuscate any issues that actually confront me with the truth that at that time in my life I had no hope, new no real truth, relied on idol of the mind that blinded me to live life as a lie. I would have never admitted this back then, of course not but the confrontation loomed - then I one day I took my last breath and only by God's grace I regained breath and am back. I really would like for any atheist or agnostic to avoid standing before the Governor of the Universe with the mind of putting him on trial for crimes he never committed and then discover how often they betrayed, mocked, hurt, lied, crucified relationships, denied, schemed, plotted, abandoned, rejected, look down the nose at others as that is what the Governors Love will expose and then it is too late. He, the great Governor of the Universe, because of love will not allow such into his domain of love because as to allow such to enter in an unchanged fallen state would bring ruin to heavenly love - that he will not allow. We were not designed to be separated from God, but that separation is ours alone to make. No one can escape...
-
-
-