Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:There are, TECHNICALLY, degrees of death of course.
There is brain dead in which the body can be kept alive BUT the person has NO brain activity, This state of death is the most telling in regards to NDE's because there is NO BRAIN activity so there is NO possibility of any "dream" or Hallucination or anything like that.
Then there is "clinically dead".
This is when a person has stooped breathing AND blood has stopped circulating.
A person can sometimes be revived and the brain is still active for some time ( no one knows for sure how long or how active, but it is still active).

The tricky part for NDE's that happen when a person is only clinically dead ( silly to use the term only, I know) it can be argued that because there is some brain activity that the person MAY be hallucination or whatever.

No apparent brain activity.

Im not saying its impossible that NDE's are as billed.

You do know of course, tho, that it has been widely believed that dreams involved the soul leaving the body.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There are, TECHNICALLY, degrees of death of course.
There is brain dead in which the body can be kept alive BUT the person has NO brain activity, This state of death is the most telling in regards to NDE's because there is NO BRAIN activity so there is NO possibility of any "dream" or Hallucination or anything like that.
Then there is "clinically dead".
This is when a person has stooped breathing AND blood has stopped circulating.
A person can sometimes be revived and the brain is still active for some time ( no one knows for sure how long or how active, but it is still active).

The tricky part for NDE's that happen when a person is only clinically dead ( silly to use the term only, I know) it can be argued that because there is some brain activity that the person MAY be hallucination or whatever.

No apparent brain activity.

Im not saying its impossible that NDE's are as billed.

You do know of course, tho, that it has been widely believed that dreams involved the soul leaving the body.

No Audie, we have discussed this before, NO brain activity is just that, NO brain activity.
It is NOT no "apparent" brain activity.
Ask any neurologist and they will tell you the same thing.
It is not some "best guess" that leads to the proclamation that a person is brain dead, and to insinuate anything else is just silly.
It is a comprehensive evaluation, don't make it seem to be anything other than that.
When a person is declared as brain dead it means that there is NO electrical activity and has NOT been for some time and no activity means no neuron are firing and no neurons means no activity anywhere.
Period.

Audie, the word "true," pertaining to the Bible is NOT flexible. But the question is, WHAT particular thing is being examined, is it a FACT of history/something that actually happened, or some aspect of Scripture not meant as an actual fact. So, what was the intention of what was written - what was it MEANT to convey - as THAT should be the question.

As for the Ark story, I definitely believe it. Jesus confirmed it when He confirmed what of the OT He considered to be Scripture/"God breathed." Do I believe the entire planet was flooded - not necessarily. In fact, I lean more towards a regional flood. But as the scientifically impossible has obviously happened, that a universe and a planet teaming with intelligent life exists, and as only a Creator can reasonably explain that, then the ark story, water into wine, Mose's "magical" staff, etc - those are mere amateur magic tricks in comparison to the creation of the universe and life itself. A God that can speak a universe into existence obviously has all power over every part of all He has created. The Ark? A flood - whatever its actual scope? No biggie for Him.

Philip wrote:Audie, the word "true," pertaining to the Bible is NOT flexible. But the question is, WHAT particular thing is being examined, is it a FACT of history/something that actually happened, or some aspect of Scripture not meant as an actual fact. So, what was the intention of what was written - what was it MEANT to convey - as THAT should be the question.

As for the Ark story, I definitely believe it. Jesus confirmed it when He confirmed what of the OT He considered to be Scripture/"God breathed." Do I believe the entire planet was flooded - not necessarily. In fact, I lean more towards a regional flood. But as the scientifically impossible has obviously happened, that a universe and a planet teaming with intelligent life exists, and as only a Creator can reasonably explain that, then the ark story, water into wine, Mose's "magical" staff, etc - those are mere amateur magic tricks in comparison to the creation of the universe and life itself. A God that can speak a universe into existence obviously has all power over every part of all He has created. The Ark? A flood - whatever its actual scope? No biggie for Him.

a regional flood is a reasonable basis.
But then, the ark wouldnt be needed for that.

Doesnt leave much!

A world wide flood could be done by a god, one who was into faking the evidence.

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:Joseph Smith - one prideful guy claiming something https://carm.org/joseph-smith-quotes
Apostles, prophets - all humbly testify of one God

A few million believers would not agree with this opinion aka statement of facts not in evidence.

And therefore...? Can you continue with your thought and write little bit more?

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Audie, the word "true," pertaining to the Bible is NOT flexible. But the question is, WHAT particular thing is being examined, is it a FACT of history/something that actually happened, or some aspect of Scripture not meant as an actual fact. So, what was the intention of what was written - what was it MEANT to convey - as THAT should be the question.

As for the Ark story, I definitely believe it. Jesus confirmed it when He confirmed what of the OT He considered to be Scripture/"God breathed." Do I believe the entire planet was flooded - not necessarily. In fact, I lean more towards a regional flood. But as the scientifically impossible has obviously happened, that a universe and a planet teaming with intelligent life exists, and as only a Creator can reasonably explain that, then the ark story, water into wine, Mose's "magical" staff, etc - those are mere amateur magic tricks in comparison to the creation of the universe and life itself. A God that can speak a universe into existence obviously has all power over every part of all He has created. The Ark? A flood - whatever its actual scope? No biggie for Him.

a regional flood is a reasonable basis.
But then, the ark wouldnt be needed for that.

Doesnt leave much!

A world wide flood could be done by a god, one who was into faking the evidence.

This is an assertion . Why would an ark not be needed for a regional flood. It definately would be needed for a regional flood.

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:The fact Smith had a vision rather than dying and actually going to Heaven (or Hell in B.W`s case)

So, Moses and various other "prophets' are not to be believed because they didnt (clinically) die, but got a vision whiie they were still (clinically) alive?

Smith was already shown to be a fraud because the book of Abraham that he claimed was the real deal was proven false. Many Mormons left the Mormon church because of this debacle, and that is why the Mormon church decided to put less emphasis on it and put it in the back burner.

PaulSacramento wrote:There are, TECHNICALLY, degrees of death of course.
There is brain dead in which the body can be kept alive BUT the person has NO brain activity, This state of death is the most telling in regards to NDE's because there is NO BRAIN activity so there is NO possibility of any "dream" or Hallucination or anything like that.
Then there is "clinically dead".
This is when a person has stooped breathing AND blood has stopped circulating.
A person can sometimes be revived and the brain is still active for some time ( no one knows for sure how long or how active, but it is still active).

The tricky part for NDE's that happen when a person is only clinically dead ( silly to use the term only, I know) it can be argued that because there is some brain activity that the person MAY be hallucination or whatever.

Paul , actually doctor parnia is now calling some of these Nde's as ADE's or actually death experiences .
The only difference between irreversible death and the nde with no brain activity is that the neurons and other brain parts are too damaged to bring back online . If a computer is shut off , you can't surf the web can you ? Yet in the cases of these Nde's they are actually surfing the web.

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:Joseph Smith - one prideful guy claiming something https://carm.org/joseph-smith-quotes
Apostles, prophets - all humbly testify of one God

A few million believers would not agree with this opinion aka statement of facts not in evidence.

And therefore...? Can you continue with your thought and write little bit more?

Just that I see people making distinctions without a difference between the religious figures they favour and the ones they do not.

Audie: Just that I see people making distinctions without a difference between the religious figures they favour and the ones they do not.

OK, J. Smith and Muhammad gave ZILCH evidence that they had been sent by God. No prophecy that could be traced, no miracles, no NOTHING. Compare that to the Bible, so many prophets, revealed and known (and their date) prophecies that were detailed and came true precisely - many LONG afterward and with remarkable detail. Again, no one could just credibly claim to be the prophecied Messiah, such a person, just in their birth time, place and lineage alone had complexities that could not be met by just anyone. Add in more complex prophecies about Him and only ONE person in History could have possibly fulfilled all of those prophecies. You can't manufacture such things! Also, with the Bible, not just one person gave such prophecies or was able to do miracles - as these were signs that God was actually speaking through a prophet or an Apostle. Look at the vast amount of archaeology that has validated what is written in Scripture, and how many finds were made possible by clues given in Scripture. Read about a place in the Bible and you can likely find it on a modern map - OR its location is known. Not ONE archaeological find has ever been disproven by anything in the Bible. Book of Mormon: Not ONE place in it has ever been found or proven to ever have existed.

In fact, the more you learn about these things, the less you will entertain such a naive viewpoint!

I'd be happy to see the argument laid out.

That because we believe differently to Mormons, our beliefs are therefore wrong.

It may make sense to you Audie, but I'm still confused by your logic.

Kurieuo wrote:I'd be happy to see the argument laid out.

That because we believe differently to Mormons, our beliefs are therefore wrong.

It may make sense to you Audie, but I'm still confused by your logic.

I said nothing of the sort. You are confusing yourself.

Atheists like to play the Noah's ark card but first off no christian thinks all of the bible can be proven 100% so for atheists to expect us to is just not reasonable.But also it is much easier to believe in a world wide global flood than to believe somehow you can have this vast universe without God.Noah's flood is much much easier to believe even if it cannot be proven.No atheist can prove how you get this universe without God and yet they reject God as a cause for the universe.They have no cause and forget all things are caused by something else it makes no difference what you're talking about all things are caused by something else an God is the most logical and reasonable cause for the matter that makes up the universe.Something caused the matter to be caused,nothing happens without a cause and God is the cause.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'd be happy to see the argument laid out.

That because we believe differently to Mormons, our beliefs are therefore wrong.

It may make sense to you Audie, but I'm still confused by your logic.

I said nothing of the sort. You are confusing yourself.

Yes, I see that I was confused here by some exchanges.
Perhaps mixing in another thread also.

I often looked confused you know?
People sometimes ask what's wrong? "I am Christian you know."

My beliefs are a perfect match for me, making complete sense but often appear confusing to others.
Ah, well... gone a little off topic. Sorry that I got confused.

So before we even get into biblical revelation from God,before we even look into God's word we already have logic and reason on our side.Before we get into NDE's,the shroud,etc we already have logic and reason on our side and no atheist does.Their education can do nothing to get around logic and reason right off the bat.

This is why everything in the bible,every story no matter how hard it is for atheists to believe,it is still easier more logical and reasonable to believe God was the cause for the matter and everything in this vast universe than to believe what atheists do if they reject God.They are already wrong from the start and have no logic or reason or evidence on their side,they have nothing for a cause for this vast universe.

So do not let atheists turn it around on us and say it is "God of the gaps" because it is not when you have logic and reason on your side.It is they who reject God that are playing"materialism/naturalism of the gaps".When you don't know fill in the gaps with nonsense with no logic,reason or evidence behind it and requires far more faith because all things are caused by something else.