Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:As far as as the mind-body problem is concerned there are really two different "logical" positions to someone who wishes God to remain outside of their picture of the world.

Either one keeps their everything can be physically explained shtick which leads to (1) "Eliminative Materialism" (which is laughable in my opinion, making science and the scientists who practice such absurd).
OR, one takes on board (2) Some dual substance view of nature being comprised of both physical and mental, a natural physical world mixed in with a natural teleology.

BUT, "philosophy is dead" so I guess the reasoning behind it all doesn't really matter.
Many should keep blowing that horn as loudly as they can before their world comes falling down around them.

Kurieuo, what is the difference between mental and spiritual ? It seems like a grey area doesn't it ?
Didn't God create everything from a thought ?
This is something I've always wanted to explore more in depth .

Kurieuo wrote:As far as as the mind-body problem is concerned there are really two different "logical" positions to someone who wishes God to remain outside of their picture of the world.

Either one keeps their everything can be physically explained shtick which leads to (1) "Eliminative Materialism" (which is laughable in my opinion, making science and the scientists who practice such absurd).
OR, one takes on board (2) Some dual substance view of nature being comprised of both physical and mental, a natural physical world mixed in with a natural teleology.

BUT, "philosophy is dead" so I guess the reasoning behind it all doesn't really matter.
Many should keep blowing that horn as loudly as they can before their world comes falling down around them.

So. EITHER one accepts a radical interpretation of earthshaking significance for a
poorly understood phenom., for which there is only anecdotal evidence
(frequently fraudulent) or you are laughable, absurd?

Therefore it can be considered proven that incorporeal minds drift about having adventures, and all that implies?

One who suggests that caution, more and better data are in order before
announcing such vastly radical new science is to be subjected to scorn and name calling. And while I wont read the bips posts again even if I do see my name jump out where someone is quoting him,
I will bet a month's absence from posting that some form of insulting fabricated
nonsense is in there.

But thats cool, its in accord with what it takes to promote pseudo science.

I suppose the gratuitous bit about philosophy is some sort of dig, however far it was necessary to go OT to drag it in.
Philosophy isnt dead, but its bleeding bad if its so debased as to take sides on NDE.

Science, tho would be nothing but a shameful electrified corpse lurching about,
IF the claims for science being made here were to become the type specimen for standards in scientific inquiry.

So call that a potential win for phil vs sci.

bippy123 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As far as as the mind-body problem is concerned there are really two different "logical" positions to someone who wishes God to remain outside of their picture of the world.

Either one keeps their everything can be physically explained shtick which leads to (1) "Eliminative Materialism" (which is laughable in my opinion, making science and the scientists who practice such absurd).
OR, one takes on board (2) Some dual substance view of nature being comprised of both physical and mental, a natural physical world mixed in with a natural teleology.

BUT, "philosophy is dead" so I guess the reasoning behind it all doesn't really matter.
Many should keep blowing that horn as loudly as they can before their world comes falling down around them.

Kurieuo, what is the difference between mental and spiritual ? It seems like a grey area doesn't it ?
Didn't God create everything from a thought ?
This is something I've always wanted to explore more in depth .

Such easy questions!

I'm not sure if you're trying to lead me to a particular answer,
but nonetheless this actually gives me an opportunity to put into words some new thoughts I've had over time.

Being Christian, obviously I look to Christian theology for answers.
So I'll be unapologetic on that front to any non-Christians reading.

While both "spirit" and "mind" can be viewed as immaterial, I do see large distinctions between the two.

In Scripture, "spiritual" is often within the context of "seeing God".
For example, humanity suffered a spiritual death from God when we fell.
Now we must be born again spiritually and see the kingdom of God.

Mental requires a conscious self, but a question to ponder is: "Can the self be conceived of existing in a state without consciousness?"
If the answer to that is "yes" then who we are is not "mental". I think the answer to that is clearly a yes.


Re: "God creating everything from a thought" by that which do you mean:
1) Everything was created from a thought in God's mind, or
2) Everything created is God's thought?

With (1), strictly speaking God doesn't have a mind.
Keep in mind Divine Simplicity wherein there God has no parts.
We require "minds" to think, but it's likely better to view God as actualised raw thinking intelligence.

So then, an alternative would be to just simply say:
1') Everything was created by God.

That may not only be "a thought", but include the fuller picture of God's undiluted pure nature and intelligence being creatively expressed according to God's sovereign will.
To such a powerful extent, that we actually become externalised from this pure intelligence into individual rational thinking beings who contain their own free-thinking minds as God desired.
This really is an awesome thought and something to behold: that God being all there is, created beings with minds of their own apart from Himself.
It is something I think strict Idealism can't give.

Which then also leads to some reservations I'd have with (2) if everything is said to exist in God's mind.
I understand many Theistic philosophers hold to Idealism, that everything is reduced to something like God's thinking or mind, but I find it troubling.
While I haven't researched the topic at any depth, my thoughts are that such a position faces similar absurd problems of Eliminative Materialism.
Ultimately, I see an unavoidable conclusion of Eliminative Idealism if "everything is God's thought".

So, I believe the best solution is to avoid talk of "God's mind" and "God's thinking" altogether and go with the simpler (1') Everything was created by God.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As far as as the mind-body problem is concerned there are really two different "logical" positions to someone who wishes God to remain outside of their picture of the world.

Either one keeps their everything can be physically explained shtick which leads to (1) "Eliminative Materialism" (which is laughable in my opinion, making science and the scientists who practice such absurd).
OR, one takes on board (2) Some dual substance view of nature being comprised of both physical and mental, a natural physical world mixed in with a natural teleology.

BUT, "philosophy is dead" so I guess the reasoning behind it all doesn't really matter.
Many should keep blowing that horn as loudly as they can before their world comes falling down around them.

So. EITHER one accepts a radical interpretation of earthshaking significance for a
poorly understood phenom., for which there is only anecdotal evidence
(frequently fraudulent) or you are laughable, absurd?

Therefore it can be considered proven that incorporeal minds drift about having adventures, and all that implies?

One who suggests that caution, more and better data are in order before
announcing such vastly radical new science is to be subjected to scorn and name calling. And while I wont read the bips posts again even if I do see my name jump out where someone is quoting him,
I will bet a month's absence from posting that some form of insulting fabricated
nonsense is in there.

But thats cool, its in accord with what it takes to promote pseudo science.

I suppose the gratuitous bit about philosophy is some sort of dig, however far it was necessary to go OT to drag it in.
Philosophy isnt dead, but its bleeding bad if its so debased as to take sides on NDE.

Science, tho would be nothing but a shameful electrified corpse lurching about,
IF the claims for science being made here were to become the type specimen for standards in scientific inquiry.

So call that a potential win for phil vs sci.

Sorry Audie but the veridical nde in the aware study was anything but anecdotal , it was measured under controlled conditions. Within strict protocols . By calling it all anecdotal your doing what is known as poisoning the well, which goes like this .

I say that the nde data is anecdotal , therefore all Nde's are anecdotal . This called forming a conclusion to fit with your biased worldview and ignoring what the evidence is actually saying . What we do know for sure is that all of the pseudo scientific explanations that atheist/materialists are saying don't fit the data. What the data is pointing to now is that these events aren't being caused by the brain . Just be uses we don't know exactly how they are being retained by the brain doesn't negate the fact that all of the evidence shows that they aren't being caused by the brain.

You can't just ignore the massive wealth of evidence , especially veridical Nde's in which people are bringing back actual verified data from their environment that they condo t have done with their normal senses.

The data fits much better with us having a. Soul and there being an afterlife then these events being hallucinations .
How can anyone who has studied the data conclude that a veridical nde be an illusion . These are Nde's that are verified by outside witnesses . Now I now that Audie's conclusion will be that all these people are lying , especially people like those turncoat atheists professor Howard storm , Ian McCormick and eben Alexander.

The fact is almost all the nde data points towards what religion has been saying for thousands if years , namely that we have an immortal souls and there is an afterlife . Is it 100% scientific proof ? NO , but the evidence is very strong and it keeps getting stronger with every nde study that is done every year .

Now the question for Audie is can she name even one nde researcher that is still an atheist ?
I can name a few that were atheists before their nde research , but I can't find one that is still an atheist .

Odd isn't it that very studies that hit right at some of the central beliefs of mainstream religion is starting to be proven by science itself . You can say that science ,made spite being way behind to religion is starting to meet religion on a few of the major earth shattering claims .

What we do know after 30 years of nde research is that materialism seems to be the odd man out , and with it main stream atheism in which almost all atheists don't believe in the soul or afterlife .

Audie's poisoning the well won't magically make all the evidence disappear , but it will expose atheism for being exactlyyyy hat I have asserted it to be , a dogmatic cult like worldview .

Kurieuo wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As far as as the mind-body problem is concerned there are really two different "logical" positions to someone who wishes God to remain outside of their picture of the world.

Either one keeps their everything can be physically explained shtick which leads to (1) "Eliminative Materialism" (which is laughable in my opinion, making science and the scientists who practice such absurd).
OR, one takes on board (2) Some dual substance view of nature being comprised of both physical and mental, a natural physical world mixed in with a natural teleology.

BUT, "philosophy is dead" so I guess the reasoning behind it all doesn't really matter.
Many should keep blowing that horn as loudly as they can before their world comes falling down around them.

Kurieuo, what is the difference between mental and spiritual ? It seems like a grey area doesn't it ?
Didn't God create everything from a thought ?
This is something I've always wanted to explore more in depth .

Such easy questions!

I'm not sure if you're trying to lead me to a particular answer,
but nonetheless this actually gives me an opportunity to put into words some new thoughts I've had over time.

Being Christian, obviously I look to Christian theology for answers.
So I'll be unapologetic on that front to any non-Christians reading.

While both "spirit" and "mind" can be viewed as immaterial, I do see large distinctions between the two.

In Scripture, "spiritual" is often within the context of "seeing God".
For example, humanity suffered a spiritual death from God when we fell.
Now we must be born again spiritually and see the kingdom of God.

Mental requires a conscious self, but a question to ponder is: "Can the self be conceived of existing in a state without consciousness?"
If the answer to that is "yes" then who we are is not "mental". I think the answer to that is clearly a yes.


Re: "God creating everything from a thought" by that which do you mean:
1) Everything was created from a thought in God's mind, or
2) Everything created is God's thought?

With (1), strictly speaking God doesn't have a mind.
Keep in mind Divine Simplicity wherein there God has no parts.
We require "minds" to think, but it's likely better to view God as actualised raw thinking intelligence.

So then, an alternative would be to just simply say:
1') Everything was created by God.

That may not only be "a thought", but include the fuller picture of God's undiluted pure nature and intelligence being creatively expressed according to God's sovereign will.
To such a powerful extent, that we actually become externalised from this pure intelligence into individual rational thinking beings who contain their own free-thinking minds as God desired.
This really is an awesome thought and something to behold: that God being all there is, created beings with minds of their own apart from Himself.
It is something I think strict Idealism can't give.

Which then also leads to some reservations I'd have with (2) if everything is said to exist in God's mind.
I understand many Theistic philosophers hold to Idealism, that everything is reduced to something like God's thinking or mind, but I find it troubling.
While I haven't researched the topic at any depth, my thoughts are that such a position faces similar absurd problems of Eliminative Materialism.
Ultimately, I see an unavoidable conclusion of Eliminative Idealism if "everything is God's thought".

So, I believe the best solution is to avoid talk of "God's mind" and "God's thinking" altogether and go with the simpler (1') Everything was created by God.

My friend you have given me a whole lot to think about
This has always been the toughest area for me to understand but this post will give me a lot to digest .

If God communicates something to us, whether to our hearts and minds through His Holy Spirit or audibly (as He sometimes did in Scripture), does He not do so through whatever is technically needed to reach us so that we can understand it? So, all of this trying to parse through what vehicle (whether mind/body/spirit) in a given or NDE state really doesn't matter, but that such is experienced, however God might do it. If there is a DECEPTIVE NDE, God obviously allowed it. These NDEs are BEYOND the physical, which is why brain functionality can be non-present during a period of one experiencing a NDE. So, if the MIND is non-functioning during a NDE, if one remembers it per the incredible details that we read of, then God somehow facilitates it. We're NEVER going to figure that out. So, one SEES and HEARS all that is going on in a room during a period in which they are showing NO life signs. This is far more than just something they are experiencing, because they are SEEING the room, acutely aware of all.

I've been put under a number of times for medical procedures. Even one where I could hear sounds, I still couldn't decipher or understand them - mostly my moaning (this with having impacted teeth removed, so they didn't want to put me TOO far under). But a NDE in which no measures of life are indicated go far beyond even a deep sleep coma. So SEEING and HEARING in detail make no sense. Whatever it is they are experiencing, it is not within any physical possibility. Let's remember the extreme clarity of so many of these NDEs. These are in no way being experienced by someone with life somehow flickering unmeasurably below the surface as their senses during that period are often razor sharp. So, how is the experience HAD, much less remembered and retained? This has to be beyond the physical, so I don't see trying to distinguish between mind, body or spirit of much use.

Is there a reliable account of someone knowing whats going on in another room? Seems like the diembodied one might want to check the waiting room, or something?

If the mind is but a receptical, what about dogs? And trout?

Audie, did you hear about that study into dog NDEs?

It seems to me that atheists think that you must at all costs approach science from a non-God approach and if you don't? Then you cannot do science.Yet science still cannot give you a cause for the universe but expect us to put our faith and trust in science to give us an answer someday,ignore God and the super natural and think like we do and trust us to explain the technical science to you that you are not smart enough to understand,we will explain everything to you so trust us instead of God.

But the scientists who think like this? Have forgot that Christianity gave birth to modern science and these scientists certainly did not reject God.But it gets worse because we can actually see the anti-God bias in science which is why atheist scientists are doing everything they can to move science in a different direction from the big bang theory.The big bang theory points to God and specifically the God of the bible and we can't have this,but trust us to give you a cause for everything that makes up the universe someday.

Meanwhile we who believe in God actually have logic,reason and even evidence on our side and an actual cause for everything that makes up our universe and it is a lot easier to believe also.

Kurieuo wrote:Audie, did you hear about that study into dog NDEs?

Citation, svp.

What about blennies?

Philip wrote:If God communicates something to us, whether to our hearts and minds through His Holy Spirit or audibly (as He sometimes did in Scripture), does He not do so through whatever is technically needed to reach us so that we can understand it? So, all of this trying to parse through what vehicle (whether mind/body/spirit) in a given or NDE state really doesn't matter, but that such is experienced, however God might do it. If there is a DECEPTIVE NDE, God obviously allowed it. These NDEs are BEYOND the physical, which is why brain functionality can be non-present during a period of one experiencing a NDE. So, if the MIND is non-functioning during a NDE, if one remembers it per the incredible details that we read of, then God somehow facilitates it. We're NEVER going to figure that out. So, one SEES and HEARS all that is going on in a room during a period in which they are showing NO life signs. This is far more than just something they are experiencing, because they are SEEING the room, acutely aware of all.

I've been put under a number of times for medical procedures. Even one where I could hear sounds, I still couldn't decipher or understand them - mostly my moaning (this with having impacted teeth removed, so they didn't want to put me TOO far under). But a NDE in which no measures of life are indicated go far beyond even a deep sleep coma. So SEEING and HEARING in detail make no sense. Whatever it is they are experiencing, it is not within any physical possibility. Let's remember the extreme clarity of so many of these NDEs. These are in no way being experienced by someone with life somehow flickering unmeasurably below the surface as their senses during that period are often razor sharp. So, how is the experience HAD, much less remembered and retained? This has to be beyond the physical, so I don't see trying to distinguish between mind, body or spirit of much use.

This is exactly try where the evidence is leading to philip . Especially with the vertical nde's where the person's spirit or soul pops out of his body and is able to view things outside of his body even sometimes at a range of miles away, and these details are then verified by outside witnesses . Audie has asked for some examples of vertical nde's . I'll supply some in a bit.

https://iands.org/about-ndes/key-nde-facts.html?start=2



Veridical near-death experiences are NDEs in which people reportedly out-of-body have observed events or gathered information that was verified by others upon the experiencer’s return to a conscious state. These are a few famous cases of anecdotal veridical evidence:
The Case of Pam Reynolds:

In order to remove a life threatening aneurysm deep in her brain, Pam Reynolds underwent a rare surgical procedure called “Operation Standstill” in which the blood is drained from the body like oil from a car, stopping all brain, heart and organ activity. The body temperature is lowered to 60 degrees. While fully anesthesized, with sound-emitting earplugs, Pam’s ordeal began. Dr. Spetzler, the surgeon, was sawing into her skull when Pam suddenly heard the saw and began to observe the surgical procedure from a vantage point over his shoulder. She also heard what the nurses said to the doctors. Upon returning to consciousness, she was able to accurately describe the unique surgical instrument used and report the statements made by the nurses.20

A Report from a Dutch Nurse:

“During night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit… When we go to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the ‘crash cart.’ [..] Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. The moment he sees me he says: ‘O, that nurse knows where my dentures are.’ I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: ‘You were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that cart, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath, and there you put my teeth.’.”21

Maria’s Shoe

Kimberly Clark Sharp (1995) was a social worker in Harborview Hospital in Seattle when Maria was brought in unconscious from cardiac arrest. Sharp visited her the following day in a hospital room, at which point Maria described leaving her body and floating above the hospital. Desperate to prove that she had in fact left her body and was not crazy, she described seeing a worn dark blue tennis shoe on the ledge outside a window on the far side of the hospital. Not believing her but wanting to help, Sharp checked the ledge by pressing her face against the sealed windows and found a shoe that perfectly matched the details Maria had related.22

Visual Perception in the Blind

Dr. Kenneth Ring describes 21 cases of visual perception in the blind during their near-death experiences in his book Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind.23

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/r ... .html#a03b

Multi-colored icon. Dr. Charles T. Tart, www.issc-taste.org and www.paradigm-sys.com, is a transpersonal psychologist and parapsychologist known for his psychological work on the nature of consciousness (particularly altered states of consciousness), as one of the founders of the field of transpersonal psychology, and for his research in scientific parapsychology. He served as an instructor in psychiatry in the School of Medicine of the University of Virginia, and as a consultant on government funded parapsychological research at the Stanford Research Institute. Dr. Tart, the author of The End of Materialism, is known for his experimental work in autoscopic out-of-body and near-death experiences. He is currently a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis. Dr. Tart published an article in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research which documents the OBE of a young woman who was one of his research subjects. What makes this particular OBE remarkable is that she was able to leave her physical body and read a 5-digit number from a significant distance and correctly give it to him upon return. This is one of best examples of a veridical OBE occurring under laboratory conditions.


Dr. George Rodonaia photo.

Multi-colored icon. In Dr. Raymond Moody's documentary entitled, Life After Life, he interviewed a Russian scientist named Rev. George Rodonaia, who had a near-death experience during which he observed an infant crying in a nearby room. George observed that no one could figure out why the infant was crying so persistently. But George learned while out of his body that the infant had a broken arm. When George returned to life, he told the infant's parents about the broken arm. An x-ray revealed that the infant's arm was indeed broken. This same incident is documented in Dr. Melvin Morse's book (along with Paul Perry) called Transformed by the Light. The following excerpt from "Transformed by the Light" describes George's observation of this infant while he was out of his body. Note that in Dr. Morse's book, he refers to George by his Russian name "Yuri".

What's fascinating here is that this russian scientist was an atheist most of his life as he was a scientist for the former Soviet Union but wanted out . The kgb had other ideas and actually ran him over with a car and left him for dead on the road.
I believe he is now a Christian If I'm not mistaken, and also a reverend.
Back to his story.

Yuri could go visit his family. He saw his grieving wife and their two sons, both too small to understand that their father had been killed. Then he visited his next-door neighbor..



They had a new child, born a couple of days before Yuri's death. Yuri could tell that they were upset by what happened to him. But they were especially distressed by the fact that their child would not stop crying..



No matter what they did he continued to cry. When he slept it was short and fitful and then he would awaken, crying again. They had taken him back to the doctors but they were stumped. All the usual things such as colic were ruled out and they sent them home hoping the baby would eventually settle down..



While there in this disembodied state, Yuri discovered something:

"l could talk to the baby. It was amazing. I could not talk to the parents - my friends - but I could talk to the little boy who had just been born. I asked him what was wrong. No words were exchanged, but I asked him maybe through telepathy what was wrong. He told me that his arm hurt. And when he told me that, I was able to see that the bone was twisted and broken."

Eventually the doctor from Moscow came to perform the autopsy on Yuri. When they moved his body from the cabinet to a gurney, his eyes flickered. The doctor became suspicious and examined his eyes. When they responded to light, he was immediately wheeled to emergency surgery and saved.



Yuri told his family about being "dead." No one believed him until he began to provide details about what he saw during his travels out of body. Then they became less skeptical. His diagnosis on the baby next door did the trick. He told of visiting them that night and of their concern over their new child. He told them that he had talked to the baby and discovered that he had a greenstick fracture of his arm. The parents took the child to a doctor and he x-rayed the arm only to discover that Yuri's very long-distance diagnosis was right. (Rev. George Rodonaia)

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Audie, did you hear about that study into dog NDEs?

Citation, svp.

What about blennies?

Can't find a citation, but apparently not all dogs do go to heaven.
What's with the steamline visa processing? (sorry I'm not FL i.e., don't respond to French)

Only your blennies in the tropics I believe.