Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Morny wrote:

Philip wrote: But as for OUR understanding of such a reported experience, a cessation of brain activity and heart function mean that any suggestion that a non-functioning brain created - much less later accessed and retained such an incredible experience, or that during this lifeless/brain-dead state that a person could reveal events going on that would have been impossible for the person to know - well, that these experiences have occurred without a functioning brain rule out the usual physical/psychological/dream explanations.

Which clinical "brain dead" tests did these patients pass?

Effects, such as drugs and very low blood pressure, have fooled more than one well-meaning doctor into believing their patient was brain dead.

And even assuming some kind of very short span of "brain deadness", what evidence could possibly show that their mental revelations did not come from brain activity just before or just after their supposed brain dead period?

And after all that, as I've shown in previous posts, the evidence of extraordinary knowledge during NDE, e.g., from OBE, is of embarrassingly low quality.

Philip wrote: Hank Hanegraaff's organization, Christian Research Institute, has some fascinating things to say about near death experiences and research related to them:
[Hank's apologetic links omitted]

You do realize Hank and the "Christian Research Institute", in spite of such an impressive sounding name, have less in common with science, than I have with Beyonce, right?

For example, for some incomprehensible reason, Hank Hanegraaff needed years of "research" before finally coming out in the last few years with a book supporting the monumental conclusion the Earth is old, i.e., not 6000 years old.

How can a prrson with any sense be fascinated by material coming from as institute that
features such as a distinguished professor holding forth on how many animals noah took on his ark?
How many years of research for that?

Show me an article in Lancet, or the AMA Journal for info on medical issues, not "The Watchtower".

Yep. Audie is definitely back. Insulting Christians, and all.

So, I take it that it is an insult to Christians for me to want to see info on medical matters
from the most reputable sources, rather than something generated from certain segments
within the faith.

All Christians, "insulting" rather than making a reasonabke commentary on the beliefs of a subset of Christians, as distinct from those more inclined to / capable of
thinking?

Circle the wagons! Thars 97 lbs of Heathen on the ridge!

Hate to say it, but to repeatedly ask why it would be important as to whether a NDE happened when a person was actually dead, says to me they find this an irrelevant fact - which is beyond bizarre, as per our discussion over how they could have had, much less have retained, such an experience. It also calls into question the SOURCE of the experience, and not just its validity. I simply surmised, based upon Audie's past metaphysical references to "who knows what might be possible," that she views such a person having been clinically dead no proof of anything PHYSICAL. Which, once again, returns her right back to contemplating metaphysical causes. And whatever that metaphysical cause actually is, it's source is beyond all physical explanations (just as in the Big Bang event). And the similarities in such stories is remarkable - as are how the stories are dissimilar in what was actually seen. But the commonality is that people experienced a realm and awareness that they were outside of their bodies, an awareness that they were dead, and often an awareness of what was going on during the period of no brain, no heartbeat activity. How could someone look down upon their own lifeless body, and be perfectly aware of all that was going on? This is not a physical connection - as it's not even perceived from the position or viewpoint of their lifeless body.

I can tell you what happens to a brain deprived too long of heartbeat and oxygen - it dies! My father had a heart attack between his ambulance offloading him and the emergency room door. Several minutes, he had no heartbeat. Heartbeat restored, scans showed absolutely no brain activity - which is why we took him off of the respirator. So, the other miracle, in a NDE, in which the heart and brain has ceased activity, is not only how was the experience generated, or how it was later retained and accessed by the brain - but why is there no brain damage in people clinically dead for well beyond what the brain needs to survive, and who also return with a NDE to relate? And so, yes, it is VERY key as to whether one was actually clinically dead!

"Clinically dead"

Equals not

Squashed possum dead.

For lo, none doth from there return.

I know Christians are big on the whole "come back to life" bit.

Is that not why the emotional attachment to how a "near"
death is really a squashpossum death?

Philip wrote:

Morny: You do realize Hank and the "Christian Research Institute", in spite of such an impressive sounding name, have less in common with science, than I have with Beyonce, right?

And Morny, you do realize that one doesn't have to be a scientist to reference scientific data, analysis or research?[...]

Correct! But Hank doesn't reference scientific results. The references that you provided were Hank's promotion of apologetic blather.

I ask again:

What clinical "brain dead" tests did these patients pass?

And what evidence could possibly show that their mental revelations could not have come from brain activity just before or just after their supposed brain dead period?

And what is the scientific evidence of extraordinary knowledge acquired during the NDE?

Audie: "Clinically dead"

Equals not

Squashed possum dead.

For lo, none doth from there return.

I know Christians are big on the whole "come back to life" bit.

Is that not why the emotional attachment to how a "near"
death is really a squashpossum death?

Good dodge, Audie!

Well now, POSSUM dead means that the brain and all vital organs are as a Domino's pizza - life functions have nothing to work with, one's life force must be sustained by organs of functionality - yet, without anything to return to so as to "reboot" - well, that's impossible. It's also a strawman analogy! No NDE for those instantly incinerated, heads lopped off, etc. An "emotional" attachment?" No, my dear girl! A rational understanding that a body must have all of it's functioning organs to have or sustain life. Is basic Biology 101 somehow emotional for you? Really, that is the best comeback you can muster - a "dead possum" strawman?

Im not interested in playing "comeback" or defending from your fantasies.
Cartr on conversstion with yourself, you dont need me.

Audie: Im not interested in playing "comeback" or defending from your fantasies.
Cartr on conversstion with yourself, you dont need.

It's ok Mini, it's late, I'm tired - guess I'll go "play possum." But I shall regenerate by morning!

Good thing I had an intact body to "regenerate" this morning! Dead possums - not so much!

Philip wrote:Good thing I had an intact body to "regenerate" this morning! Dead possums - not so much!

Philip this is the typical atheist response and it goes like this: this person couldn't be dead because he is obviously alive now .
Philip you brought up a great point about the veridical aspects of the Nde and another way atheists tend to deal with them is either ignore them or claim everyone is lying about them .

I would tend to think that a resuscitation expert like Sam Parnia would know if someone were clinically dead , plus the patient in the aware study left no doubt that he had his veridical Nde for at least 3 minutes , and not before or after he was revived but during the non functional brain state .

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:NDE's and the Shroud have one thing in common:
Because science can explain 1 or two parts of it, many people write them off.
The issue is, of course, that science CAN NOT explain the WHOLE of the experience ( much like it can't explain ALL the characteristics of the shroud being a "fraud".)

See, while science has addressed the "white light" thing ( it being possible that the white light is nothing more than the process of the brain shutting down) and feelings of "euphoria" as being POSSIBLE hallucinations, science has NOT been able to address things like the ability of people being able to describe, in detail, things that could not have seen while unconscious and even, in many cases, in a different location.

Point being is that because science MAY address the POSSIBILITY of some NDE experiences being explainable, it does NOT address the SUM of them all.

Strawman. Science never explains everything about anything.

Science weighs evidence against theories. For example, ultra-careful, repeatedly radiocarbon-dated, double-blind, peer-reviewed analyses dating a cloth to the 14th century is strong evidence.

And science doesn't have to explain the small percentage of as-yet-unexplained UFOs, in order to cast doubt on the theory that aliens are visiting credulous people, who never seem to have their smart phone camera handy, in spite clogging the Internet with their cat videos.

PaulSacramento wrote:[...] science has NOT been able to address things like the ability of people being able to describe, in detail, things that could not have seen while unconscious and even, in many cases, in a different location.

Evidence please. (In previous posts I addressed poor quality evidence that someone posted on such extraordinary OBE knowledge.)

You really need to do your research before you make statements.
You can start with the shroud thread we have here.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:Science weighs evidence against theories. For example, ultra-careful, repeatedly radiocarbon-dated, double-blind, peer-reviewed analyses dating a cloth to the 14th century is strong evidence.

You really need to do your research before you make statements.
You can start with the shroud thread we have here.

Multiple state-of-the-art labs all independently reached the same narrow age range conclusion. Not proof, but strong evidence indeed.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:Science weighs evidence against theories. For example, ultra-careful, repeatedly radiocarbon-dated, double-blind, peer-reviewed analyses dating a cloth to the 14th century is strong evidence.

You really need to do your research before you make statements.
You can start with the shroud thread we have here.

Multiple state-of-the-art labs all independently reached the same narrow age range conclusion. Not proof, but strong evidence indeed.

That is addressed in the thread.
Multiple labs reaching the same conclusion from the same sample means just that.
And as you know ( I think you had this discussion on the actual thread), it is well known that the shroud had been repaired around the time period in question because of a fire.
Not to make this about the shroud, but the easiest method to show that the shroud is fake is, quite simply, to reproduce ALL its qualities using technology available at the time.
No one has done it, and the closest that a person has come has been using radioactive isotopes.
Which you also know, since I think you read that thread, yes?

Nobody has reproduced the erection of easter island statues and
figured out pyramids. Quite simply, or otherwise.

And therefore?

How is it received wisdom that the "simplest" way is as you said?

Science works by falsifying hypothesses. But then, I dont think they will let anyone really
test the "Shroud".

Audie wrote:Nobody has reproduced the erection of easter island statues and
figured out pyramids. Quite simply, or otherwise.

And therefore?

How is it received wisdom that the "simplest" way is as you said?

Science works by falsifying hypothesses. But then, I dont think they will let anyone really
test the "Shroud".

Not sure what your point is...

No one doubts the authenticity of the Easter island heads and there are many theories as to how the pyramids were built and it has been shown how they could have been built with the tools of the time.

No one has demonstrated that with the shroud.

There have been other tests done on the shroud, if you had read the thread you would have known that.

And we all know how science works, that is the point.
Science has not be able to conclude HOW the image got there and no one has been able to replicate the conditions and the closest anyone came was via the use of radiation.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:Science weighs evidence against theories. For example, ultra-careful, repeatedly radiocarbon-dated, double-blind, peer-reviewed analyses dating a cloth to the 14th century is strong evidence.

You really need to do your research before you make statements.
You can start with the shroud thread we have here.

Multiple state-of-the-art labs all independently reached the same narrow age range conclusion. Not proof, but strong evidence indeed.

Morny this is exactly why your atheism is an emotional position and not a logical one .
Even the hard core atheist or sceptics if the shroud recognized that the c14 tests were massively flawed . They also violated 16 protocols . They didn't weigh the evidence at all. They violated a massive protocol and took one piece and cut it into threes without even doing a micro chemical analysis to make sure that the piece being tested was the same chemically as the rest of the shroud .

This is not even taking into account ray Rogers peer reviewed micro chemical analysis which proved that the piece tested wasn't part of the original shroud .

Morny it's obvious you didn't even research the shroud thread did you
But of course in your scientific realm you'll take old and debunked research over newer stuff .
This is called free thinking right

I'm sure you'll find a way to wiggle out of this one the same way you do with the other evidences .

This is whAt happens when you make atheism your religion