God? (Got proof? Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more) [ed. title]

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The difference is, the scientists and “believers” in science find it trivial to prove that science works, since they have hard proof it does. All the religious have is the flat assertion that this or that good thing or behavior is due to God, while they carefully ignore all the bad things done in God’s name. It’s not the same at all; it’s another attempt to falsely claim that religion is the equal of science ( or engineering, or basket weaving, for that matter; anything that has actual evidence that it works ).
[/QUOTE]

I don’t claim that religion is the same as science or any other technical field. It clearly is not. And I agree that science can demonstrate that it works. I’m not arguing for one to the exclusion of the other. I do not believe that religion has much to say about physics or biology. However, I do not believe that science has much to say about morality, either. One can use scientific findings to support moral arguments, but that’s not the same thing. I do very much agree with you that there is a lot of ignoring the bad things done in God’s name, and a general tendency to ascribe survival in a disaster to God’s hand while at the same time denying that people who did not survive were victims of God. The same can be said for science and technology, though. We often look at the wonders of technology and ignore the fact that technology has also made it much easier to kill people by the millions and do great damage to much of the natural world. That doesn’t mean science or technology is bad; just that it’s not entirely good.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yes, and we’d be crippled because of it. The religious attitude is incompatible with the scientific or engineering one; all the faith in the world won’t make a broken gadget work again.
[/QUOTE]

Very true. But many people simply take their gadgets to someone else to fix rather than understanding how they work and fixing the gadgets themselves. From their perspective, technology really does depend upon the faith that the technician will repair it through whatever incantations are needed.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And then they come up with evidence to prove or disprove it; if they can’t, it’s dismissed. Another false equivalence. You try to claim that religion and science are alike, by leaving out the parts of science that actually make it science, and not wild guesses.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I agree that the scientific method means that one must demonstrate their flash of insight via experience. The point I was trying to make was that there are aspects of science that are not entirely logical. From a religious perspective, the person who has experienced the flash of insight also must demonstrate that it has changed his/her life in a meaningful manner, again through experience and not simply through demagoguery.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, religion corrodes at the touch of science; facts are anathema to it. And science becomes distorted and useless - and no longer science - when religion corrupts it.
[/QUOTE]

True religion does not corrode at the touch of science - the two are distinct. I agree wholeheartedly that when religion tries to describe or mandate science, it fails miserably. But that’s not the purpose of religion, despite the claims of the fundamentalist factions that make their way into the news (both Christian and Islamic). Religion most appropriately addresses questions of how to live one’s life; science does not. Science addresses how nature works; religion does not. Religion says a lot about death and what comes next. Science has nothing to say about what comes next.

I recall a discussion with a colleague who said that the religious belief that there is life after death is nothing but wishful thinking. The same could be said for people who believe that there is no accountability to a higher power after death.

BTW, I work in a scientific organization and have a PhD in engineering. I also am a practicing Christian. I see no contradiction in doing both. I believe in the Big Bang, evolution, and that pi is an irrational number approximated by 3.14159… I also believe that God exists, that there is life after death, and that there will be a final judgement. To paraphrase, render unto Einstein that which is Einstein’s; render unto God that which is God’s.

162

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Reread the evidence. Know that near death experiences are real and provide real evidence of life after death.
[/QUOTE]

This is not any sort of answer at all. We are discussing, directly!, some of the evidence that you have presented as proving your case. We are examining whether what you present as evidence is actually a reliable summary of reality.

I don’t know what more I can do: I’ve linked to your claim that Pam Reynolds was clinically dead for “2 hours.” I’ve then quoted YOUR OWN CITES that concede that it was a matter of minutes. How could it GET any clearer that you are wrong here? Are you going to address this huge gaping hole in your claims and the way you back them up, or not?

I don’t know how you can possibly go around ignoring the direct contradiction here between your claims and your own cites.

163

[QUOTE=lekatt]
http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/nde/001_pages/25.html

The life changes caused by a NDE are different and more profound than what you are talking about. They also last a lifetime.

How long for? Consciousness? Eternity!
[/QUOTE]
Your cite says nothing I disagree with. I said NDEs can have a profound effect on a person. I’ve agreed with that. What I am arguing, and you seem to be neatly sidestepping with your inadequate cite, is that effects from other major traumatic events are also likely to have such effects; comparable in frequency and profoundness.

While I appreciate that you’ve put some work in already, could you try and find a cite comparing NDE aftereffects with the aftereffects of other major traumatic events? Again, you have and continue to make the claim with considerable certainty; I am sure you have a cite already prepared that compares these things.

Oh, and How long for?

164

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Show some guts?? If there is no objective evidence then how is this related to having or not having courage?

Show some guts and admit this makes no sense at all.
[/QUOTE]

I’m taking him at his word that he has the evidence that he claims-to do otherwise would be to call him a lier.

165

[QUOTE=Apos]
I don’t know what more I can do: I’ve linked to your claim that Pam Reynolds was clinically dead for “2 hours.” I’ve then quoted YOUR OWN CITES that concede that it was a matter of minutes. How could it GET any clearer that you are wrong here? Are you going to address this huge gaping hole in your claims and the way you back them up, or not?

I don’t know how you can possibly go around ignoring the direct contradiction here between your claims and your own cites.
[/QUOTE]
It’s simply that we are too closed-minded. We’re blinding ourself to the notion that conclusions from cites must be based on those cites. Only lekatt is open-minded enough to see his opinion supported where it is not.

166

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Bearing that in mind, why would spiritual fears spring up if there was no spiritual realm? I can certainly understand and accept the possibility that some spiritual fears are exaggerated, but I can’t see them arising from nothing whatever.
[/QUOTE]
But logically they must. Someone who fears eternal damnation, for example, versus someone who fears recincarnating as something bad, or that their spells will come back and repay them.

It’s the same reason why personal experience isn’t enough alone to prove a religion right. Other people have had them, and believe in different paths. If other people can be wrong - why can’t we? Doesn’t mean we are wrong, of course. It just means we easily can be. After all, whoever is right, the one fact we can rely on is that the majority of all humans alive are wrong on how the universe works.

167

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Overreacts? Yes, certainly, in many cases. But our brains don’t go around manufacturing dangers just so that we can have phobias of them. Some people are afraid of snakes. This does not prove that snakes don’t exist. Rather it’s a product of the fact that many snakes are dangerous and worth avoiding. Some small children may fear monsters under the bed or the like, but such imaginary menaces are not frequent problems among adults. Certainly from an evolutionary perspective, it would be immensely counterproductive to dream up imaginary entities just for the sake of being afraid of them.
[/QUOTE]

Hang on a sec. Throughout history, people have acted out of fear of witches, faeries, djinns, trolls, and a host of other supernatural creatures. By your logic, are we to assume that the existence of these fears is evidence of the existence of these creatures? Is the Malleus Malificarum proof that witches once ravaged Europe, spoiling milk and blighting crops with their Evil Eye?

168

What I have posted earlier is interpretation of scripture, which is not witnessing AFAIK.

169

Balls. I’ve looked back and lekatt’s cite does in fact make a comparison. And after I was all mocking, too. :smack: Apologies. I’m going to maintain that such changes do still exist for many people who don’t have NDEs, but perhaps there is reason to believe it’s higher for NDE-experiencers.

Alright, my next question would be this; how can we tell that the greater effect is a result of truth? Imagine that NDEs are actually dreams, and that people were unable to tell the difference. Would the effects be any less? I can’t see why.

I’m going to stick with how long for? though.

170

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I thought we had covered that. The ontological argument is bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
That may be, but who needs it. My belief that God exists necessarily is axiomatic, and derives from my personal experience. I have no choice but to believe in what I’ve lived. Same as anyone else. I respect you for what you believe. In your shoes, I’d believe the same as you.

171

Personality differences,** Liberal**! :wink:

172

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’m taking him at his word that he has the evidence that he claims-to do otherwise would be to call him a lier.
[/QUOTE]

I read his post incorrectly and my response to you was dead wrong. My apologies.

You were correct.

173

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Disagree. Defining “religion” as including ‘the acts of all those claiming to be inspired by religious dogma’, yet insisting on defining “science” as excluding all those claiming to be acting under the influence of scientific theory.

Simple counterexample: Communism. Communism claims to be a purely scientific theory of history. Communism has caused many of the same ills as claimed for religion.

One may claim that Communism is a perversion or misunderstanding of science. However, one may equally claim that such things as the Spanish Inquisition are a perversion or misunderstanding of religion.

So, no true Scotsman.
[/QUOTE]
But, regardless of anyone’s claims, communism isn’t derived from science. It’s derived from a philosophy, thought up by some guy, what was his name? Groucho? Harpo? (And that’s assuming it’s hasn’t inevitably been coopted by fascists.) The closest you get is that communist governments historically tend to elevate atheism to the level of a state religion, since the fascists don’t like sharing power, and religions tend to accumulate it.

It should be noted and remembered that atheism isn’t science. It is a (very small) belief system that merely has the distinction of not contradicting the findings of science. It’s not the only belief system that does; agnosticism is similarly compatible, and Public Animal No. 9 claims to espouse a version of theism that is as well. (Presumably it’s not related to any common religion like Christianity.)

And it perpetually amazes me me how anyone can say that the Spanish Inquisition isn’t related to or caused by religion. Anything to make a point, I suppose.

174

[QUOTE=Liberal]
My belief that God exists necessarily is axiomatic, and derives from my personal experience.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe so, but that does not, to anyone but you, constitute proof that “God cannot not exist.” In debate, you need the kind of proof that can be put into words.

175

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Reread the evidence. Know that near death experiences are real and provide real evidence of life after death.
[/QUOTE]

Even if that is true, life after death does not necessarily have anything to do with God.

176

[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9]
Very true. But many people simply take their gadgets to someone else to fix rather than understanding how they work and fixing the gadgets themselves. From their perspective, technology really does depend upon the faith that the technician will repair it through whatever incantations are needed.
[/quote]
No, it’s not faith because the technicians usually actually do fix the gadget, and if they fail you don’t see the gadget’s owners insisting that it is fixed despite not working.

[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9]
Again, I agree that the scientific method means that one must demonstrate their flash of insight via experience. The point I was trying to make was that there are aspects of science that are not entirely logical. From a religious perspective, the person who has experienced the flash of insight also must demonstrate that it has changed his/her life in a meaningful manner, again through experience and not simply through demagoguery.
[/quote]
Not in this universe. “Do as I say, not as I do” is the typical behavior of those who preach religion. And belief without evidence as well; that’s why it’s called faith. Religion by nature has no proof, because if it has proof it’s not religion any more.

[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9]
True religion does not corrode at the touch of science - the two are distinct.
[/quote]
“No True Scotsman” again. So much of religion these days is about claims that science can’t speak on, because religion always loses when science CAN speak on religion. Religon, being lies and delusion, cannot survive a skeptical, fact based evaluation; therefore, it must more and more restrict itself to either matters for which there are no facts to check it against, or to people willing to outright ignore or deny reality.

[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9]
Science has nothing to say about what comes next.
[/quote]
Of course it does, and the scientific answer is : nothing. People simply don’t want to hear it, so they turn to the madness of religion.

[QUOTE=Public Animal No. 9]
I recall a discussion with a colleague who said that the religious belief that there is life after death is nothing but wishful thinking. The same could be said for people who believe that there is no accountability to a higher power after death.
[/quote]
Nonsense. There’s zero evidence for any “higher power”, much less it bothering to hold anyone accountable, or it being in the right if it does. It’s not a possibility worth considering, any more than worrying about the opinion of Oberon, King of Faerie.

177

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
It would never occur to me to challenge how you came to unbelief. And I have no interest in debating the qualities of any beliefs held, here.

My specific comment was to note that every person’s journey to belief or unbelief is, indeed, personal. There is no great order of belief in which people, having been led astray by belief or unbelief, are led, inexorably by TRUTH, to the opposite pole. Claims by believers that “You will believe if you let god show you the way” and claims by unbelievers that “You will shed your unnecessary belief if you will simply use your mind” are equally false extrapolations from personal experience to (nonexistent) universal law. It is entirely possible that a believer may listen to exhortations to consider the world in a different way and eventually move away from belief. It is also possible that an unbeliever may look at the world in a new way and come to belief. “Can,” however, is a different word than “must” and many people will listen for god and never hear a voice and many people will examine the world rationally and continue to find god in it.
[/QUOTE]

I find scientific evidence compelling. I find belief in the spiritual much less so Any of the experiences cited can be duplicated by drugs, electronic brain stimulation and meditation.You can never escape the fundamental problem. No proof. You are expected to believe as a result of training. I require a lot more. Here is the flaw. I speak for me and me only. I wonder why any one holds on to training in religion. Spme apparently do not question. How can not questioning be edifying? How can truths be arrived at without rigorous search? Who,what ,when where and why. No questions,no answers and no truth.

178

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I can find as many dangerous harms caused by technology as you can find harms caused by religion.
[/QUOTE]

You are overlooking an important difference here: Any religion is a belief-system and a value-system. As such, it provides, in its own right, motives for human behavior. Believers feel a sense of duty to their faith, its doctrines and its god. It is because of that that some small proportion of religious believers (and a rather higher portion of religious leaders) are willing to engage in religious wars, religious persecution, suppression of any message that contradicts their faith’s, suppression of any personal conduct their faith considers immoral, etc.

Science is a belief-system in a sense, but a belief-system firmly grounded in provable elements of reality. It is not a value-system at all. Science as such has no values. The scientific enterprise is driven by one value assumption – “knowledge is good” (more fully stated, it is better for human beings, collectively, to have as much tested and verified accurate knowledge about the universe as possible than to remain ignorant about it) – but no scientist would cite “knowledge is good” as a proven scientific fact. Except for a practicing scientist, nobody does anything out of a sense of duty to science. The tools provided by science and technology can make wars more destructive. But no wars are fought, no crimes committed, for the sake of science.

Technology is neither a value-system nor a belief-system.

179

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Balls. I’ve looked back and lekatt’s cite does in fact make a comparison. And after I was all mocking, too. :smack: Apologies. I’m going to maintain that such changes do still exist for many people who don’t have NDEs, but perhaps there is reason to believe it’s higher for NDE-experiencers.

Alright, my next question would be this; how can we tell that the greater effect is a result of truth? Imagine that NDEs are actually dreams, and that people were unable to tell the difference. Would the effects be any less? I can’t see why.

I’m going to stick with how long for? though.
[/QUOTE]

I think you would get your answer if you read a few dozen experiences. I have never known a dream to cause the profound changes in a person that a NDE causes. As far as I know no one else has either. NDE research scientists agree that consciousness does live after the death of the brain and body. And many of them believe in the realness (truth) of the experience because of the profound changes. After all if the experience could be duplicated we could turn this world into a utopia in a generation. But no one has ever duplicated a near death experience no matter how much they say so. Check back to the characteristics of one and you will see why no one has ever duplicated a NDE.

To me it was the most truthful and real experience I have ever had. I was wide awake during it, as all other experiencers are, in awe of what I was seeing and feeling.

OK, what is the how long for? phase. What are you talking about.

180

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Even if that is true, life after death does not necessarily have anything to do with God.
[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t prove the existence of God, but since most near death experiencers say they were in the presence of God, I think it has a lot to do with God. But not the God of the Bible or religion, the God of unconditional love.