Life

[Brian2]

How could someone date a random rock, or know the position of the continents a billion years ago?
Just because you can't imagine how a thing would be known doesn't mean someone else can't.

Tell me when someone imagines how the scenarios I gave with the NDEs work.
Doubting Thomas did not believe Jesus rose from the dead till he saw with his own eyes.
I'll believe the answer when I see it with my own eyes and leave the faith in science to you.

 

[Stevicus]

Why would an unconscious person knowing what happened in another room while unconscious or remembering numbers on the top of a machine in the same room, but too high to see, not be able to be explained with a naturalistic explanation? Hmmm
That sounds like the attitude of a sceptic who does not want to accept the possibility of the spirit realm.
From a reasoning perspective would an unconscious person be able to know these things?
Would a conscious person be able to know these things?
Science has worked on it for a while and has not come up with an answer that can explain these things.
That's OK, science will continue to work on it forever if necessary rather than accept the alternative explanation outside the naturalistic one.
Accepting a supernatural answer might mean that the supernatural has to be seen as natural.

Well, maybe after they regained consciousness, they got a step stool, took a look at the top of the machine, and then memorized the numbers. Or someone else could have told them.

Card tricks and magic shows often work the same way, mainly through deception and manipulation. The hand is quicker than the eye, or so they say.

Here's one to try with some friends: You can claim to be psychic by being able to guess what cities people are thinking of. You leave the room while your confederate stays. The people in the room think of a city, and then call you back in. Your friend will then ask "Is it Chicago? Is it Detroit? Is it Los Angeles?" and so on until you hit upon the correct name of the city. The trick is that, before the game, you and your confederate agree on a set of numbers, such 1-2-3-4, and then the signal would be to listen for a city with two words in it (such as Los Angeles or New York), and then the correct city will be either 1, 2, 3, or 4 cities named after that (or whatever pre-agreed set of numbers worked out between you and your confederate). My brother and I did this at a small gathering, and no one could figure out how we were doing it. After several times, we explained the trick.

 

[Valjean]

Naturalistic is everything that has nothing to do with the supernatural, spirits and the like.

You mean "natural:" of or pertaining to nature. Naturalistic means imitating nature., like a naturalistic painting.

I think you are overestimating science.

Could be, but it has an impressive track record, and it's the best we have.

Even God is said not to do things that are logically impossible.
Then again the miracles that God does are no doubt only called magic because we do not understand the mechanism involved.

Exactly! -- though I don't think logic is the proper term.
This is why scientists assume there is a mechanism to these supposed 'miracles.' The "Hand of God" has been shown over and over to have a natural, chemical or physical explanation.

Lack of explanation will never be evidence of the supernatural in science.

By Jove, I think you've got it!

It appears that even when there is evidence of the supernatural it still requires faith to believe it.

...or maybe not... When is there ever evidence of the supernatural? The appearance of inexplicability is not evidence, and has been found, repeatedly, to be explicable.This is a false dilemma.

But of course it requires faith to stick to the naturalistic explanations in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The natural explanations are evidence-based. No faith required. Evidence to the contrary? What evidence would that be? There is no evidence of the supernatural. There is only the unknown.

Am I sounding like a flat earther because I see evidence for something?
Maybe it is science that is sounding like flat earthers for rejecting the evidence.

But what is this evidence? I know of no evidence of the supernatural.

It does require faith however to trust that man will find a naturalistic explanation for all things.

Perhaps, in the same way it takes faith to believe the Sun will come up in the morning.

I'm fine with "I don't know" but I do try to use reason while not shutting my mind off to possibilities outside the natural.

No such possibility has been shown to exist. Magic has a poor record.

It looks reasonable to me, but I have not shut my eyes to the possibilities.

How are you defining "reasonable?"

Knowing a mechanism for a physical process does not mean that God did not do it.

Define "do it." If the mechanism is known to follow the natural laws of physics, what, exactly, did God do? You might claim he decreed these laws, but that's a pretty far remove from 'doing it'.

 

[Valjean]

Tell me when someone imagines how the scenarios I gave with the NDEs work.
Doubting Thomas did not believe Jesus rose from the dead till he saw with his own eyes.
I'll believe the answer when I see it with my own eyes and leave the faith in science to you.

O ye of little imagination.

 

[Brian2]

Tell me when someone imagines how the scenarios I gave with the NDEs work.
Doubting Thomas did not believe Jesus rose from the dead till he saw with his own eyes.
I'll believe the answer when I see it with my own eyes and leave the faith in science to you.

That's a possibility but probably not pre arranged as nobody would know when they are going to have an NDE, unless that also is pre arranged.
I guess that could be checked out but I'm not sure how.
Anyway it is good to see that you seem to be agreeing with me that it would take a conscious person to know the facts of what happened while the NDE person was unconscious and it would not be a normal function of the brain of the person having an NDE.

 

[Brian2]

O ye of little imagination.

O ye of little faith in what people have witnessed and reported. It does not agree with your world view so you dismiss it. That's the human thing to do.

 

[Brian2]

This is why scientists assume there is a mechanism to these supposed 'miracles.' The "Hand of God" has been shown over and over to have a natural, chemical or physical explanation.

Less times that you probably think. A scientific explanation for something does not actually show that it was not the hand of God that caused it.

When is there ever evidence of the supernatural? The appearance of inexplicability is not evidence, and has been found, repeatedly, to be explicable.This is a false dilemma.

As I said, it does not show that God did not do it.
However there is evidence for the supernatural which is just dismissed as lies or ignored.

But what is this evidence? I know of no evidence of the supernatural.

Sorry I though NDEs with people knowing what has happened while they were unconscious were part of the discussion.

How are you defining "reasonable?"

Believable.

Define "do it." If the mechanism is known to follow the natural laws of physics, what, exactly, did God do? You might claim he decreed these laws, but that's a pretty far remove from 'doing it'.

No it isn't far at all, and in fact it is so close that finding a natural mechanism seems to be a way for atheists to say that God did not do it, that is how close it is.
But how about when something like the plagues of Egypt are said to be natural, does that mean God did not do it. Or is a lost person is found by someone who had a feeling to look in a certain place. Some believe and others dismiss.

 

[Valjean]

Less times that you probably think. A scientific explanation for something does not actually show that it was not the hand of God that caused it.

Nor does it rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Interdimensional cosmic mice or Quetzalcoatl, but I'll bet you don't give these serious consideration.
Reasonable people believe what they have evidence of, and defer belief for anything else til actual evidence shows up.

As I said, it does not show that God did not do it.
However there is evidence for the supernatural which is just dismissed as lies or ignored.

Sounds like a promising field for a research project, in that case. But science is hesitant to venture into these fields, since they're so full of religious woo that leads nowhere.

Sorry I though NDEs with people knowing what has happened while they were unconscious were part of the discussion.

That may, in fact, be evidence of something, but attributing it to supernatural causes is going pretty far out on a limb.

Believable.

Believable = reasonable? I don't think so -- though this might explain your credulity.
People believe all sorts of incredible things: flat earth, Thor's sun chariot, Poseidon, Færies... Their belief doesn't make the belief reasonable.

No it isn't far at all, and in fact it is so close that finding a natural mechanism seems to be a way for atheists to say that God did not do it, that is how close it is.
But how about when something like the plagues of Egypt are said to be natural, does that mean God did not do it. Or is a lost person is found by someone who had a feeling to look in a certain place. Some believe and others dismiss.

If all God did was decree the laws of the universe, he could have retired to Florida fifteen billion years ago, and let the universe operate all by itself. "Doing it," to me, sounds like some sort of active intervention, of which we have no evidence.

 

[Jahia El Ti]

To believe that all of existence has always been around and the life we know is only a tiny tiny little fraction in that infinite time span seems far-fetched. If I did believe that, I would probably believe that after life is gone it would happen again way way down the road but what are the odds of that? So life is just once? It just seems like a sloppy scenario, once twice etc. I think the creator would be a little more efficient with his plan. I do believe this life does happen over and over but in a much shorter span of time and also infinitely. To me that would be genius at work and much more plausible.

-life is fleeting

If existence always was then why would this MIGHTY, ‘always was’, existence stop for a brief moment and create life that withers and dies in no time? Doesn’t add up in my opinion. I guess the MIGHTY, ‘always was’, existence had an off 4 billion years. Haha, well as they say no ones perfect.

The Creator's ways are not your ways.
The Creator's thoughts are not your thoughts.

 

[Jahia El Ti]

God is life
Life is God.
Jesus Christ is the Light of Life.
Hence Jesus is the Son of God.
The Light of Life.

 

[Brian2]

Nor does it rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Interdimensional cosmic mice or Quetzalcoatl, but I'll bet you don't give these serious consideration.
Reasonable people believe what they have evidence of, and defer belief for anything else til actual evidence shows up.

No, people believe what they want even without evidence.

That may, in fact, be evidence of something, but attributing it to supernatural causes is going pretty far out on a limb.

Maybe it is more reasonable to attribute it to a group consciousness (as with the Borg in Star Trek).

Believable = reasonable? I don't think so -- though this might explain your credulity.
People believe all sorts of incredible things: flat earth, Thor's sun chariot, Poseidon, Færies... Their belief doesn't make the belief reasonable.

As I said, people believe what they want even without evidence. Hence people go beyond the bounds of science and believe the alternatives to the Bible God which speculation provides and which sounds like science, just as a group consciousness in the Borg sounds like science...........in a science fiction show.

If all God did was decree the laws of the universe, he could have retired to Florida fifteen billion years ago, and let the universe operate all by itself. "Doing it," to me, sounds like some sort of active intervention, of which we have no evidence.

Does there need to be evidence? What sort of evidence? I thought science says nothing about God and here you are saying that it does say something.

 

[Valjean]

No people believe what they want even without evidence.

True, but note the "reasonable."

Does there need to be evidence? What sort of evidence? I thought science says nothing about God and here you are saying that it does say something.

If legislation and social codes are influenced by religious belief, it woud be nice if the beliefs reflected reality, as much as can be determined.

 

[Brian2]

That's a possibility but probably not pre arranged as nobody would know when they are going to have an NDE, unless that also is pre arranged.
I guess that could be checked out but I'm not sure how.
Anyway it is good to see that you seem to be agreeing with me that it would take a conscious person to know the facts of what happened while the NDE person was unconscious and it would not be a normal function of the brain of the person having an NDE.

Why did you answer your own post, idiot?

 

[Brian2]

If legislation and social codes are influenced by religious belief, it woud be nice if the beliefs reflected reality, as much as can be determined.

True.
These days reality seems to be changing, particularly in areas of sexuality.