Rehash god/proof debate

[Brian2]

Well, he is not a M.D. He is historian.

A historian who has studied the history of NDEs no doubt.
MDs don't know what causes them even if Neuroscientists might be able to think of reasons for some of them.

 

[Brian2]

I experience that nothing is from God. Why don't you believe me??????????????????????????????

That must be an inner condition you suffer from and not associated with whether God is involved or not.

 

[Brian2]

So? Are "philosophical proofs" immune to scrutiny?

No of course not. Conclusions about them can come from preconceptions however, which affect our reasoning.

I have never encountered one that wasn't infested with logical fallacies.

Having said that, even if you can come up with one that is dificult to poke holes in, or even impossible, it wouldn't convince me. Why? Because they are just words.

They are attempts at "defining" things into existence. Reality doesn't work that way.
If you wish to convince me that aliens are kidnapping people: show me an alien.
If you wish to convince me that unicorns are real: show me a unicorn.
If you wish to convince me that the supernatural is real: show me something supernatural.

Mere words are not going to be sufficient.

There are stories of miracles these days but I guess they are mere words to you.
There is anecdotal evidence for the supernatural but they are mere words also.
If only I could convince God to show you something that is undoubtedly supernatural.
1Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,…
I guess these days everyone wants a sign.

None I have heard so far.
Arguments infested with logical fallacies, aren't strong. They aren't even weak.
They are in the category of "not even wrong".

Maybe some of the logical fallacies are in your own mind.

 

[Brian2]

What you call "evidence"' is no more or less then people making claims (about their experiences).

If you wish to convince me that a "soul" exists, then show me a soul.
Finding me a bunch of people who all agree / claim that a soul exists, is only evidence that there are people who believe it.

Do the many thousands of claimed alien abductees (all with similar stories) convince you that alien abduction is real?

How about bigfoot spotters?

No?

Then why would your claim be any different?

Why must I only rely on anecdotes and claims? You are asking me to "just believe them". Well.. sorry, but no.

Want to convince me that "souls" exist? Show me a soul. I have no use for a bunch of people who claim it to be so.

There is anecdotal evidence for what people say they saw and heard. A bit more than just believing.
It is similar to the evidence for bigfoot and aliens in that regard. People saw things. So we believe they saw something and we don't know what it was even if some say it is aliens or Bigfoot.
With the Bible the experiences are more specific about what was witnessed and of course it is the same from different sources.

 

[Brian2]

Go ahead: show me when a "miracle" has ever been explained properly and confirmed to being a miracle?

The miracles of life has not been explained and yet many people don't see it as a miracle.
Why would those same people see it as a miracle if science came up with an idea of what they think it might be,,,,,,,,,,,as no doubt has happened.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No of course not. Conclusions about them can come from preconceptions however, which affect our reasoning.

I have no idea what you mean by that or what your point is.

There are stories of miracles these days but I guess they are mere words to you.

Yes. Just like the stories of alien abductions.

There is anecdotal evidence for the supernatural but they are mere words also.

Yes. Just like the "testimonies" and "anecdotes" of alien abductions.

If only I could convince God to show you something that is undoubtedly supernatural.

Or if only the alien abductees could convince the aliens to visit my house (or yours) for once.

1Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,…
I guess these days everyone wants a sign.

No idea what your point here is.

Maybe some of the logical fallacies are in your own mind.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is anecdotal evidence for what people say they saw and heard. A bit more than just believing.

"anecdotal evidence" = people making claims.

Yes, that does require me to "just believe it" in order to accept the claims as true.

It is similar to the evidence for bigfoot and aliens in that regard. People saw things. So we believe they saw something and we don't know what it was even if some say it is aliens or Bigfoot.
With the Bible the experiences are more specific about what was witnessed and of course it is the same from different sources.

Claims are just claims.
You can call them "anecdotal evidence" if you think that makes it sound more "sophisticated".
Maybe such use of semantics impresses you or others, but not me.

They are just claims.
Anecdotes, testimony, hearsay.... it's all the same.
It's just the piling on of claims.

It's saying "this is true because this set of people believes it to be so, because they say so".

Sorry, but my standards for accepting claims (especially extra-ordinary claims like those of religions) are a wee bit higher then just believing whatever people tell me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The miracles of life has not been explained and yet many people don't see it as a miracle. Why would those same people see it as a miracle if science came up with an idea of what they think it might be,,,,,,,,,,,as no doubt has happened.

Try actually answering my question instead of doubling down on the argument from ignorance.

 

[Brian2]

Find them where? You have linked to nothing.

If you google the name and the subject then I'm sure something will come up.
There are medical people also who have made a study of them and conclude there is something there that is more than what science can explain.
Here is an interesting study.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

 

[Brian2]

If there is a specific part of the brain that produces spiritual experiences, then that suggests that what is perceived to be a spiritual experience is merely created in the brain.

It takes a preconceived idea for only that to be suggested.
My preconceptions lead me to other possibilities.

 

[Brian2]

Valjean said: If it can't be measured and studied, ie: perceived, why should anyone believe in it?
Why do the number of believers, or duration of a belief, have any effect on its veracity? Lots of people believed in the Egyptian, Hindu and Greek Gods for long periods of time, too. Does that put them on an equal truth footing with Christianity?

It's not a matter of science. It's a question of reason and logic. If by "justify" you mean to make it a reasonable conclusion, I agree, science isn't a sine qua non, but good, valid evidence is. I'd still say belief in something unevidenced is unreasonable.

Isn't a naturalistic view of the world as unevidenced as a theistic view.
It could be argued that if atheism (non belief) is from birth. then there is no evidence for it and none needed. I imagine many atheists say that.
But of course atheism (lack of belief) is really a naturalistic view and that one is a belief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,with no evidence except for hypotheses of a naturalistic science.

 

[Brian2]

I strongly doubt that any such event ever actually happened.

Edit: and I'm not sure how they'd be relevant to God if they were real. "Humans sometimes have psychic abilities" <> "God exists."

It is evidence imo for the supernatural, just as psychic abilities can be.

 

[Brian2]

I have no idea what you mean by that or what your point is.

What you call a logical fallacy could be just a logical fallacy from your pov.
I notice below that you disagree with that.
Maybe you could give me an example of an argument for God that you see as being logically flawed and I might be able to help,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A historian who has studied the history of NDEs no doubt.
MDs don't know what causes them even if Neuroscientists might be able to think of reasons for some of them.

Okay, then we don't know what they have to do with a life after death.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That must be an inner condition you suffer from and not associated with whether God is involved or not.

You don't know that.

 

[Brian2]

"anecdotal evidence" = people making claims.

Yes, that does require me to "just believe it" in order to accept the claims as true.

Claims are just claims.
You can call them "anecdotal evidence" if you think that makes it sound more "sophisticated".
Maybe such use of semantics impresses you or others, but not me.

They are just claims.
Anecdotes, testimony, hearsay.... it's all the same.
It's just the piling on of claims.

It's saying "this is true because this set of people believes it to be so, because they say so".

Sorry, but my standards for accepting claims (especially extra-ordinary claims like those of religions) are a wee bit higher then just believing whatever people tell me.

Sounds like might you go as far as to call these claims lies because they upset you world view.
Or do you say they probably saw something but misinterpreted it?
Do you say that the claims of people who have had NDEs are lies? And by NDEs I mean things as reported in studies like this.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is evidence imo for the supernatural, just as psychic abilities can be.

And how would that establish the existence of God?

Heck... how would it even be evidence for God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sounds like might you go as far as to call these claims lies because they upset you world view.
Or do you say they probably saw something but misinterpreted it?
Do you say that the claims of people who have had NDEs are lies? And by NDEs I mean things as reported in studies like this.
Near-Death Experiences Evidence for Their Reality

I would say that misinterpretation is likely.

A dying brain is an unreliable brain. The "tunnel of light" described in NDEs matches the description of other types of tunnel vision. A person whose brain is deprived of oxygen because their heart has stopped will experience similar symptoms as a pilot whose brain is deprived of oxygen because G forces impede blood flow.

And identifying the time that events happened in an NDE is notoriously unreliable.

 

[Brian2]

Try actually answering my question instead of doubling down on the argument from ignorance.

OK I can't show you a miracle that has ever been explained properly and yet confirmed to be a miracle.
It seems explanations are what people see as explaining a miracle away even if the timing of an event or something else about it was extraordinary.
To call the miracle of life just something we cannot yet explain is what I would call an argument from ignorance.

 

[Brian2]

Okay, then we don't know what they have to do with a life after death.

Imo it is reasonable to postulate consciousness outside of the body since that is what the evidence seems to point to.
That path of science is not that however because it goes against the inbuilt naturalistic assumptions of science.