The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

Let's use two magnets sticking together. You have a god standing beside you. He says he can make these magnets fly apart contrary to "natural mechanics". You have all existing measuring equipment in the world available, he makes them fly apart, and your equipment registers no forces acting on the magnets. Did he use something "supernatural" or just something natural we can't measure yet? If he tells us how to measure what he used, would it then still be "supernatural"?

He did tell us how to measure these types of events. The problem is many have a dogmatic and narrow view of what they accept. There is no justification to suggest my visual experience is any more reliable than my spiritual or moral experience not that I am limited to only these.

I have often thought of the supernatural as just an undiscovered natural force emanating from God. God certainly would not be unnatural. Faith precludes proof so I do not expect to find objective proof of God but I do not think of his acts as anything but another realm of the natural. I use the term to distinguish it from the known natural for convenience. I have heard others take issue with that view but I have never understood their contention. I think it enough to distinguish God's acts from methodological naturalism or materialism.

I will add that supernatural events are rare exceptions and measurement would be impracticable. I can test all water at all places and times for wine. I can test historical claims and have not been left disappointing, to conclude the very meticulous and accurate NT writers suddenly went insane at every place I can't test is not justifiable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought that is what you were saying. I guess you meant you had no personal theory.

Oh no, I was just saying I'm not clever enough to think up a good way to scientifically test these kinds of claims.

That one is easy. It was well researched. I think her claims were instantaneous and she was still under close observation. It has been a few years since I researched it but I believe that was the case. In any event her case is well documented and provoked a lot of study. I think every account of it I have heard was from a secular source.

There is a show (I found it on utube) that recounted case after case. Many of which were hard to ignore. Even before I had any theistic tendencies I found them compelling. Of particular interest to me were accounts of going to Hell and ones where things unknowable were described. I could never see too many who would claim to have been to Hell. Three is not much fame and money in it and it is embarrassing. Another I remember was from a hard core gang member who would not even let his identity be revealed and was extremely uncomfortable when discussing it. You want to get into Pam Reynolds story in detail or something else? I also want to point out what made a huge difference in my studies. I originally thought no religion could possibly be true but that there must be something to them on some level. There are juts way to many to ignore in general. That is the way I began my search. I was only looking for some explanation for the proliferation of supernatural claims in general. It is easy to pick any one claim and find problems. I found it impossible to deny some factual basis for them in totality. That is where I began.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

I was just wondering about the particular cases you cited, what about them you thought indicated that mind and brain are separate things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's use two magnets sticking together. You have a god standing beside you. He says he can make these magnets fly apart contrary to "natural mechanics". You have all existing measuring equipment in the world available, he makes them fly apart, and your equipment registers no forces acting on the magnets. Did he use something "supernatural" or just something natural we can't measure yet? If he tells us how to measure what he used, would it then still be "supernatural"?

Good question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He did tell us how to measure these types of events. The problem is many have a dogmatic and narrow view of what they accept. There is no justification to suggest my visual experience is any more reliable than my spiritual or moral experience not that I am limited to only these.

I have often thought of the supernatural as just an undiscovered natural force emanating from God. God certainly would not be unnatural. Faith precludes proof so I do not expect to find objective proof of God but I do not think of his acts as anything but another realm of the natural. I use the term to distinguish it from the known natural for convenience. I have heard others take issue with that view but I have never understood their contention. I think it enough to distinguish God's acts from methodological naturalism or materialism.

I will add that supernatural events are rare exceptions and measurement would be impracticable. I can test all water at all places and times for wine. I can test historical claims and have not been left disappointing, to conclude the very meticulous and accurate NT writers suddenly went insane at every place I can't test is not justifiable.

I don't see any way we can go back in time to test the kinds of historical claims you're talking about. I'm sure we could test such claims if made today.

I mean, what we're actually talking about is momentary suspension of natural law, or something like it, aren't we?

 

[1robin]

Oh no, I was just saying I'm not clever enough to think up a good way to scientifically test these kinds of claims.

I would suggest it is as hard to do was checking all water for wine. They are rare exceptions and can't be all checked for easily.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

I was just wondering about the particular cases you cited, what about them you thought indicated that mind and brain are separate things.

Pam's was (the best I can remember) the amount of interest and study that immediately arose from the event. Another was because the man was a brain specialists and knew exactly what the issues were. Others the principle of embarrassment, the lack of motivation, or type of information. Pam knew things that occurred in the operating room with no blood in her brain. A child knew what a grand parent looked like as a teen without ever seeing him or an image of him at any age. The one called 2 and half minutes in Hell was a Christian who went to Hell and hates discussing it. It took two years of others telling him to before he would and he is still very uncomfortable doing so. Pick any of the examples I gave and we can dig deeper. Ten posts would not contain the reasons I believe in just a few of these. One will be plenty. Your choice.

 

[1robin]

I don't see any way we can go back in time to test the kinds of historical claims you're talking about. I'm sure we could test such claims if made today.

This is an example of the dogmatic view I mentioned. History has it's method and tests. The most central biblical events meet them all. Only an unjustifiable dogmatism would find this insufficient. I said I could test historical claims not prove them. In fact with an extreme but justifiable criteria I lack he ability to test anything. My point Is that you do not use that criteria nor do you use a common system. Why are only biblical historical claims immune to testing? I use the same historical tests for all historical claims and the majority of experts who do so in NT history support my claim.

I mean, what we're actually talking about is momentary suspension of natural law, or something like it, aren't we?

Yes. Looking for exceptions by using the rule is not going to get anywhere. I however mentioned the general reliability for historical claims being a rational basis for unverifiable claims. Luke for example has been claimed by immanent professors of history to have been an exemplary historian in every way. One setting out to use him to disprove the NT as he thought him the softest target, converted. Am I to assume he went mad when discussing what can't be checked?

 

[Sapiens]

This is an example of the dogmatic view I mentioned. History has it's method and tests. The most central biblical events meet them all. Only an unjustifiable dogmatism would find this insufficient. I said I could test historical claims not prove them. In fact with an extreme but justifiable criteria I lack he ability to test anything. My point Is that you do not use that criteria nor do you use a common system. Why are only biblical historical claims immune to testing? I use the same historical tests for all historical claims and the majority of experts who do so in NT history support my claim.

The issue is that Biblical Scholars give themselves a special dispensation from the rather rigorous rules that other historians have to play by. They whine that they have no primary sources so they take what would otherwise be considered secondary sources and promote them to primary ... but, we been all through this, must we do it again?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would suggest it is as hard to do was checking all water for wine. They are rare exceptions and can't be all checked for easily.

You don't think we could test a claim about turning water into wine if it were made today?

Pam's was (the best I can remember) the amount of interest and study that immediately arose from the event. Another was because the man was a brain specialists and knew exactly what the issues were. Others the principle of embarrassment, the lack of motivation, or type of information. Pam knew things that occurred in the operating room with no blood in her brain. A child knew what a grand parent looked like as a teen without ever seeing him or an image of him at any age. The one called 2 and half minutes in Hell was a Christian who went to Hell and hates discussing it. It took two years of others telling him to before he would and he is still very uncomfortable doing so. Pick any of the examples I gave and we can dig deeper. Ten posts would not contain the reasons I believe in just a few of these. One will be plenty. Your choice.

In regards to Pam Reynolds, I looked into it quite a bit. The claim is that she knew things that occurred while her brain was drained of blood, but if you look over the chronology of the surgery, the things she heard could easily have happened before her brain was emptied of blood and I would say, most likely did. There do appear to be perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations for what happened to her, at least from what I can tell.

The duration of time that her brain was bloodless was much shorter than the duration of the entire surgery. The discussion she heard between surgeons seems to have occurred before her brain was drained, according to her claims and according to the chronology of the operation. This can easily be explained by something that is fairly common called anesthesia awareness, where a person hasn’t been anesthetized enough to render them unconscious, and so they are still aware of some of the sights and sounds of their surroundings, but are unable to react to them.

And the part where she said she felt herself float out of the operating room, travelled down a tunnel and met her relatives occurred right around the time the blood was being drained from her brain. The part where she said she felt herself pop out of her body happened before this part of the surgery. And most everything else she claimed about her experience occurred before this point. Except the part where she felt like she popped back into her body, which probably occurred after the blood was pumped back into her brain, towards the end of the surgery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is an example of the dogmatic view I mentioned. History has it's method and tests. The most central biblical events meet them all. Only an unjustifiable dogmatism would find this insufficient. I said I could test historical claims not prove them. In fact with an extreme but justifiable criteria I lack he ability to test anything. My point Is that you do not use that criteria nor do you use a common system. Why are only biblical historical claims immune to testing? I use the same historical tests for all historical claims and the majority of experts who do so in NT history support my claim.

How do you test these “historical” claims you’re talking about?

I'd say that the specific Biblical "historical" claims we’re talking about are immune to testing because they're quite extraordinary and they supposedly happened long ago during supposed events that have long past. We are talking about “miracles” here, right? We’re not talking about mundane claims like this person was king or that person lived somewhere. We’re talking about supposed events where natural laws at least appeared to be suspended or altered for some period of time. On top of that, we know today of the various methods of “magic” and trickery that people use to fool or impress each other. If you ask my niece, she will tell you with all the sincerity in the world that my husband can remove his thumb and put it back on again. We can easily test this claim today.

Yes. Looking for exceptions by using the rule is not going to get anywhere.

What do you mean by this?

I however mentioned the general reliability for historical claims being a rational basis for unverifiable claims. Luke for example has been claimed by immanent professors of history to have been an exemplary historian in every way. One setting out to use him to disprove the NT as he thought him the softest target, converted. Am I to assume he went mad when discussing what can't be checked?

You could assume he could have been mistaken, like my niece.

 

[ArtieE]

The one called 2 and half minutes in Hell was a Christian who went to Hell and hates discussing it. It took two years of others telling him to before he would and he is still very uncomfortable doing so. Pick any of the examples I gave and we can dig deeper. Ten posts would not contain the reasons I believe in just a few of these. One will be plenty. Your choice.

I want to pick one instead. I pick an NDE where a Hindu sees and interacts with Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. Why should I believe that Yamraj objectively exists based on the testimony of the Hindu?

 

[1robin]

The issue is that Biblical Scholars give themselves a special dispensation from the rather rigorous rules that other historians have to play by. They whine that they have no primary sources so they take what would otherwise be considered secondary sources and promote them to primary ... but, we been all through this, must we do it again?

I nor you can make any such generalized claim with justification. I can say I have seen the methods NT historians use and it is exactly the same as the standard historical method. I have seen the best lawyers in history give exhaustive papers on testimony and evidence in the NT and they subject it to every single standard they would of any document. In fact the Bible is so reliable it can literally be submitted under the ancient documents clause.

You say they whine about not having primary resources. I have never heard that. I have only and always heard the opposite. The sources they have are the most primary possible. I think you meant to say we do not have original documents. However we have more documents closer the sources than for any other ancient work of any kind. In short whatever discrepancies you mention of invent for the Bible the rest of ancient history has in far greater significance in far more categories. The bible exceeds every reasonable demand for what should be available for study today from that period. Nothing else even gets close.

 

[1robin]

You don't think we could test a claim about turning water into wine if it were made today?

No, it would almost certainly take place at a point not under a laboratories scrutiny if it literally became wine it would serve no purpose to study it after the fact. I imagine you could say it potentially could be it practically won't be.

In regards to Pam Reynolds, I looked into it quite a bit. The claim is that she knew things that occurred while her brain was drained of blood, but if you look over the chronology of the surgery, the things she heard could easily have happened before her brain was emptied of blood and I would say, most likely did. There do appear to be perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations for what happened to her, at least from what I can tell.

So those associated say X occurred at time Y and that is evidence it occurred at time not Y for you. The blood being drained was not what initially deprived her of awareness. It was the last in a long series of steps, most of which should not allow comprehension of anything internal or external. The fact that the blood was drained is just to show the layer upon layer of barriers to cognition. It was not that she was aware until that occurred. I have had about 6 surgeries and my mother about 20 until she died. Just under general anesthesia neither I nor she ever perceived a single event of any kind. A bloodless brain is about a dozen steps further down the rabbit hole. Also if I remembered correctly she knew things that did not occur in here vicinity. She knew of events in other geographical locations that were confirmed in detail.

The duration of time that her brain was bloodless was much shorter than the duration of the entire surgery. The discussion she heard between surgeons seems to have occurred before her brain was drained, according to her claims and according to the chronology of the operation. This can easily be explained by something that is fairly common called anesthesia awareness, where a person hasn’t been anesthetized enough to render them unconscious, and so they are still aware of some of the sights and sounds of their surroundings, but are unable to react to them.

Anesthesia awareness is not common. Less than 1%. Let's do ourselves a favor. Being awake during a surgery is a nightmare I wish not to even contemplate. So please do no more than refer to the issue. I know what you mean and any descriptions are an unnecessary unpleasantly. This issue will not suffer for doing so.

And the part where she said she felt herself float out of the operating room, travelled down a tunnel and met her relatives occurred right around the time the blood was being drained from her brain. The part where she said she felt herself pop out of her body happened before this part of the surgery. And most everything else she claimed about her experience occurred before this point. Except the part where she felt like she popped back into her body, which probably occurred after the blood was pumped back into her brain, towards the end of the surgery.

It was an incremental road from anesthesia to quasi-brain death. You seem to be attempting to claim something that occurs in less than 1% of cases in the anesthesia phase explains the multiplicity of phases (each one more debilitating to awareness than the last). You literally began with a 99% chance of being wrong and get worse along the way. This again is what I refer to as evidence for bias or preference. You even use it to explain stuff like seeing what the nurses were doing from a birds eye view. Your theory even if true has no application to that. At best she might have heard a crash of instruments, but if I remember correctly she described the physical arrangements of the events in detail.


I will stop operating from memory at this point. If you want to keep discussing this I will commence my investigation into her case again. Again if I remember right the reliability of this occurrence contains the fact he experts on your theory were investigating it. They tried to test and determine exactly what you state and any other natural explanation and failed.

 

[Thief]

I see no resolve pending.
The reason is obvious.
There will be no experiment, no equation, no photo, nor a fingerprint.

The topic is cognitive.

You can go to the 'point'.....but when you get there....
It's up to you to decide what you have in front of you.

Science will speak of singularity and 'something' from no where and no when.

We are here.
What we are came from.....somewhere?
I can't say the term applies.
At the 'point'...location is not yet created.

We are here.
When did it begin?....the question has no answer.
Time did not exist until AFTER the secondary point, the infinity in between and the expansion that followed.

We are here.
And we look to science and history to say to us.....how.

I don't think science or history has the answer.

I think it's up to you to make a choice.
Spirit first?...or substance?

The rest of what you think you are, follows accordingly.

 

[1robin]

How do you test these “historical” claims you’re talking about?

The exact same way you test any historical claim. Testimony, corroboration, historical evidence, archeology, historical markers, plausibility, corollary effect, explanatory scope, etc.....

I'd say that the specific Biblical "historical" claims we’re talking about are immune to testing because they're quite extraordinary and they supposedly happened long ago during supposed events that have long past. We are talking about “miracles” here, right? We’re not talking about mundane claims like this person was king or that person lived somewhere. We’re talking about supposed events where natural laws at least appeared to be suspended or altered for some period of time. On top of that, we know today of the various methods of “magic” and trickery that people use to fool or impress each other. If you ask my niece, she will tell you with all the sincerity in the world that my husband can remove his thumb and put it back on again. We can easily test this claim today.

I do not remember any specific claim mentioned. I will give you some that pass every test history can throw at them.

1. Christ's existence.
2. His claims to divine authority.
3. His death by crucifixion.
4. The empty tomb.
5. Sincere claims by even his enemies to postmortem experiences.
6. His practice (whether fake or real) of exorcism.
7. Mark, Mathew, John, Paul, and Peter's radical transformation.
8. The fall of Jerusalem.
9. The existence of Luke's obscure Roman official titles.
10. Census' of the period requiring families to return to their homes.

Plus thousands just as reliable.

What do you mean by this?

The law of thermodynamics is a poor tool to verify that a reciprocating engine refrigerated it's self.

You could assume he could have been mistaken, like my niece.

Assumption is not among the tools I gave. You look at the evidence, use the methods and see what explanation best fits. Assuming the evidence or testimony is all wrong is a non-theistic tool not a historical one.

 

[Thief]

Assumption is a most useful tool....properly applied.

 

[1robin]

I want to pick one instead. I pick an NDE where a Hindu sees and interacts with Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. Why should I believe that Yamraj objectively exists based on the testimony of the Hindu?

I am not familiar with that one. Got a link? The absolute disparity in numbers is at least one factor against him. If I have fifty people who die and have Christian experiences (including atheists) to every one that has a non Christian experience I am justified in thinking the others wrong or irrelevant. I have had a decades long obsession with spiritual events like healings, being born again, exorcisms, NDEs, etc.... I have never even seen an NDE for another faith. I have seen a few for a generic spirituality but not Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, or Zeus.

 

[ArtieE]

I am not familiar with that one. Got a link?

Several. Here is one. Near-Death Experiences of Hindus "Many people have asked me (the webmaster) why experiences, such as Hindu near-death experiences, are so different than western ones. The reason is because everyone has their own cultural and religious background by which they see their experience. Jody Long, a near-death researcher with NDERF, has put it best. She said, "One of the near-death experience truths is that each person integrates their near-death experience into their own pre-existing belief system."

 

[1robin]

Assumption is a most useful tool....properly applied.

It is very hard to know when it is applied correctly.

 

[1robin]

Several. Here is one. Near-Death Experiences of Hindus "Many people have asked me (the webmaster) why experiences, such as Hindu near-death experiences, are so different than western ones. The reason is because everyone has their own cultural and religious background by which they see their experience. Jody Long, a near-death researcher with NDERF, has put it best. She said, "One of the near-death experience truths is that each person integrates their near-death experience into their own pre-existing belief system."

I will read this one but will wait for the one mentioned earlier to respond.

 

[Ouroboros]

Several. Here is one. Near-Death Experiences of Hindus "Many people have asked me (the webmaster) why experiences, such as Hindu near-death experiences, are so different than western ones. The reason is because everyone has their own cultural and religious background by which they see their experience. Jody Long, a near-death researcher with NDERF, has put it best. She said, "One of the near-death experience truths is that each person integrates their near-death experience into their own pre-existing belief system."

The mind is a very powerful and interesting thing.

Lately, I've had a few dreams that I remembered afterwards. The thing that I realized about them all is that they all connect to something that happened the night before, something that's going on in the family, something someone said, and a mix of things I know is planned or expected to happen the next day. This morning I dreamt about some construction work that's going to be done in our house today, in combination with one of the dogs fell of the bed during the night and woke me up, and other things, which resulted in some dream this morning where I dreamt that I was sleeping on a tall pillar and was afraid to fall down, and then the alarm clock went off... Then I woke up, 2 seconds before my real alarm clock went off...