evidence: God, christianity, miracles, NDEs, the afterlife

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 58
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,479
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
i use two unconventional proofs for god. one is healing miracles, i dont see the kinds of miracles that happen to theists happen to atheists
This has been studied. They compared patients that prayed and were prayed for to patients who died neither. They found no statistical difference in those who had favorable outcomes to those who didn't.

the other one is that the large majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it's irrational to say there's no evidence for the afterlife, when you get into the science of NDEs, and the credibility of NDEs lend credbility to all the atheists that convert.
The fact that atheists have converted as a result of NDE's is only evidence of how compelling the experience feels. The question still remains as to why we experience them in the first place, and there are more reasonable explanations than a temporary visit to the afterlife.
#32
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,443
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

NDEs can be either positive or negative experiences. The former receive all the press and relate to the feeling of an overwhelming presence, something numinous, divine. A jarring disconnect separates the massive trauma to the body and the peacefulness and feeling of oneness with the universe. Yet not all NDEs are blissful—some can be frightening, marked by intense terror, anguish, loneliness and despair.
It is likely that the publicity around NDEs has built up expectations about what people should feel after such episodes. It seems possible, in fact, that distressing NDEs are significantly underreported because of shame, social stigma and pressure to conform to the prototype of the “blissful” NDE.
Topic's author
#33
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
There's also something to be said about the inexplicable origin of life, especially human consciousness 

It's also kinda stupid to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots

It should be added that the atheists that don't become theists with ndes just gained no special knowledge of god
#34
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,563
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
That's what you think.


Relative to the inexplicable origins of matter.

We all experience ongoing near death.

Elaborate flesh robots that we are.

Stupid or not.

Irrespective of whether  one places an A before T H E I S T or not.
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,397
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
It's also kinda stupid to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots

Wouldn't go as far as to say "robots" in the true sense of the word. But we were certainly created as a slave species if the bible is to be believed. You want to try reading it for yourself.... one day.

Start here>> "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground". Genesis 2:5  and then read what comes before up to the creation of the Adam. 


#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,479
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
There's also something to be said about the inexplicable origin of life, especially human consciousness 

It's also kinda stupid to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots
Following the basic principals of logic is hardly stupid. Google argument from ignorance.
#37
Hero_In_Instatute
Hero_In_Instatute's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 31
0
0
3
Hero_In_Instatute's avatar
Hero_In_Instatute
0
0
3
-->
@Stephen
you've never read the bible before, have you
#38
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,563
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@Hero_In_Instatute
Stephen has very few equals amongst DebateArtists, when it comes to biblical knowledge.


Hallelujah Bromsgrove.
#39
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,443
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

My profile pic is Stephen.
Topic's author
#40
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
Google the logical argument, "argument from the absurd". It's absurd to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots 
#41
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,479
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
It's absurd to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots 
And yet that's exactly what we observe, so if you want an argument that leads to absurdity, try the argument where it's absurd to accept our own observations.

But beyond that, this is yet again another attempt to shift the burden of proof. The argument isn't "we're nothing more than 'flesh robots'", but that if we're anything more there's no evidence of it and therefore no justification to believe it.
Topic's author
#42
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
there's also the incorruptible bodies of dead saints, that take a long time to rot. skeptic claim it's things like adipocere and good conditions to prevent rotting, but believers say this has been studied scientifically and no explanations given. if skeptics can assume that's wrong, i can assume it's right. maybe my standard of proof of just believing the proponents isn't adequate, but it looks good enough for me. 
Topic's author
#43
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
you've been presented tons of times with hard science that indicates we are more than elaborate flesh robots. you reject that science, with irrational reasons. then lack common sense, and conclude to yourself that we can't even know if we are more than elaborate flesh robots. you are a special kind of lost in your own twisted logic. 
#44
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,263
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@n8nrgim
What are the numbers regarding a person from a non Christian upbringing/culture having a Christian themed NDE?
How many Muslims have had a Christian themed NDE? Vice versa? How many interreligion conversions have occurred as a result of NDEs themed in a different religious faith?
#45
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,443
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

In the past, deterioration of incorrupt corpses could be attributed to exposing the body to bad air. According to a team of modern paleopathologists from the University of Pisa, that’s actually not too far from the truth. With the Vatican’s support, the team studied microenviornments in the former tombs of incorrupt corpses. They discovered that small differences in temperature, moisture, and construction techniques lead to some tombs producing naturally preserved bodies while others in the same church didn’t. Now you can debate God’s role in choosing which bodies went into which tombs before these differences were known, but I’m going to stick with the corpses. Once the incorrupt bodies were removed from these climates or if the climates changed, they deteriorated. This may have been what happened to St. Francesca Romana who was deemed incorrupt four months after her death in 1440 only to be found fully skeletonized in 1698 (though you still hear people refer to her as incorrupt).
Topic's author
#46
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
There r some Marian apparitions that looked supernatural, such as the one in Egypt or Fatima etc
Topic's author
#47
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
That's not a credible authority as a website. Also I realize your explanation might explain some incorruptibles I'm skeptical if it explains all of them. If u want confirmation that skeptics might have some basis to be skeptical then u got it. Ive seen studies that conclude a certain body has been investigated by science with no way of showing a natural explanation. I don't have this study and can't verify for sure the science. I guess all we can do is retreat to our asdumptions
Topic's author
#48
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
I have the book that has the science in my room... I'll get back to you on more details
#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,479
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
you've been presented tons of times with hard science that indicates we are more than elaborate flesh robots.
Complete and total BS. The most you've ever presented are anecdotal stories of NDE's which is not science.

you reject that science, with irrational reasons. then lack common sense, and conclude to yourself that we can't even know if we are more than elaborate flesh robots. 
A definition of "flesh robots" would be a nice start. Once you define it, take note on whether any part of your definition includes a realm of reality that we have no access to and therefore cannot experiment on, and therefore cannot possibly know anything about. That's where common sense should kick in.
#50
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,397
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Double_R wrote @n8nrgim A definition of "flesh robots" would be a nice start. 

Nice.😊
#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,397
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Hero_In_Instatute
you've never read the bible before, have you.

Well, I will assume that you have. So can you explain to me what is going on here at Matthew 15: 21 -28?  
#52
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,308
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
I see you're open to other kind of knowledge. You would love then to read (or listen to) Edgar Cayce.

36 days later

Topic's author
#53
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
"Complete and total BS. The most you've ever presented are anecdotal stories of NDE's which is not science."

i presented evidence that out of body experiences are almost always accurate or consistent with reality. there's more than one scientific experiment that shows that this is true. either there are people who can verify what happened outside the dead person's body when they were dead, or the description is at least consistent with reality. the AWARE study had someone describe the operating room with specific details that no one who was being operated on could have known, and they also had auditory ability in a dead person when they were dead. this is a good example of 'accurate or consistent with reality'. then there's lots of stories like pam rynolds and other common stories that the dead person coudln't have known the details. this is more than just one or two anecdotes, this is a trend that is almost always accurate. 

then there's the blind people coming to grips with seeing for the first time while dead. 

these things are objectively evidence of the afterlife. it's good evidence. the most i see anyone here do with this stuff, is ignore it. the few times they respond to it, it's irrational ramblings. incoherent. 

so yes, i maintain that there's ample evidence and other common sense things that point to humans being more than elaborate flesh robots. yet, you irrationally ignore or respond to it... then have the complete lack of awareness to say we can't even know if humans are more than elaborate flesh robots. 
Topic's author
#54
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
there's also something to be said about savants and people who can remember everything, or thereabouts, or can calculate anything, or thereabouts. and all these mind bogglingly gifted and genius people. 
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,479
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
then there's the blind people coming to grips with seeing for the first time while dead. 

these things are objectively evidence of the afterlife.
No, they're not. They're evidence that the brain has the ability to continue picking up information even after our ability to detect brain activity ceases. Nothing about that necessitates an after life.

i maintain that there's ample evidence and other common sense things that point to humans being more than elaborate flesh robots. yet, you irrationally ignore or respond to it...
What's irrational is appealing to something that hasn't been demonstrated to exist as the cause of something else and rejecting all possible alternatives.
Topic's author
#56
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 976
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
No, they're not. They're evidence that the brain has the ability to continue picking up information even after our ability to detect brain activity ceases. Nothing about that necessitates an after life.

this is another example of an irrational response to my points.

yes, perhaps, the brain is able to detect things after all currently scientifically accepted signs of life have ceased... but that wouldn't explain how it's almost always, in a way that's 'accurate or consistent with reality', the case that a dead person can determine what happened outside his body. plus you didn't even try tackling the sight to the blind thing. 

the only possible rational response to this stuff, is to question the credibility of the science. the problem with that, is that the science looks credible. given you dont even make that argument, you resort to just ignoring it, and half thoughts that don't explain it. 
#57
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Adam was created to live forever but warned that if he was disrespectful in his disobedience he, and his offspring (humanity) would die. So, it is God's will that we all die. Very few people were healed or temporarily resurrected in the Bible accounts. This either served practical purpose or as a sign for either newly interested or weak in faith. Those acts were confirmed as having ended with the apostles, so today are either fraudulent or demonic. My money would be on virtually all being fraudulent and even if there are some convincing circumstances they are fraudulent demonic. (See Healing)

Having said that, there is no way I could or would attempt to convince those interested in the paranormal they are looking in the wrong direction or deluded. 
#58
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,479
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
this is another example of an irrational response to my points. 

yes, perhaps, the brain is able to detect things after all currently scientifically accepted signs of life have ceased... but that wouldn't explain how it's almost always, in a way that's 'accurate or consistent with reality', the case that a dead person can determine what happened outside his body.
What's irrational is to argue that not having an explanation for a phenomenon = having an explanation for a phenomenon. That is a logical contradiction which is why it is a formal logical fallacy to assert, and asserting logical fallacies is the literal opposite of what it means to be rational.

Setting aside the accuracy of your statement that what the brain has been shown to experience during these occurrences are 'almost always consistent with reality', an impressive quality of the brain is not evidence for the supernatural.

the only possible rational response to this stuff, is to question the credibility of the science
You can question the credibility of any scientist, you cannot question the credibility of science because science is nothing more than a method of understanding reality based on the fundamental principals of logic. Unless you can explain how we're getting our fundamental principals of logic wrong, then arguing against science is in effect arguing against logic itself which would again be self contradictory.

the problem with that, is that the science looks credible. given you dont even make that argument, you resort to just ignoring it
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out why even if we accept the premises of your argument your conclusion still does not follow. The problem is not that you're working with facts here that I've disregard, the problem is that you are failing at the most fundamental level to understand how we come to know anything in the first place.

There is a reason science does not address the supernatural; because there is no method of testing something in the physical universe that could confirm what lies beyond it. We can only access and interact with the physical, so the only knowledge we can gain from that limitation would necessarily pertain to the physical.

None of this means the supernatural doesn't exist or that NDE's are not tied to the afterlife, it just means we could never confirm it and therefore it is irrational to assert.