Does God Really Exist???

::Give us a definition by which we can identify evidence as scientific or not, so we know how to answer your question.Stephen

::Does Del Washburn's Theomatics qualify?Stephen

:: None that I know of, but they could. Wasn't it repeatable, not repeated, that was the standard? It will take me a while to find the site, which is posted somewhere in this forum, where the study of repeating Theomatic tests on a control text failed to generate results. I think Washburn also did this. Don't know offhand. To find any version that retained the statistical patterns proves that such patterns exist in a document that God supposedly wrote and supposedly is currently protecting from historical loss. Any scientific evidence for such an ad hoc notion?What do you do with the several prayer studies that found statistically significant results? Admittedly irregularly replicated, but methodologies have varied, too, so ....
Stephen

:ae:You note, This is not how I was taught to do science. I was taught that there are an infinite number of equally good explanations for any finite data set. So, explanatory power tells us nothing. But, predictive power does count. Thus, when a prayer study (and there have been several with good controls and rigorous measurement of effects) predicts a surprising outcome, the theoretical base for the prayer study (that there is a God answering prayers, often by delivering the system from malignant spiritual beings) gains in credibility.You can choose to explain away the prayer studies, of course. But the scientific response, since it is so easy, is to try to repeat the study yourself. But, I recall that you have already done some of this, with no confirmation. My experience was otherwise. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what the future brings.Now, how about those near-death studies, with the hypothermia, etc.?
Many people sense an increase in the plausibility of the orthodox theology hypothesis from those studies. Some people report going to a bad place, (Hell?), others to a good place. Seeing other spiritual beings. Couldn't this be considered evidence?Stephen

Hitchy,Good post. When people ask me how I hear God speaking, I have learned to relate it to people talking in a dream. Something happens in the brain, not evidently involving the eardrums, that gives the distinct impression that someone is talking.So, what are dreams? Your hypothesis sounds interesting, and I hope we can get some predictions from it, to test its plausibility. In trying to separate pizza dreams from God talking to me, I was at first impressed at the effect the voice had on me. It's like the NDE's that have been studied. The people that have them normally undergo a dramatic change of life. (I'm referring to the scandinavian study published in Nature a couple of years ago.). When God spoke to me, everything about my life changed, overnight. Later, I heard about pending "miracles" which I then observed. Now, I "know" His voice.But, it would be interesting to do a strong inference with your hypothesis and mine. The PEAR lab's work suggests that people do have some idea of future events, so that what I am interpreting as the "voice of God" is just a dream voice talking about some future event that is going to happen.While it is in any way a moot point, of course, the considerate thing to do is give God credit for it. If He is out there, He enjoys being appreciated. The things He told me He would do if I prayed a certain way, were really good things, that I am grateful for. I can even sense Him being pleased that I thank Him for telling me what to do to get those things to happen.But, scientifically, we will have to wait for strong inference testing of the two hypotheses to separate their relative plausibilities.Stephen

G.Here's a site to the Lancet paper on the Dutch research. The nurses report of the information known to the comatose patient, and the author's citing of studies showing that blind NDE's have visual experiences, is more consistent with the soul hypothesis.The Lancet: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrestAs to the number, the glass that I'm looking through remains too dark, but that may change. Hope it does.Stephen

G.Here's another:"Finally, a nurse at Hartford Hospital states a patient described an NDE in which she saw a red shoe on the roof of the hospital during her OBE. A janitor later retrieved a red shoe. Ring140 describes three such cases involving shoes, shoelaces, and a yellow smock and recounts a similar anecdote of a Seattle social worker who also retrieved a shoe outside a window ledge that was identified by a patient during an NDE."at: melvinmorse.com | DNS PTR RecordStephen

Hey, Gil,You believe in nutcase stuff? The problem with assigning the efforts of other humans to a "nutcase" category, is that you have to assume that this condition is possible in humans. But, since you are arguing as a human, you have to then defend yourself as not in that category. The problem then becomes, "What are the criteria by which they are nutcase, and not me?" Quite difficult, this. Obviously, if nutcases exist, you could be the nutcase, evidenced by calling this perfectly rational and well-intentioned person a pejorative "nutcase." What the psychologists call, Projection. Note that non-nutcase persons, and well-raised nutcase persons, know to never call anyone a nut-case, even if they appear to be one. Manners.But, more to the point, let's say that you respect science. Then, the problem becomes, how to replicate. So, say this prayer: Father, if you are really out there, in a place called the heavenlies, take me on a tour. Sign up for a bout of hypothermic anesthesia (so far, no risk involved. But, yes, some dollars) and take a trip into the other side. See for yourself. Or have you appropriated the power of free will, and chosen already what to believe is true no matter what the evidence? I did the experiment. Got seven natural and seven adopted grandchildren out of the experiment. Plus every other dream that I had ever had, fulfilled.Here's the deal, Gil. Maybe you are right, evolution and naturalism is true, spiritual belief an adaptive delusion that produces higher fitness in the face of other, cultural adaptations, such as civilisation. Then you "truthists" are anachronisms, believing in evolution because it is true, even though knowing the truth is poison to anyone living in the civilized world. You choose truth over life. Be my, and God's guest. We choose life, and if believing a lie means more life, I will believe the lie. If you are right, it's the right choice to make, since in evolutionary thinking, there are no values higher than life. But, if you are wrong, if spiritual thinking is true, producing higher fitness because it is true, then believing in evolution, naturalism, is the worse kind of mistake. Not only does one lose life (children, grandchildren, true adaptive fitness), but also dignity (Boy did you get taken in! The devil sure made a fool of you!").The NDE data are consistent with the the "spiritual reality is truth" hypothesis. With other evidence, I am convinced that the spiritual hypothesis is the best explanation for NDE data. But, you can explain it all away if you want. Free will rules. Until either hypothesis predicts some surprizing pattern, what can either of us say?Stephen