Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

Only the difference is - that these events (NDE's)are inherently supernaturalistic and not invoked. The only conclusion which seems to be plausible, is that there is life after death, as the patients are brain-dead at the time and therefore we aren't invoking anything that they aren't already claiming.I mean come on, the best of my vivid dreams are had with a fully functioning brain, and they're lame.So if - as you say, we will never have an answer, why do you ideologically claim that God/supernatural can't be that answer, or that it is invoked? It sounds like you just dismiss these claims because of stubborn pre-conception and atheistic inclinations.If someone said that ligtning was because of God - then that would be invoking Goddidit. But when someone meets God how are we invoking him? Is he not already in the picture?

God isn't invoked. He is the simplest explanation according to the principle of parsimony.Infact, you use this "Goddidit" term, when anything comes along, in order that you try and make the suggestion so that it's not a real possibility.But that's a silly term. The fact is that multiple big bangs is an infinitely more complex and invoked suggestion, and also - it is a big number compared to 1.God is one explanation, and indeed, he answers many problems. But m,ultiple big bangs play off of a huge number of events, - a much bigger number, and indeed - an addage which does not meet Occam's criteria. 1 compared with an infinite number, in order to comply with a silly chance/unbelieving ideology.So when people say God did it - just remember how many questions that answers. Especially when NDE's do not invoke God - but rather, they claim to speak to God and meet him when their brains are dead.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 10:26 AM

Wow, I find it amazing how you think God would be so incapable pertaining to his own creation.If it got past you, my point is that it's NOT that it is just a simple explanation. It's that the explanation is an incredibly good one. I have shown this with my Hypothesis of consciousness - which shows just how logical and plausible God is, as an intelligent conscious agency of order. Multiple big bangs are unnecessary entities, multiple orgasms may not be. No seriously, one big bang is A, two Big bangs is B, and infinitely so.Why? Because it's only invoked because of numbers. It's only invoked because they know that chance needs many numbers in order to work. So you invoke all that - or one singular explanation, that is far more plausible - that a Creator fine-tuned the universe. Well, Ian McCormack, whom was stung by the box jellyfish - recalled his time of death because he said he fell asleep (gave up), and this coincided with his time of death also - as he was taken to the morgue. He then thought he wole up in a dark room but couldn't find any walls. What's certain is that he died, and that his brain was therefore not conscious enough to induce anything other than gaseous emmisions.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 15:34 AM

(I read that you required an answer to this)It's the simplest explanation. Not simplistic. Shraff - you're assuming I am looking at this from your own ideological position. That of looking at everything scientifically, including God. (arrogance of man).If I was guilty of the God of the gaps fallacy, then the inexplicable event would not involve any specific deity.For example, thunder and lightning, a previously inexplicable event, misconstrued as being supernatural.The difference is that a specific deity is involved in the experience. If someone was clinically dead and claims that
they met with God, then there is no "gap" to fill with God. He is already in the picture. These events are decidedly and inherently pertaining to the supernatural. WHereas one can attribute thunder to any god, or pixies.So I HAVE the knowledge. The real gap is that someone died, and when they re-awoken their experience ended.This means that logically, if we know they were clinically dead by record, and the experience ends with them waking up then it follows therefore, that they MUST have been dead when it was happening.If you don't get what I mean I'll explain; If someone wakes up in the morgue, immediately after their experience, and they were certainly dead, then that experience must have happened, or atleast be happening precedingly to their re-awakening. This means that they were dead while having this experience. OR, another logical pathway is that they started having it when they were alive but certainly they were still having it when dead.My question to you, as you are a freethinker; is that, how can you explain these events from the standpoint that a person can be consciously aware of things while brain dead? Even if the brain dying causes hallucinations, why would a person go through such conscious and extravagent experiences, being clearly aware?It therefore seems plausible that a more logical explanation is that they died, (we already know this) and that their conscious mind continued after death, and because these experiences include God, heaven and hell, then that also is true. If one has exhausted all explanations, surely the remaining explanation - however inprobable - is the correct one. lolmyazzoff....Shraff, you said you can't explain it. So that means science can't. But this IS an explanation. Atleast I have one.What on earth makes you think that there must be a scientific answer, to a supernatural event? The science indicates the brain is dead, and I've shown how it is logical that people are atleast dead at the end of their experience.So here's what we have;1. They are dead while some of the event is happening (atleast)
2. They experience "reality" - as real as life on earth, which no induced experience can match.
3. We know that there are scriptures about being alive after being dead, and that we have a soul, and are
uniquely different from the animals.Seek knowledge from a higher source!

Ofcourse, to be specific, I just want to add that it is the equivalent pertaining to the atheist. Pixies and God aren't equivalent. The inductive evidence says that God is a very serious issue, and he is defined as the supernatural and ultimate source of reality.I'm just nitpicking because it is fair to state that it is the atheist whom has God on the same level as santa or pixies. It's a matter of what premise the individual has I suppose.If one dismisses God as the source of superstition and societies' whims pertaining to a sentimental God, and firing him if you don't get what you want, then one might have an infinitely less mature outlook concerning the Creator and thereby is not talking about the same entity as the believer because of his premise.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-23-2005 09:49 AM

I'm just going to assume you're being cute.There is not thousands of pixians. If there are, show the statistic with a reference. This sentence contains a premise/assertion which I must assume is true(highlighted), along with an incorrect plead for evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant (you whom mentioned pixies), and the assertion has not been proved.You claimed that pixies and God are equivalent. You have to provide evidence. I am arguing the negative.Do I ask you to disprove God? No - because I'm asserting God, not you.If you want to show that pixies are equivalent to God, then you'll have to show such things as debate boards dedicated to this. "Pixies versus evolution" would do nicely.Ofcourse, as I previously stated correctly, nearly everyone on earth believes in God. Pixues just aren't a serious concept.I thought your revised position was more sensible but now I doubt I'll be replying again.That's because I am serious about God, and I've had too many encounters with atheists who aren't serious.So unless you can provide evidence, and define "pixie" as a similar definition to "God", then like I said previously - atheist's subjectivity.Infact, thinking of God as a superstition shows a lack of understanding concerning Him. I think if you think this then you have submitted yourself to modern societies conclusions about God, which are entirely innacurate.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 06:16 AM

---

As for me - I'm a constantly verying potentially undefined diffused mass, intrinsically shape shifting thus forming and re-forming in various gaseous nebulae. To locate my form in the context of energy, as defined by the limited homo sapien brain - one can follow the equation; energy = mike x creo speed² = Thus we now know the relevant nature of my true being to be 90000000000000 omni-mikes ~ mike the wiz ~

Pixie A fairylike or elfin creature, especially one that is mischievous; a playful sprite.Fairy A tiny imaginary being in human form, depicted as clever, mischievous, and possessing magical powers.GODA being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or realityOfcourse, the dictionary is somewhat limited pertaining to God. Nevertheless, nearly 50% of the world believe in the God of the bible, and that's not including Muslims.If pixies and faires are a serious concept to people, and they pray to these entities, I'd like some proof that they are therefore the equivalent to God, and I want to know how many people on earth, take these notions seriously.So far, you've proved that atheists see pixies and God as equivalent, the same thing. But even the dictionary doesn't partake in this subjective thinking. It tells it how it is.All I was and am saying is that atheists dismiss God as a equivalent of pixies for which there is no scriptures, and they are superstitious. This just means that I am not talking about the concept you have of God which is infinitely less mature than my scriptural theology and knowledge I have sought in my walk with God.(Edit; this wasn't to insult, it refers to a dismissal rather than a belief. Someone said that atheism is just a disbelief in God. Therefore it is logical that my belief in God will be whole - a complete conception according to a specific source, and a passionate belief of importance. Naturally - a disbelief is not the equivalent of my own belief, if it is JUST a disbelief/dismissal. ) I believe it was Crashfrog whom said this earlier on (pertaining to disbelief).SuperstitionAn irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

​

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.I don't have faith in magic or chance, and logically - prayer relates to my specific requests and specific outcomes, and therefore are not superstitious. Attributing chance-happenings to the manifold baramin doesn't mean anything pertaining to the glorious Creator that 50% of the world believe in. Many believe in God - many have ideas about him. But the scripture says that the nature of the Godhead is revealed in those things which are created. So Einstein's version of an orderly being must be derived as a serious notion and not a pixie. Moot point. I have only referred to God, in this argument, as a conception atleast. 90% of the world believe in God, according to the definition I provided from dictionary.com. I've highlighted your error.God existing has no connection to what I am talking about. My argument is that God is a serious notion to most of the planet,m whether an atheist subjectively equates him with pixies or not. What did you think my requirement was? My requirement is proof that pixies are an important and equally serious and proper proposition as God is, NOT proof of God and/or pixies existing!In general; Please don't equivocate with GOD. We all know to whom I refer.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 08:29 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 08:36 AM

I haven't equivocated at all.I have gave a definition of God which is what I am working with.Look at the definitions of pixie, fairy etc, and then God. Everything I mentioned precedingly is there. About God bringing about reality etc.The fact is that if I am quantatively saying my notion has weight - then are you saying that no quantative amount of evolutionary evidence matters? Well then, that's what I've always said. I'm glad you're now creationist. Incorrect.They all agree to the definition of God as I have quoted from the dictionary - even Einstein.The fact is that I doubt even ten thousand people believe in pixies as a serious and equivalent concept(for debate) as God.What matters is that it does matter that you think as God as a pixie or santa fantasy. Because that then tells us that your idea of God is that of a childish one. Indicating that you never got past that childish understanding.Also - you have ignored what I said pertaining to Crashfrog saying atheism is just a disbelief. And I don't blame you for ignoring what I said, because it proves I am correct.Think about it. If atheism is just a lack of belief in God, then that means that YOU as atheists dismiss God, as you do the pixies.Don't try and bring "evidence" in at this stage. That's just so lame that you try and get God under science so you can refute him according to your ideological methodo naturalistico/.Your error was that of trying to change the subject into mike having to prove God exists. Re-read what I said.Th claimant Parisomnium claims that pixies are equivalent. He must show that pixies are a concept similar to that of the creator of the universe, the supernatural being whom existence is for. Clearly these pixies are just as described by the dictionary. And I invite all to objectively read my message, they are quite clearly different notions.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 09:19 AM

Superstition involves belief in chance and magic, as defined by the dictionary.Humor was lost on me, I'll admitt it. But I thought you were trying to provoke me into a response because of my refrain. I thought your motive was that of provoking me to anger. So now I know you were joking, that's fair enough then.However, my only nitpick (which has now caused many people to respond to me, which is not easy - it's quite a bit of work, because naturally the other side wants to pick on me as usual, pertaining to every little thing I say). My nitpick, was that as Crashfrog says that atheism is just a lack of belief in God/s. Then I think that atheists subjectively dismiss God - as equivalent to that of pisies. Therefore - I already know that it's because from the atheist perspective, there is no evidence. Ofcourse - that means that you look at God scientifically.Our whole belief in God is that of faith. Faith is the substance of all things hoped for. BELIEF in Christ is our passionate belief. Some people dedicate their lives to God. It is very serious. People have been put to death in times past for even having an idea against God.And so my point is your point. That your concept of God is a completely different thing to mine. Wasn't that my only point?

You see, you've admitted you think that God is a childish notion. You've said you disregard it the same as pixies. Is it reasonable for me to say that you dispassionately disregard God?Now all these things are the sum of what I have been saying.I have not stated that numbers make me correct.What I have said, is that people take God as a serious issue world-over.If my claim is that they do take him seriously, then I must back up that assertion with numbers that prove that assertion. Therefore, I MUST include numbers as I am NOT saying that quantative = proof of God. I AM saying that quantity = proff that people take this seriously. I think you mis-understand my comparison. I made it to emphasize that my point about people taking God seriously, and believing world-over, is evidencially established, if that's a word. In the same way evolutionists say that evidence for evolution is overwhelming.To equivocate with different concepts of the same basic concept is not the correct action Mammuthus. It's fallacious. It's the fallacy of distraction.. We are not dealing with religion, we are talking about God the concept in a theistic capacity.I have fairly provided a definition of God from the dictionary. The people I am talking about - all believe in the basic tenets of the Creator.That he created the universe, and is supernatural etc...Be fair and inherit a prosperous baba bonanza.I've tried to calm down but I'm frustrated, like Bruc Lee thrashing at the thin air already.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 10:14 AM

I say the opposite. Have you read my recent topic-rejection?For me - only God is good. And if we were to get what we deserve, we would all be dead my friend. This emphasizes my point, that theologically, we are very different creatures.You see - it was people that killed people. Yet you think God is the terribly injust concept. I suggest that people know good and evil - and therefore know that they cannot escape a just God, or the mis-use of scripture or religious position.

Hi fluffy friend.Okay - I'm off-topic, so I'll just make this last post to clarify.I am not saying that all Muslims/Buddhists and pagans have the same belief.I am saying that people world over take God as a serious issue, and I am not representing just Christians. I am talking about those who basically believe in God. I.e. the concept.(I only call it this for debates sake)That is, although I believe in Christ and the Muslim doesn't, the very basic or core element of the concept of God, in a theistic sense, is shared.Example. We both believe in God, as described by the dictionary definition in the basic terms.1. Creator of the universe.
2. Supernatural.It might look like I am guilty of the fallacy of the undistributed middle.I would be if I said;I believe in God, the Muslim does, therefore we both share the same beliefs, and we are the same.But I'm not saying that, I'm JUST saying we share belief in the basic theistic concept as defined. Hope you get my drift.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 10:43 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 10:44 AM