|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Man raised back to life in Jesus' name | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
but there's no evidence for the mind being more than just the brain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6022 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
oh geeze yourself.
There is a huge difference between a digit regenerating (as you claimed) and the utmost tip of the finger regenerating. There is an even bigger difference between regeneration of entire legs and feet and that of the tip of a finger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Sure, there is. First off, there are studies on NDEs when the brain is inactive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
NDE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Near Death Experience.
Randman, we've been over this before, and you were unable to produce those studies, iirc. Bump that thread, or go to PNT if it's closed and you feel like trying again with NDEs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
oh i see.
i don't buy those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
Let's back up a little bit here...
hypothetical situation writes: Consider the fact that the uniformity of experience of people around the world has been that once a human limb has been amputated, it does not grow back. What would you think if a friend of yours, a scientist of the highest integrity with a Ph.D. in physics from Harvard, were to tell you that she was off in Spain last summer and met a man who used to have no legs but now walks on two fine, healthy limbs. She tells you that a holy man rubbed oil on his stumps and his legs grew back. He lives in a small village and all the villagers attest to this "miracle." Your friend is convinced a miracle occurred. What would you believe? To believe in this miracle would be to reject the principle of the uniformity of experience, upon which laws of nature are based. It would be to reject a fundamental assumption of all science, that the laws of nature are inviolate. The miracle cannot be believed without abandoning a basic principle of empirical knowledge: that like things under like circumstances produce like results. Of course there is another constant, another product of uniform experience which should not be forgotten: the tendency of people at all times in all ages to desire wondrous events, to be deluded about them, to fabricate them, create them, embellish them, enhance them, and come to believe in the absolute truth of the creations of their own passions and heated imaginations. Does this mean that miracles cannot occur? Of course not. It means, however, that when a miracle is reported the probability will always be greater that the person doing the reporting is mistaken, deluded or a fraud than that the miracle really occurred. To believe in a miracle, as Hume said, is not an act of reason but of faith. Now, you noted:
pink sasquatch writes: First, since noone has ever analyzed a regenerated human limb before, it would be difficult to know what the data meant. (Though if there was an opportunity to analyze several of these alleged regeneration cases it would get more interesting.) Um yeah...that's the whole point of this discussion...how do you prove that an alleged miracle took place? Second, you said:
pink sasquatch writes: Second, better documentation would need to exist that the limbs were gone at some point than "I know this person who know this really smart person who totally believes that this village is convinced this guy's legs regrew!" This has already been covered in the text provided by schrafinator. Now here's the situation:
hypothetical situation writes: Consider the fact that the uniformity of experience of people around the world has been that once a human limb has been amputated, it does not grow back. What would you think if a friend of yours, a scientist of the highest integrity with a Ph.D. in physics from Harvard, were to tell you that she was off in Spain last summer and met a man who used to have no legs but now walks on two fine, healthy limbs. She tells you that a holy man rubbed oil on his stumps and his legs grew back. He lives in a small village and all the villagers attest to this "miracle." Your friend is convinced a miracle occurred. Now, how do you prove this is true? If you dismiss it out of hand without investigating it further, then you are not actually engaging in the scientific method at all. You're just blowing it off because your mind's already made up. It's not totally blowing it off because reports like this have happened before and have proven to be false. But, since this is a medical expert who happens to be your best friend, it seems as though you should investigate it further. Now, if you at least look into it and see if there is any pattern like the one I noted might be apparent, then you are actually engaging in the scientific method. At the very least you're preseting a potentially testable hypothesis. Going one step further, if indeed, based on the reported hypothetical situation above, you do find a very odd bone growth which has a clear break in the bone showing age on one side (the side which is claimed to have existed already), and no apparent age on the other side (the side which is claimed to have miraculously regrown), what would you conclude? Consequently, in regards to your claims above...
pink sasquatch writes: There are always evidence-based naturalistic explanations for supernatural claims. There are always faith-based supernatural explanations for naturalistic claims. ...I would like to point you in the direction of this link...
Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of God As far as I can tell, these studies seem to be preliminary evidence that there is a faith-based supernatural* explanation for a supernatural* claim. *Using my definition of supernatural. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-08-2006 12:42 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
But just because it exists outside of the known universe and does not follow the laws that we are familiar with does not make it unreal. It's just beyond our current ability to explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
Actually, some neurologists would disagree with you on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1336 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
What's your answer?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-08-2006 12:30 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
actually. i would say that real consists of existing witing the bounds of our universe. but i never said otherwise would be unreal. you assumed that incorrectly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1398 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
The answer, to be frank, is that your suggestions are very incorrect, and that it will take some learning about how the brain works in order for you to understand why.
Look up Ramachandran. He's done a lot of pioneering work with phantom limbs. Not just phantom limbs, but how we determine the extent of our own bodies through not only proprioceptive feedback (touch), but also visual feedback. I don't think nwr's trying to be coy (ok, maybe he is). But the brain is not simple; it takes some effort to understand... properly. Ben in lieu of nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
As far as I know, what happens is that a person has an itchy toe, but no toe to itch. I suppose that is very frustrating.
You really have to ask the people who have had these experiences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i'm quite sure of the extent of my body. but when i look in the mirror, there's always so much more of it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But I didn't put forth a theory as to how sexual intercourse "creates souls". What makes you think you get to ask one question and not the other? I mean, that seems to be a fairly reasonable question to ask about souls - where the fuck do they come from? How does a gamete know when to generate a soul? Or do all gametes have mini-souls? Where in the cell is this soul stored? What makes you think you get to speculate about souls and not get asked these very obvious questions? Has it occured to you that the reason that you don't have obvious answers to these obvious questions is because you're not thinking this through very well? Good theories answer questions that haven't been asked yet. They sort of anticipate explanations. For instance, the theory that DNA had a double helix structure immediately explained what Watson and Crick set out to explain - why the X-ray crystallography looked the way it did - but, almost immediately after, it occured to them that they had answered how DNA replicates, as well. Your theory seems to barely explain something we already have an explanation for - phantom limbs - and totally fails to explain the next few obvious questions that arise.
I put forth a possible theory whereby one can, provided the knowledge of quantum gravity become more established and clarified, a potential for one to examine to see if a "soul" exists in the first place. You and I both know that, no matter how our scientific knowledge expands, you and your fellow believers will make sure that souls and Gods and all the rest of it are handily defined in such a way that the lack of evidence for them is made to appear consistent with their existence, anyway. So what's the point?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024