Life

[Brian2]

Prophecy is notorious for manufacturing connections where there are none. People are apophenic, they find messages in backwards played records, numerology and clouds.

I don't see that with the Biblical prophecies. Sounds like an extrapolation from what others have done.
There are (depending on who you read) a hundred or more OT prophecies about Jesus and they certainly were not written after the events, so people who do not want to accept them have to say that the story of Jesus was made up. Some say to match OT prophecy, some say to match other God men in religions etc Anything but just accept the prophecies and documentation of the deeds and words of Jesus.

Near death experiences? Unstudied, and not confined to Christian revelations.
Individual spiritual experiences are just that: individual; not good evidence of spiritual truths.

Many studies have been done and even if the stories are anecdotal there are millions of them and many of them are of verifiable knowledge of events etc that the unconscious person could not know about.
To me it is bias to say that these could possibly be the result of brain activity in an unconscious person. That follows the assumptions of science and science does not seem to even want to see evidence that contradicts those assumptions.

 

[Stevicus]

So you believe that half way through the 1st century Jews in Jerusalem started believing in someone who had not even existed?

No, I never said that.

 

[Brian2]

You accept this type of evidence. Atheists and many in science, history do not accept it. It is as simple as that. Our views differ. Same with extrapolations of NDE. Some scientists say that NDE is because of accumulation of carbon-mono-oxide in a dying brain.
Go ahead, accept your spiritual explanations. I don't. Do we need to discuss it any further?

We don't need to discuss it so don't answer this.
There are a number of naturalistic answers but none of them can explain to me how unconscious people know what happened in other places when they were unconscious.
You might accept that the naturalistic answers can explain it but that is the acceptance of blind faith in the truth of the idea that the spiritual realm is not true.
Go ahead, accept you naturalistic answers.

 

[Brian2]

Mythology makes many kind of stories, like Jesus walking on water and raising Lazarus from dead. Hindu scriptures also mention various kinds of stories about airplanes and atom bombs. Since there is no evidence, I do not believe that.
"Jan Assmann argues that we cannot know if Moses ever lived because there are no traces outside tradition." Moses - Wikipedia
Most research on Moses is by Jews and Christians. If they have not found any definite proof, why should others accept that? There are a whole lot of stories about Rama or Krishna, but where is the proof? All we can say that perhaps a person with that name lived.

With the story of Jesus there is the evidence of witnesses. That is dismissed because people want more, they want others who are not Christian to witness the miracles and risen Jesus.
The archaeology of the conquest of Canaan fits what is written in the Bible but sceptics put the dating of the conquest at 200 years after the evidence that shows it conquest to be true.
There is evidence of Israel in Egypt at the time and place said in the Bible.
There is also other evidence.
The Bible can be interpreted a couple of ways when it comes to the date of the Exodus and Biblical minimalists want to interpret it in such a way that the archaeological and historical evidence does not fit.
They are the majority and majority rules in some places and some disciplines.
I don't know about Hindu mythology. I thought that was not able to be fitted into known events and situations in Indian history. Maybe I have been reading the Minimalist view of those scriptures.

 

[Brian2]

In my opinion, there is zero chance that a hidden, invisible god wants to have a relationship with me. If he does, he has an interesting way of not showing it. Also, the evidence that he does not love us at all is also abundantly clear. If you want to examine the evidence, swing by the child oncology wing at St. Jude’s.

It can be hard to trust what the Bible tells us in the face of suffering, especially suffering of the innocent.
We don't know the background story to why these things are happening. It's easy to be disparaging of God and hard be like Job and keep trusting God in the face of suffering, even if Job was confused and angry about what had happened to him.
I guess you think he should have cursed God and died as his wife suggested he do.

 

[wellwisher]

Where science is at now is that the universe began.
Whether time is linear or cyclical or shaped like a banana it does not matter. There cannot have been an infinite number of cause effect events in the past or we would not be here yet. There had to have been a first cause. That first cause is the creator.

Up to the 1920's, science assumed the universe was governed by continuous functions with infinite possibilities. However, in the 1920's, working with atoms, it was discovered that the universe existed as a quantum universe, with only a finite number of distinct options with gaps between.

We live in a quantum universe. What a quantum universe does is lower the number of possible options, down to a smaller number, compared to a continuous universe of infinite possibilities. The universe is not designed to be random, since the dice of the universe are loaded due to its quantum nature.

What a quantum universe does is save time, since there are fewer options before step A can change into step B; evolution. The analogy would be comparing a six sided dice; quantum universe, to a dice with infinite sides; continuous universe. If we need to roll a 3 to advance on the playing board of evolution, the 6 sided dice will allow this sooner, since there are only 6 quantum sides that can come up, allowing us to randomly cycle to 3, faster. This saves a lot of time. The infinite sided dice may take forever to generate a 3. The quantum universe hints of creation, since saving time by loading the dice, is not the work of an entirely random process. This is more like a conscious effort to beat the casino.

Those who know science, ask yourself what is the purpose of a quantum universe? The purpose is similar to card counting. This is not be allowed in science casinos. However, quantum loaded dice are a fact of nature.

When the bible evolves the universe extremely fast; 6 days, this is an exaggerated example of loaded dice via a quantum approach. The ancients appear to understand the concept of a quantum universe. However, they used a very tight quantum approach; dice with one loaded side.

 

[Brian2]

No it hasn't. The only thing is real names of some people and some places are being used.

That's about the extent of archeology. It's actually pretty mundane as it suggests people back then went about their day oblivious of any biblical accounts for which some are hideously out of date and accuracy.

That dosent mean events are therefore verified.

Still, I would live to hear of such examples if they even exist.

This video shows some of the evidence for Israel being in Egypt where they should have been.
There is a series called the David Rohl lectures with gives more evidence. I used to be able to find many of the lectures on the internet but it seems that a group called Patterns of Evidence has hijacked the free lectures and sells them for money these days (just guessing that).
A problem I have found with David Rohl is the idea that Egyptology is wrong and it's dating needs to change. I don't think that is true however for Israel to fit the times and Pharaohs of Egypt. He does present good evidence for Israel being in Egypt and for the settlement found at Goshen to be that of the Patriarchs and 12 tribes. But as I say Patterns of Evidence just gives dribs and drabs and seems to want us to buy their dvd series.

 

[Valjean]

Clearly, there is much more to Learn,Discover, and Grow that could be done in one mere lifetime. On the other hand,there are good reasons for death. Death is no more than a change.

There is Great Intelligence behind everything. God hides nothing. Your Math is good!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

There is Great Intelligence behind everything. God hides nothing.

Except himself.

 

[Valjean]

I don't see that with the Biblical prophecies. Sounds like an extrapolation from what others have done.
There are (depending on who you read) a hundred or more OT prophecies about Jesus and they certainly were not written after the events, so people who do not want to accept them have to say that the story of Jesus was made up. Some say to match OT prophecy, some say to match other God men in religions etc Anything but just accept the prophecies and documentation of the deeds and words of Jesus.

Many studies have been done and even if the stories are anecdotal there are millions of them and many of them are of verifiable knowledge of events etc that the unconscious person could not know about.
To me it is bias to say that these could possibly be the result of brain activity in an unconscious person. That follows the assumptions of science and science does not seem to even want to see evidence that contradicts those assumptions.[/QUOTE]Near death experiences tend to reflect the mythology the 'almost died' were raised with. Christians see family or Jesus, Hindus see Krishna, &c.

What do you make of the reports in Indian papers of reïncarnated children who recall places, people and events they'd have no way to know about? Evidence of life-after-life?
There are more of these than there are reports of Christian glimpses of a Christian heaven, plus, they're more testable.

 

[Valjean]

We don't need to discuss it so don't answer this.
There are a number of naturalistic answers but none of them can explain to me how unconscious people know what happened in other places when they were unconscious.
You might accept that the naturalistic answers can explain it but that is the acceptance of blind faith in the truth of the idea that the spiritual realm is not true.
Go ahead, accept you naturalistic answers.

Why would these not have a natural explanation? Not understood doesn't mean not understandable, or inexplicable.

 

[Bird123]

Except himself.

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? It was there all along waiting to be Discovered. Simply because it was not Discovered yet doesn't mean it was being hidden.

Since God does not want to intimidate anyone's choices, God, just like flying, is waiting to be Discovered. God can be Discovered beyond mere beliefs. God is not hiding. Perhaps, it's a narrow view. Just like with flying, much more knowledge exists beyond the surface.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Brian2]

No, I never said that.

I suppose that means you think he existed and discount what the gospels and epistles etc say about Him.
OK that is pretty standard. It is extreme to say that Jesus did not exist but some do say that.

 

[Brian2]

Near death experiences tend to reflect the mythology the 'almost died' were raised with. Christians see family or Jesus, Hindus see Krishna, &c.

What do you make of the reports in Indian papers of reïncarnated children who recall places, people and events they'd have no way to know about? Evidence of life-after-life?
There are more of these than there are reports of Christian glimpses of a Christian heaven, plus, they're more testable.

I do not say that OBEs are the only reason for NDEs and I am not talking about those things that can be answered in other ways.
It is the ones who know what happened in other places while they were unconscious that I am talking about and no amount of other types of NDEs make those ones disappear or explainable by brain activity.

 

[Brian2]

Why would these not have a natural explanation? Not understood doesn't mean not understandable, or inexplicable.

Why would an unconscious person knowing what happened in another room while unconscious or remembering numbers on the top of a machine in the same room, but too high to see, not be able to be explained with a naturalistic explanation? Hmmm
That sounds like the attitude of a sceptic who does not want to accept the possibility of the spirit realm.
From a reasoning perspective would an unconscious person be able to know these things?
Would a conscious person be able to know these things?
Science has worked on it for a while and has not come up with an answer that can explain these things.
That's OK, science will continue to work on it forever if necessary rather than accept the alternative explanation outside the naturalistic one.
Accepting a supernatural answer might mean that the supernatural has to be seen as natural.

 

[Valjean]

I do not say that OBEs are the only reason for NDEs and I am not talking about those things that can be answered in other ways.
It is the ones who know what happened in other places while they were unconscious that I am talking about and no amount of other types of NDEs make those ones disappear or explainable by brain activity.

Why not?

 

[Stevicus]

I suppose that means you think he existed and discount what the gospels and epistles etc say about Him.
OK that is pretty standard. It is extreme to say that Jesus did not exist but some do say that.

The further one goes back into history, there's less certainty, both about the events themselves and the people who wrote about them. To say that a person existed is a far different matter than attributing any actions or words to that person. George Washington existed, but whether or not the story about George Washington and the Cherry Tree is true - that's another matter.

 

[Brian2]

Why not?

\

Knowing those things would require the person to have been at the appropriate places to see and hear things while unconscious.
It could be an extension of the conscious mind from the body into other places and with the ability to see and hear and remember.
Have you got any possible answers?
Could brain activity inside the body be able to know what happened somewhere else?

 

[Valjean]

Why would an unconscious person knowing what happened in another room while unconscious or remembering numbers on the top of a machine in the same room, but too high to see, not be able to be explained with a naturalistic explanation? Hmmm

Define "naturalistic."
Why would you think this impossible? Most of the things science knows today seemed impossible yesterday.
You underestimate science.

That sounds like the attitude of a sceptic who does not want to accept the possibility of the spirit realm.

And you're sounding like a flat-Earther who discredits science and prefers magic as an "explanation."
As soon as evidence of a spirit realm appears, science will be on it.
Lack of an explanation is not evidence of magic.

From a reasoning perspective would an unconscious person be able to know these things?
Would a conscious person be able to know these things?

Would a reasonable person know the temperature inside the Sun, the distance to far-off stars, the age of the Earth? How could anyone identify the individual who licked a particular stamp on an envelope? Ridiculous!

Science has worked on it for a while and has not come up with an answer that can explain these things.

Worked on what? Explained what things?
Can religion explain "these things?"
Religion can't explain anything. Do you think science knows everything? Science, unlike religion, makes no claims till it has evidence to back them up. Science is fine with "I don't know."

That's OK, science will continue to work on it forever if necessary rather than accept the alternative explanation outside the naturalistic one.
Accepting a supernatural answer might mean that the supernatural has to be seen as natural.

What "alternative explanation?" -- Goddidit? Goddidit isn't an explanation for anything. It's dodging explanation.

If the supernatural is found to be natural, it was never supernatural in the first place. It's not reasonable to assume magic just because no natural explanation is yet known.

 

[Valjean]

\

Knowing those things would require the person to have been at the appropriate places to see and hear things while unconscious.
It could be an extension of the conscious mind from the body into other places and with the ability to see and hear and remember.
Have you got any possible answers?
Could brain activity inside the body be able to know what happened somewhere else?

How could someone date a random rock, or know the position of the continents a billion years ago?
Just because you can't imagine how a thing would be known doesn't mean someone else can't.

 

[Brian2]

Define "naturalistic."
Why would you think this impossible? Most of the things science knows today seemed impossible yesterday.
You underestimate science.

Naturalistic is everything that has nothing to do with the supernatural, spirits and the like.
I think you are overestimating science.
Even God is said not to do things that are logically impossible.
Then again the miracles that God does are no doubt only called magic because we do not understand the mechanism involved.

And you're sounding like a flat-Earther who discredits science and prefers magic as an "explanation."
As soon as evidence of a spirit realm appears, science will be on it.
Lack of an explanation is not evidence of magic.

Lack of explanation will never be evidence of the supernatural in science.
It appears that even when there is evidence of the supernatural it still requires faith to believe it.
But of course it requires faith to stick to the naturalistic explanations in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Am I sounding like a flat earther because I see evidence for something?
Maybe it is science that is sounding like flat earthers for rejecting the evidence.
But then again that is the nature of science. We cannot blame science.
Science is just a process that people use.

Would a reasonable person know the temperature inside the Sun, the distance to far-off stars, the age of the Earth? How could anyone identify the individual who licked a particular stamp on an envelope? Ridiculous!

It does require faith however to trust that man will find a naturalistic explanation for all things.

Worked on what? Explained what things?
Can religion explain "these things?"
Religion can't explain anything. Do you think science knows everything? Science, unlike religion, makes no claims till it has evidence to back them up. Science is fine with "I don't know."

I'm fine with "I don't know" but I do try to use reason while not shutting my mind off to possibilities outside the natural.

What "alternative explanation?" -- Goddidit? Goddidit isn't an explanation for anything. It's dodging explanation.

If the supernatural is found to be natural, it was never supernatural in the first place. It's not reasonable to assume magic just because no natural explanation is yet known.

It looks reasonable to me, but I have not shut my eyes to the possibilities.
Knowing a mechanism for a physical process does not mean that God did not do it.