I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-04-30T08:23:05-0500

Mountainmike said:
But you do refuse to read books , and all complex subjects take books to describe.
Not condescending at all, just taking people as I find them.

On the last point : Amazon reviews are good!
And as I have pointed out, authors I name have many videos on YouTube .!

Mountainmike said:
With respect.
Step 1/ go to YouTube
Step 2/ search “ Pim van lommel nde”
Lots to choose.

Or for his lancet article google “ pim van lommel lancet “
researchgate allows full text down load as a link on the page.
“Near-Death Experience, Consciousness, and the Brain: A New Concept about the Continuity of Our Consciousness”

Or Google “ bbc the day I died “ , select videos, which refers Pam Renolds spetzler”
Michael Sabom discussing Reynolds is worthwhile .

You will not study nde with a single video Or book .
That should be enough to interest.
van lommel and Sabom ( or long, or parnia) are a way in.

I seriously suggest you read van lommels book.
Or Bellg if you want a quick read - enough to interest - but no stats.
Or Jeffrey long if you like stats,

Just as studying Bohr and Schrödinger are only a way into QM

And again, all you've done is shown your own laziness. You make the claim, but want us to do all the work for you, which is why I snidely said your response would be "READ THE BOOK!" Because it's all you do.

You'd make a godawful teacher.

AV1611VET · 2025-04-30T09:45:22-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And again, all you've done is shown your own laziness. You make the claim, but want us to do all the work for you, which is why I snidely said your response would be "READ THE BOOK!" Because it's all you do.

You'd make a godawful teacher.

Speaking of which, anything new in the AV 2025 [King] James [McGraw-Hill] science book this year?

I think you can get a copy in the college bookstore for $400.00.

But hurry!

It'll soon be out of date!

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-04-30T09:54:06-0500

Not responding to that post, AV, since I'm calling it trolling on your part.

AV1611VET · 2025-04-30T10:07:36-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Not responding to that post, AV, since I'm calling it trolling on your part.

Even a troll post can make a good point.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-04-30T10:09:27-0500

AV1611VET said:
Even a troll post can make a good point.

No, it wasn't a good point because it had nothing to do with what my problem with mountainmike is. Maybe actually pay attention to what is being said before commenting, or better yet, if you don't know what it is being talked about, don't say anything at all.

AV1611VET · 2025-04-30T10:16:38-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, it wasn't a good point because it had nothing to do with what my problem with mountainmike is.

I'll admit, I haven't read you guys' posts.

Just thinking out loud, I guess.

Mountainmike · 2025-04-30T12:27:21-0500

Larniavc said:
No links then.

Are you that lazy? I told you exactly how to find them.

Mountainmike · 2025-04-30T12:32:46-0500

partinobodycular said:
May I be of some assistance, you'll have to decide for yourself if it holds up to the scientific rigor of a Youtube! video however.

Could Pam Reynolds Hear? A New Investigation into the Possibility of Hearing During this Famous Near-Death Experience

When will you ever research anything?

First research spetzler, the operation, sabom and the medic who first interviewed her

She was not conscious . She had no blood it was all drained. . Before that general anaesthetic . Her body temperature has been lowered to below that to sustain life, which alone was enough to make her unconscious , despite the lack of blood, She was flatline ecg. She had loud earphones in each ear, which gave no ecg response.. She was clinically dead.

Woerlee wasn’t even there. He is making up nonsense.

Woerlee is a skeptic pseudoscientific Nutcase who like you cares nothing for facts.
it becomes apparent how you search for everything.

No scientist takes him seriously or anyone who actually researched reynolds which you clearly haven’t.

When challenged to demonstrate fully conscious his ridiculous bone hearing, woerlee declined
knowing it was bunk. Reread that . He declined to demonstrate what he knew was bunk.

He is as crazy as blackmore, all pseudoscientists.
Have you ever owned or read a book yet?
Last time I asked the answer was no.

Hans Blaster · 2025-04-30T12:39:19-0500

partinobodycular said:
May I be of some assistance, you'll have to decide for yourself if it holds up to the scientific rigor of a Youtube! video however.

Could Pam Reynolds Hear? A New Investigation into the Possibility of Hearing During this Famous Near-Death Experience

Thanks for providing a link.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-04-30T12:39:58-0500

Hans Blaster said:
Thanks for providing a link.

It's more than what MM does.

AV1611VET · 2025-04-30T13:07:26-0500

Has God's existence been scientifically proven to everyones' satisfaction now?

Larniavc · 2025-04-30T13:10:10-0500

Mountainmike said:
Are you that lazy? I told you exactly how to find them.

No links then.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-04-30T13:18:50-0500

AV1611VET said:
Has God's existence been scientifically proven to everyones' satisfaction now?

I think the general consensus is... nope.

Ophiolite · 2025-04-30T15:53:03-0500

@2PhiloVoid . As promised, here is a review of what I described previously as "confusing" and "ambiguous" in your discusison with @SelfSim. Review is, on reflection, overyly ambitious. There is a lot to unpack, so - initially, at least - I restrict myself to a single strand that especially drew my attention when reading, and in most cases, rereading the posts.

You posted:

2PhiloVoid said:
Let the games begin.................................. ask away

A clear, concise welcoming invitation. SelfSim responded.

SelfSim said:
I'm only driven by casual curiosity here, however I see your flaming head avartar on the not-too-distant horizon, so don't expect my query here to go on for pages.

To me, a very clear, courteous "heads-up" that while he was interested, it was not an intense, deep interest; specifically, it was a "casual curiosity".

Yet a few posts later you are, seemingly, expecting him to take a careful look at the works that helped formulate your worldview. This despite him stating - and I paraphrase - he was interested in your views and your description of how you arrived at them, not being assigned a semester or two's reading list. The contrast between the tenor of your positive welcome and your later voiced suspicions of trolling was surprising.

If, on reflection, that resonates with you and explains why his reactions were reasonable and not trolling, then perfect. If not, tell me which part of that simplified train I have - to your mind - messed up and I'll explore the details for you. (I've taken this simplified route since it can, potentially, save both os us time.)

partinobodycular · 2025-04-30T16:18:53-0500

Mountainmike said:
She was not conscious . She had no blood it was all drained. . Before that general anaesthetic . Her body temperature has been lowered to below that to sustain life, which alone was enough to make her unconscious , despite the lack of blood, She was flatline ecg. She had loud earphones in each ear, which gave no ecg response.. She was clinically dead.

Thank you. Was that really so hard, and I didn't have to read some silly book. Of course this is stuff that I already knew, so I already understood the premise... 'she really, really, really couldn't hear.' All that your book could add to this is a bunch of technical stuff that any rational reader, not being an expert in the field, would take with the appropriate amount of skepticism.

Which brings us to step two... find someone better educated than myself who has a conflicting opinion. That's where Mr. Woerlee comes in, and with all due respect to your personal opinion I have no reason to doubt his findings any more than I doubt the findings presented in your aforementioned book.

Conclusion: Although interesting, the case of Pam Reynolds isn't definitive, or even convincing evidence, for NDE's. It's quite possible that through a simple case of 'Anesthesia awareness' she was able to reconstruct her experience in the same way that thousands of other NDE reporters have.

In other words, there's really nothing earth shattering to see here, just more anecdotal evidence for the often bizarre behavior of the human brain.

Or another gap in which to insert God.

Mountainmike said:
Have you ever owned or read a book yet?
Last time I asked the answer was no.

Actually, the hyperbole isn't necessary, as I'll happily admit to having read very few books in my lifetime. But in my defense I'll gladly count myself among those such as Nobel Prize winning 'Developmental biologist' John Gurdon, who find the reading of books to be a tedious chore best avoided whenever possible.

"But I suppose what might surprise readers is that I am a complete non-intellectual. I just don’t read books, I hate reading, and I don’t go to the theatre either. If I’m asked why I don’t enjoy reading, I’ll say that it takes a long time, it’s much easier to talk to someone who has read the book and ask for the bottom line!" ... John Gurdon

In my opinion a clear summation of an argument is worth more than a thousand books that only leave the reader believing that they're now somehow an expert in a field about which they previously knew little or nothing, and still do. To me, you're a perfect example of this, and I take your claims of intellectual superiority to be of very little value. Sorry

If you have an argument to make, make it as clearly and concisely as you can. If you have sources to cite, then by all means do so. But don't just ask people to read a book.

2PhiloVoid · 2025-04-30T16:22:40-0500

Ophiolite said:
@2PhiloVoid . As promised, here is a review of what I described previously as "confusing" and "ambiguous" in your discusison with @SelfSim. Review is, on reflection, overyly ambitious. There is a lot to unpack, so - initially, at least - I restrict myself to a single strand that especially drew my attention when reading, and in most cases, rereading the posts.

You posted:

A clear, concise welcoming invitation. SelfSim responded.

To me, a very clear, courteous "heads-up" that while he was interested, it was not an intense, deep interest; specifically, it was a "casual curiosity".

Yet a few posts later you are, seemingly, expecting him to take a careful look at the works that helped formulate your worldview. This despite him stating - and I paraphrase - he was interested in your views and your description of how you arrived at them, not being assigned a semester or two's reading list. The contrast between the tenor of your positive welcome and your later voiced suspicions of trolling was surprising.

If, on reflection, that resonates with you and explains why his reactions were reasonable and not trolling, then perfect. If not, tell me which part of that simplified train I have - to your mind - messed up and I'll explore the details for you. (I've taken this simplified route since it can, potentially, save both os us time.)

I'm still awaiting his specific question about what he's intuiting must absolutely be my hidden cognitive dissonance...................

As for my book list, it's simply there for reference, for those who want to bother to engage it. If, on the other hand, they'd rather have my 2-cent, two sentence summary of it all, then they can ask.

SelfSim · 2025-04-30T16:24:14-0500

Ophiolite said:
@2PhiloVoid . As promised, here is a review of what I described previously as "confusing" and "ambiguous" in your discusison with @SelfSim. Review is, on reflection, overyly ambitious. There is a lot to unpack, so - initially, at least - I restrict myself to a single strand that especially drew my attention when reading, and in most cases, rereading the posts.

You posted:

A clear, concise welcoming invitation. SelfSim responded.

To me, a very clear, courteous "heads-up" that while he was interested, it was not an intense, deep interest; specifically, it was a "casual curiosity".

Yet a few posts later you are, seemingly, expecting him to take a careful look at the works that helped formulate your worldview. This despite him stating - and I paraphrase - he was interested in your views and your description of how you arrived at them, not being assigned a semester or two's reading list. The contrast between the tenor of your positive welcome and your later voiced suspicions of trolling was surprising.

If, on reflection, that resonates with you and explains why his reactions were reasonable and not trolling, then perfect. If not, tell me which part of that simplified train I have - to your mind - messed up and I'll explore the details for you. (I've taken this simplified route since it can, potentially, save both os us time.)

Fyi:
Whilst I had composed a response to @2PhiloVoid, I decided to not respond to his post. I did go to his home page and saw my 'assigned' reading list and I even went to check for any web-available synopses of some of his books. It was quickly dumped into my 'not worth it' dumpster. The list covers way too broad a range of topics all of which, no doubt, intersect and overlap on the topic at hand. I concluded his response to be a smokescreen/gaslighting. He also labels himself as a student of Theology for some 35(?) odd years .. In spite of that, I still have no idea about his views on Christianity.

2PhiloVoid · 2025-04-30T16:26:14-0500

SelfSim said:
Fyi:
Whilst I had composed a response to @2PhiloVoid, I decided to not respond to his post. I did go to his home page and saw my 'assigned' reading list and I even went to check for any web-available synopses of some of his books. It was quickly dumped into my 'not worth it' dumpster. The list covers way too broad a range of topics all of which, no doubt, intersect and overlap on the topic at hand. I concluded his response to be a smokescreen/gaslighting. He also labels himself as a student of Theology for some 35(?) odd years .. In spite of that, I still have no idea about his views on Christianity.

And you would be incorrect to assign it as such. But I can't stop you from doing so. Enjoy the rest of your day, knowing that I'm not MM. :sorry:

SelfSim · 2025-04-30T16:26:34-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm still awaiting his specific question about what he's intuiting must absolutely be my hidden cognitive dissonance...................

Get a grip, man .. I have made no such assertions.

2PhiloVoid said:
As for my book list, it's simply there for reference, for those who want to bother to engage it. If, on the other hand, they'd rather have my 2-cent, two sentence summary of it all, then they can ask.

Consider the question asked.

2PhiloVoid · 2025-04-30T16:27:54-0500

SelfSim said:
Get a grip, man .. I have made no such assertions.

Consider the question asked.

And what specific, nuanced strata within my interior epistemic structure do you want to know about....?

I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

One nation indivisible

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Leading a blameless life

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Robert Bellarmine can take a hike!

A non "-ist"

Robert Bellarmine can take a hike!

A non "-ist"

Robert Bellarmine can take a hike!

Similar threads