Oh .. you'll have to read all your references again, this time looking out for your responses to my nuanced comments, as we communicate in future CFs threads.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you
- Thread starter The_Order
- Start date
- Status
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,226
- 11,282
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,816
- 1,641
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Woerlee is a sceptic nutcase. Nobody informed takes him seriously. He is a laughing stock among serious researchers.
how did you find him ? I’ll wager you searched “ nde sceptic “ or similar
which gets into the pseudoscientific cesspit of skeptical inquirer / skepdic readers and posters
Advice,
If you ever want to learn anything about anything , you start with the advocates case, not the opposers , and you do have to read books
.A lot of this is technical. Consciusness is what they call the ” hard problem.
To understand where NDE and consciousness research is at , is a minimum of 5 books.
To have a good understanding is at least 10-20.
That is true of all major branches of science.
In this case all the obvious questions have been asked and demonstrated by a lot of scientific research.
it wasnt drugs, hypoxia, hallucination, invention , guess, last gasp of a dying brain, religiin , culture ot even awareness of NDE. Or any other lazy skeptic assumption. Stats show NDE are real. Consciousness is not explicable as a pricess of brain for other reasons than NDE.
But how all those were proven is many books.
Your ONLY alternative is NOT to pretend you have an opinion.
You dont, until you study it..to get a significant view,
Inevitably if I give a simplistic summary , which misses core parts,( just as my few brief notes did about woerlee) , someone like you attacks a limitation of the simplistic view, or the missing parts as if you have insight, or as if it debunks it. It doesn’t debunk it. all it serves to do is misinform other readers, like skeptic enquirer, skepdic, wiki, and all the other pseudoscientific claptrap , put there to mislead the increasingly lazy .
So study.
Upvote
0
Can you please give us the minimum cumulative mass of those books, or better still; the minimum mass per page for the average ink volume used in printing a given page in those books? .. (For my scientific equation building research purposes ..I mean one has to be very careful in reading only the appropriate books that fit the predictions made from my equations .. this is serious!)
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 22,790
- 15,418
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
So I had a few minutes spare. So I read the whole thread.
First up, I find it frustrating that if I have someone on ignore because their posts are simply not worth reading, I still have to scroll through umpteen posts people have made in response to that person who have yet to reach the same conclusion. Ah well.
And secondly I find it frustrating that people who bring up subjects like NDEs are generally reluctant to give specific details (but look at all the examples - go Google it - check out Youtube etc etc). I had an incredibly long discussion with someone not that long ago (no names) and I had to push for post after post for the very best example that he had so we could investigate. When he finally gave it and it was comprehensively debunked, there was a 'well, if that one didn't convince you, then what about this one..' Ah, no. That was your best shot and you only get the one. And it failed.
Anyway, as you were. This will now come up on my 'threads in which you are involved' list so I'll browse it now and then.
First up, I find it frustrating that if I have someone on ignore because their posts are simply not worth reading, I still have to scroll through umpteen posts people have made in response to that person who have yet to reach the same conclusion. Ah well.
And secondly I find it frustrating that people who bring up subjects like NDEs are generally reluctant to give specific details (but look at all the examples - go Google it - check out Youtube etc etc). I had an incredibly long discussion with someone not that long ago (no names) and I had to push for post after post for the very best example that he had so we could investigate. When he finally gave it and it was comprehensively debunked, there was a 'well, if that one didn't convince you, then what about this one..' Ah, no. That was your best shot and you only get the one. And it failed.
Anyway, as you were. This will now come up on my 'threads in which you are involved' list so I'll browse it now and then.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,226
- 11,282
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Can you please give us the minimum cumulative mass of those books, or better still; the minimum mass per page for the average ink volume used in printing a given page in those books? .. (For my scientific equation building research purposes ..I mean one has to be very careful in reading only the appropriate books that fit the predictions made from my equations .. this is serious!)
You seem to be stuck on predictions. So am i.
I predict we won't be finding scientific evidence of God from within today's Modern paradigm.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
One nation indivisible
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,023
- 15,876
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
At least the current iteration of the BBS software puts a box with the ignored users name where the replied-to text is omitted in replies to it. Under the old software (from a few years ago) those replies were invisible, so it wasn't always clear *why* someone was writing something. At least now we can just keep scrolling. (just keep scrolling, just keep scrolling, like Dory says.)
Not to mention that it has nothing to do with the topic as it is neither scientific, nor a proof for god.
You watched it, you can't unwatch it. (actually you can.)
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,226
- 11,282
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It might depend, too, on whose definition of "Creationist" we think we're utilizing. That of someone like Ken Ham, or that of someone like Francis Collins?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,602
- 1,042
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Great. All that we're asking is for you to sum up this library of scientific research into a form that we mere mortals can then assess. I mean, I don't think that I have to get a PhD in neuroscience in order to have a preliminary grasp of NDE's, any more than I have to have a PhD in physics in order to have a passing understanding of relativity.
Again great, You've laid out your premises. Now cite the specific evidence that supports them. Hopefully with an emphasis on why counterarguments such as anesthesia awareness are insufficient to explain NDE's.
Presumably you've already done this. We're simply asking you to give us the highlights in condensed form, without having to repeat the whole process ourselves. You do understand that accumulating knowledge is one thing, but communicating that knowledge to others is something else entirely. Seemingly your forte lies in the former, but not the latter. Perhaps you could read a book or two on the subject. Otherwise your aptitude for reading, while perhaps fulfilling for you, seems to have served no useful purpose for the rest of us.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
One nation indivisible
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,023
- 15,876
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Well, in @Mountainmike quest, he has the weight of his books (and, perhaps, my equation) to
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,226
- 11,282
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Well, in @Mountainmike quest, he has the weight of his books (and, perhaps, my equation) tooutweighsquash other such flimsy predictions into oblivion!
I've heard he has some books, but I haven't heard that you supplied him with an equation. (Am I understanding you correctly?----I'm attempting to swim in the current of the possible humor implied here in this).
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,226
- 11,282
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Here's a complimentary chuckle emoticon just to show my goodwill........ ((
)) ...... besides, NDE's aren't a field I know anything about, and what little I've heard of them leaves me in skeptical territory.
Upvote
0
- Aug 11, 2017
- 25,704
- 8,317
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
As much as I hate to say it brother, this is evidence not proof. There’s a difference.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,084
- 52,397
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Fair enough.
But for the record, they already proved it years ago -- in real time.
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
