Argument for God's existence.

[gaara4158]

I proved it's self refuting. Observation is used in the very definition of the scientific method.
View attachment 255979

They trust their eyes. No one else, their eyes. So we are trusting in what they saw with their eyes as an eye witness. Then it goes to peer review, which makes the same mistake. They trust in the original eye witness. They assume what he saw as an eye witness was accurate, and He made no mistakes and that He is not forging or lying to make money. They trust in the original eye witness. So again science saying that eye witness testimony, is unreliable is self refuting to science as a whole. But I do congratulate you that you went and did your homework, and found some citations. that is good on your part. And thank you for that. That is unusual for you.

So I was right, you literally do not understand science, peer review, or logic for that matter. Since you ignored all but the part where I berate your ignorant conception of peer review, I’ll assume you concede the rest of my points, which I congratulate you for. That’s very big of you.

Now, to educate you some more. Of course observations are used in the scientific method, but that doesn’t mean scientists merely trust their eyes. On the contrary, science is all about collecting data in such a way that we are not limited by our eyes. Scientists use more objective forms of measurement to make these observations, often highly sensitive tools, but the part that makes the data more reliable is the fact that other scientists can verify that it is true. That’s why scientists go into great technical detail about the methodology of their experiments. They want to make sure that others can do the same thing and get the same results without introducing any confounding variables.

You’d know that if you did more than read the first line of a google search and jump to conclusions. It’s not my job to educate you, you know. But exposing your willful ignorance
is highly effective in demonstrating my point that the argument you’re trying to push is counterproductive.

 

[createdtoworship]

So I was right, you literally do not understand science, peer review, or logic for that matter. Since you ignored all but the part where I berate your ignorant conception of peer review, I’ll assume you concede the rest of my points, which I congratulate you for. That’s very big of you.

Now, to educate you some more. Of course observations are used in the scientific method, but that doesn’t mean scientists merely trust their eyes. On the contrary, science is all about collecting data in such a way that we are not limited by our eyes. Scientists use more objective forms of measurement to make these observations, often highly sensitive tools, but the part that makes the data more reliable is the fact that other scientists can verify that it is true. That’s why scientists go into great technical detail about the methodology of their experiments. They want to make sure that others can do the same thing and get the same results without introducing any confounding variables.

You’d know that if you did more than read the first line of a google search and jump to conclusions. It’s not my job to educate you, you know. But exposing your willful ignorance
is highly effective in demonstrating my point that the argument you’re trying to push is counterproductive.

Let's try this another way. Can you have a hypothesis without an eye witness to observation? I just quoted that observation is a requirement to the scientific method. So if you don't have eye witnesses you don't have science. This refutes all those articles by scientists refuting eye witness testimony. And brings us back to the fact that eye witness testimony is bith reliable and ttustworthy. if you reject eye witness testimony you reject scientific observation in general. Because how can you observe something without your eyes. And thus I have demonstrated your position as self refuting once again.

 

[gaara4158]

Let's try this another way. Can you have a hypothesis without an eye witness to observation? I just quoted that observation is a requirement to the scientific method. So if you don't have eye witnesses you don't have science. This refutes all those articles by scientists refuting eye witness testimony. And brings us back to the fact that eye witness testimony is bith reliable and ttustworthy. if you reject eye witness testimony you reject scientific observation in general. Because how can you observe something without your eyes. And thus I have demonstrated your position as self refuting once again.

You’re severely misunderstanding what you’re reading. In the context of the article you cited, an “observation” is just another word for a known fact. It’s true that humans use their eyes to see things, but we know that our eyes aren’t always reliable. That’s why science requires rigorous testing beyond simple individual visual perceptions. So you’re squarely wrong about science being “self-refuting,” when it doesn’t allow eyewitness testimony as conclusive evidence, but everyone already knew that but you.

But you just refuted your own argument anyway. These people who were nearly dead certainly weren’t observing anything with their eyes, seeing as their eyes were most likely closed, obscured, or at the very least attached to the rest of their body which never left the operating room. So if we need literal eyes for eyewitness reports then none of these Hell accounts are eyewitness accounts.

So again, you’re insisting we apply a terribly unreliable standard of evidence and then the evidence you submit doesn’t even rise to those laughably low standards. You’re doing a great job making your side look logical.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

so far here is what I have seen in the last day or so, you find sources that declare eye witness testimony is not scientific enough to be evidence. then I proceeded to define all science as including observation, observation requires eyes. Therefore, the observer is an eye witness. So all science is based on eye witness testimony, therefore the argument fails as self refuting. So until you get past the need for observation in science, your theory that eye witness testimony is not needed self refutes and so, because of this. I am done talking about this, until I see specific posts where you prove science does not need observation. And you cannot do that without redefining science in the 21st century. So I am done with this topic for now. I know that you don't look at this as a defeat, and you don't have to. But I happen to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are defeated here. So thank you for the debate. IF you want to talk about something else I would love to.

 

[gaara4158]

so please prove that eye witness testimony is not included in observation, rationally speaking. I have refuted all links posted, so I am looking for logic here. More on your self defeating arguments:

You haven’t refuted anything, you’ve just severely misinterpreted everything I’ve said. I’ve provided more than enough for anyone reading through this exchange to see that your Hellish NDE argument doesn’t even begin to hold water. I am glad you are looking up the mistakes you are accusing me of making, but filling up the page with a generic definition of terms with examples doesn’t actually constitute a response.

I will summarize your argument so the contradictions and absurdities become clear. You can correct me where I misrepresent you:

A) Eyewitness testimony is admissible in court
B) There are people who say they experienced Hell while nearly dead
C) Therefore, there are eyewitness testimonies of Hell existing
D) Therefore, these people actually saw Hell
E) Therefore, Hell exists

And in response to my informing you that eyewitness testimonies are very weak in terms of scientific evidence:

A) All scientists use their eyes to make observations
B) Therefore, all observations are eyewitness testimonies
C) Therefore, either all eyewitness testimonies are valid scientific evidence or nothing is.

I’ll give you a chance to correct these premises before I tear them apart.

 

[gaara4158]

so far here is what I have seen in the last day or so, you find sources that declare eye witness testimony is not scientific enough to be evidence. then I proceeded to define all science as including observation, observation requires eyes. Therefore, the observer is an eye witness. So all science is based on eye witness testimony, therefore the argument fails as self refuting. So until you get past the need for observation in science, your theory that eye witness testimony is not needed self refutes and so, because of this. I am done talking about this, until I see specific posts where you prove science does not need observation. And you cannot do that without redefining science in the 21st century. So I am done with this topic for now. I know that you don't look at this as a defeat, and you don't have to. But I happen to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are defeated here. So thank you for the debate. IF you want to talk about something else I would love to.

Oh, wow, you actually confirmed my very uncharitable characterization of your argument. This is rare! Ok, so first of all, you do realize just because someone says they saw something, doesn’t mean that thing actually exists, right? Don’t agree with me? There’s “gullible” written on the ceiling above you right now.
Second, there is a difference between one person giving a description of something they saw at a given time and date and a scientist meticulously recording the methodology and results of his experiment. Even with that difference in mind, the scientist’s findings aren’t conclusive until other scientists replicate the experiment and get the same results. So your attempt to equivocate eyewitness accounts with controlled observation as a part of experimental methodology has been noted and quashed.

I can understand why you personally need science to be an institution of bungling bozos who don’t recognize the most obvious of contradictions in their own work. If scientists actually know what they’re talking about, then evolution is true, and if evolution is true, intelligent design isn’t. And if ID isn’t true, your whole fundamentalist religion topples like a house of cards. Believe me, I get it. I was in your place once. You don’t have to give up your religion to accept science, but you do need to get more scientifically literate if you’re going to defend your faith reasonably.

 

[createdtoworship]

You haven’t refuted anything, you’ve just severely misinterpreted everything I’ve said. I’ve provided more than enough for anyone reading through this exchange to see that your Hellish NDE argument doesn’t even begin to hold water. I am glad you are looking up the mistakes you are accusing me of making, but filling up the page with a generic definition of terms with examples doesn’t actually constitute a response.

I will summarize your argument so the contradictions and absurdities become clear. You can correct me where I misrepresent you:

A) Eyewitness testimony is admissible in court
B) There are people who say they experienced Hell while nearly dead
C) Therefore, there are eyewitness testimonies of Hell existing
D) Therefore, these people actually saw Hell
E) Therefore, Hell exists

And in response to my informing you that eyewitness testimonies are very weak in terms of scientific evidence:

A) All scientists use their eyes to make observations
B) Therefore, all observations are eyewitness testimonies
C) Therefore, either all eyewitness testimonies are valid scientific evidence or nothing is.

I’ll give you a chance to correct these premises before I tear them apart.

You did good accept for C.
That one is poisoning the well. But I won't reply to your next post. We are done here. At least I am. Thank you so much! I appreciate your reponses here, I didn't know you guys thought this way on this issue. It's all very enlightening. Anyway, talk later.

 

[gaara4158]

You did good accept for C.
That one is poisoning the well. But I won't reply to your next post. We are done here. At least I am. Thank you so much! I appreciate your reponses here, I didn't know you guys thought this way on this issue. It's all very enlightening. Anyway, talk later.

Which C? I’m even more confused now. But that’s ok. You are not obligated to continue responding indefinitely

 

[createdtoworship]

Which C? I’m even more confused now. But that’s ok. You are not obligated to continue responding indefinitely

Yes, I never said all eye witness testimony was valid. But eye witness testimony is a legitimate form of evidence both in science and legal as I have shown. sorry if I dint word it quite right, I am on my phone and typin is slow. Thanks!

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, I never said all eye witness testimony was valid. But eye witness testimony is a legitimate form of evidence both in science and legal as I have shown. sorry if I dint word it quite right, I am on my phone and typin is slow. Thanks!

Valid, perhaps, but neither strong nor conclusive. So using it as the sole form of evidence as the doctor did is inadvisable.

 

[createdtoworship]

Valid, perhaps, but neither strong nor conclusive. So using it as the sole form of evidence as the doctor did is inadvisable.

I would not say eye witness testimony can't be conclusive or strong, nor is using it as sole form of evidence frowed upon. When we drive our cars we use our own eye witness testimony to give feedback to our brain where to drive, when to stop etc. Its what keeps us from getting killed everyday on the way to church, or worse...killing a pedestrian. It's very conclusive in those cases. I would say on a case by case basis it can be invalid. But one needs to read the testimony to decide the validity. I presented 20 to 200 cases. So feel free to read them and decide if hell exists.

 

[gaara4158]

I would not say eye witness testimony can't be conclusive or strong, nor is using it as sole form of evidence frowed upon. When we drive our cars we use our own eye witness testimony to give feedback to our brain where to drive, when to stop etc. Its what keeps us from getting killed everyday on the way to church, or worse...killing a pedestrian. It's very conclusive in those cases. I would say on a case by case basis it can be invalid. But one needs to read the testimony to decide the validity. I presented 20 to 200 cases. So feel free to read them and decide if hell exists.

Eyewitness testimony is not the same thing as eyesight. Eyewitness testimony involves memory, which is quite malleable. Do you remember how many white cars you saw the last time you drove? Probably not. So anything you said would be eyewitness testimony, but it wouldn’t be very reliable.
But I don’t need examples of the usefulness of eyesight or the unreliability of memory, I have the scientific research on my side. Take it up with the scientists.

 

[createdtoworship]

Eyewitness testimony is not the same thing as eyesight. Eyewitness testimony involves memory, which is quite malleable. Do you remember how many white cars you saw the last time you drove? Probably not. So anything you said would be eyewitness testimony, but it wouldn’t be very reliable.
But I don’t need examples of the usefulness of eyesight or the unreliability of memory, I have the scientific research on my side. Take it up with the scientists.

eyewitness testimony is not all unreliable. You simply have to take it on a case by case basis, to say all eyewitness testimony is unreliable is to make false assumptions and fallacy of poisoning the well.

 

[gaara4158]

eyewitness testimony is not all unreliable. You simply have to take it on a case by case basis, to say all eyewitness testimony is unreliable is to make false assumptions and fallacy of poisoning the well.

Great, let’s look at the case you brought up. All the “eyewitnesses” were unconscious. Case closed.

 

[createdtoworship]

Great, let’s look at the case you brought up. All the “eyewitnesses” were unconscious. Case closed.

Sorry I wish it was that easy for your side of things. Case is definitely not closed. According to the Bible the soul goes directly to judgment, no waiting. Chronologically in time, the great white throne judgement does not happen until the end of the world. But when time is not a factor, your soul enters into eternity, (when you are dead), you are already at the judgment. You have received your body (it has been resurrected and glorified), so that the body can no longer be killed in hell. And you are immediately cast to hell. I am not positive on the chronology exactly because how can you know chronology of something outside of time. The thing closest to our experience is that all of it happens at the same time. Which would mean that the man or woman who experienced a NDE, and seen hell, it would entail that they used their glorified bodies at that time, with eyes. So they were not unconscious. The only thing unconscious was the earthly body. Which in eternity was raised, judged and condemned to hell (like I said, all at once). But I don't know what a timeless experience would be like. So I don't know for a fact. But the soul, is never unconscious, it is away when we are sleeping. And in the case of death, it is moved to a glorified body to be judged.

 

[gaara4158]

Sorry I wish it was that easy for your side of things. Case is definitely not closed. According to the Bible the soul goes directly to judgment, no waiting. Chronologically in time, the great white throne judgement does not happen until the end of the world. But when time is not a factor, your soul enters into eternity, (when you are dead), you are already at the judgment. You have received your body (it has been resurrected and glorified), so that the body can no longer be killed in hell. And you are immediately cast to hell. I am not positive on the chronology exactly because how can you know chronology of something outside of time. The thing closest to our experience is that all of it happens at the same time. Which would mean that the man or woman who experienced a NDE, and seen hell, it would entail that they used their glorified bodies at that time, with eyes. So they were not unconscious. The only thing unconscious was the earthly body. Which in eternity was raised, judged and condemned to hell (like I said, all at once). But I don't know what a timeless experience would be like. So I don't know for a fact. But the soul, is never unconscious, it is away when we are sleeping. And in the case of death, it is moved to a glorified body to be judged.

All this talk of souls, judgment, and timelessness is without evidence. These selected NDEs are very weak in support of them because a) not all NDEs are like that, b) no one can confirm the nature of these people’s NDEs apart from their word, c) there are endless competing explanations for these reported experiences that do not involve the actual existence of souls and Hell. These are all points brought up in the article I initially responded with and you never addressed. If only you had actually read it instead of demanding I prove some alternate explanation.

 

[createdtoworship]

All this talk of souls, judgment, and timelessness is without evidence. These selected NDEs are very weak in support of them because a) not all NDEs are like that, b) no one can confirm the nature of these people’s NDEs apart from their word, c) there are endless competing explanations for these reported experiences that do not involve the actual existence of souls and Hell. These are all points brought up in the article I initially responded with and you never addressed. If only you had actually read it instead of demanding I prove some alternate explanation.

but you provided no actual examples of competing explanations. Even if there are competing explanations they require the same level of proof that you require of me, which you have not provided, nor the article. Say there are several roads that lead to rome. A false road to rome does not mean that there aren't other roads that lead to rome. This is another example of the fallacy of poisoning the well. Secondly, I have provided evidence of the supernatural in other posts. I won't repeat it here. But you did not have sufficient refutation to it at the time. By all means look at the search function and go back and read it again if you wish. And lastly by definition of eye witness, it does not actually have to be corroborated at all. The ones I happen to provide, up to 200 separate cases, say the same thing. So they are in fact corroborated. I believe that individually addresses all your bullet points and refutes your position successfully.

 

[createdtoworship]

I thought I would repost my evidence of the supernatural:

we see the supernatural every day. There are literally thousands of eye witness encounters of ghosts, apparitions, and other more sinister demonic possessions. In fact it hits home so much in fact with the general population that almost every new horror film has demonic possessions in them. If it was so far fetched as to be unbelievable to the general public, the horror aspect would lose it's effect. To scare someone, (other than startling them), you must give them a story that is believable or at least have some truth to it, that it could happen. If there was a horror film about flying purple elephants for example swooping in on their pray, killing thousands. Well that would be ridiculous and would lose money, because it does not hit home, nor is it believable or rooted in truth. Elephants are not purple and nor do they fly. But demonic possessions happen all the time. The fact that demons are typically scary to people, reveal that it is not only possible but probable they exist. Freddy Krugar, had supernatural abilities, but it could be that what made him scary was that He could suggest into peoples thoughts, and appear to them in dreams, like demons can. Demons can't read your thoughts, but they can suggest into your mind certain thoughts. And their network is sufficient enough that they can know details about you that no one else can know. There were these cultists that came to a family I know they told them things about their life, including that one person was dying of sickness and that another had lost a finger. Things they could not have known. Then they said if you give us your valuables we will pray and this will be an offering to God. They said that after the ceremony they would give the valuables back. They fled with the money and valuables. The family thought they would help heal their relative. Now there was no way of them knowing that information.

 

[gaara4158]

but you provided no actual examples of competing explanations. Even if there are competing explanations they require the same level of proof that you require of me, which you have not provided, nor the article. Say there are several roads that lead to rome. A false road to rome does not mean that there aren't other roads that lead to rome. This is another example of the fallacy of poisoning the well. Secondly, I have provided evidence of the supernatural in other posts. I won't repeat it here. But you did not have sufficient refutation to it at the time. By all means look at the search function and go back and read it again if you wish. And lastly by definition of eye witness, it does not actually have to be corroborated at all. The ones I happen to provide, up to 200 separate cases, say the same thing. So they are in fact corroborated. I believe that individually addresses all your bullet points and refutes your position successfully.

Well, if you believe that, you’re welcome to be wrong. Your evidence is weak, and your only defense of it is to demand I categorically discredit the entire class of evidence you provided. When I do that, you deliberately mischaracterize the science behind it. If you’re content to accept that 200 people’s account of hellish NDE’s is enough to prove that Hell exists, I would suggest you ask yourself why you don’t accept *all* claims with just 200 or so “corroborators.” Your argument for the supernatural was an embarrassing travesty not unlike the one you’re making here, so I don’t know why you think that can help you.

Look into the actual scholarly articles on Google investigating the nature of NDEs, eyewitness testimony, and scientific methodology. Then come back and tell me if you still think this doctor’s case stands up to scrutiny.