Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

If any one reads the Phoenix Journals, then invariably s/he will choose to conclude that the Journals are the WORD. Then, one will understand that GOD IS. MAN PLACES LIMITATIONS--GOD HAS NONE! Here are some highly relevant quotes:

Oh wow, I hadn't even realised quite how unhinged you truly are Jag! So some delusional lunatic posts about how he is an inter-dimensional being and you, what, just believe him?

Is that how it works or are you claiming there's actual evidence that he is an inter-dimensional galactic commander?

So you will simply conclude that Hatonn is wrong without even reading his writings?

All new knowledge comes slowly. Be patient--and be masterful. But study the information for it will not seep all over you by the closed book--EVER. Your own destiny is of too great import for you not to know that which you should know to control it.

And also...
Why do you chime in when I mention Hatonn, but not when I quote mainstream journals as saying "life is more than just complicated chemistry"??

And also...
Why do you chime in when I mention Hatonn while still failing to adequately address the AECES top 40? Remember that there is no question more important than the question of survival! Skepticism of psychic phenomena is based more on a religion of materialism than on hard science. The burden of proof has shifted to skeptics of an afterlife.

And why do you not respond to John Lennox and Thomas Nagel, both of whom emphasize the absurdity of atheism? Your response just doesn't add up!

Anyway, it matters not if Hatonn is real; read the journals and see what they offer, then you can judge for yourself, in wisdom of knowledge.

IS HATONN REAL?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT WHICH I OFFER IS VALID TRUTH?

[1713497045]

1713497045

[1713497045]

1713497045

[1713497045]

1713497045

[bl4kjaguar]

Page 248, still waiting to see this scientific proof?  

It's hilarious that only one single sentence of *common academic knowledge* invalidates the entire thread:  Empiricism by definition can only explore and conclude upon what's observable (i.e. that which is physically constrained) and so it is axiomatically impossible for empicism to explore God (which is totally unconstrained by common definition).

So many things said in this thread, so much time wasted.

Materialism can be shown to be false by empirical evidence and logical arguments. To prove that all atheists (humanists) are mistaken, it is enough that I point to the observations which strongly support the survival hypothesis. This leaves only theism as a viable answer to the God-question.

Why don't you and RodeoX address the observations from the Eisenbeiss case?

That case and the rest of the AECES top 40 are part of the strongest evidence suggestive of the afterlife. Since belief in the afterlife is scientific, and research in this field has produced genuine scientific discoveries, it does present somewhat of a mature theory. The evidence is so strong that I agree that the burden of proof has shifted to skeptics of an afterlife.

We must remember that there is no question more important than the question of survival.

"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it."
— The Hon. Robert Dale Owen

"History shows that every intelligent man who has gone into this investigation, if he gave it adequate examination at all, has come out believing in spirits; this circumstance places the burden of proof on the shoulders of the skeptic."
— James H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

“The evidence for an afterlife is sufficiently strong and compelling that an unbiased person ought to conclude that materialism is a false theory.”
— Dr. Neal Grossman

"When a survival researcher is asked whether the evidence ‘proves’ that we survive the death of the body, he must answer ‘no,’ but he should quickly add that ‘proof’ is not the relevant concept with which to discuss empirical hypotheses, and insist that the evidence is just about as strong as evidence ever gets in science.”
— Dr. Neal Grossman
http://ascsi.org/ASCS/Library/LegacyRoom/Interviwees/Grossman_N.shtml

[Buffer Overflow]

People need to know the truth that God exists.

But that my friend isn't the truth is it. The world has been fed lies like this for thousands of years from false prophets like yourself.

The truth is, we simply don't know if god exists or not. Believing in god is just purely faith, nothing more. No words you say can change that.

[bl4kjaguar]

People need to know the truth that God exists.

But that my friend isn't the truth is it. The world has been fed lies like this for thousands of years from false prophets like yourself.

The truth is, we simply don't know if god exists or not. Believing in god is just purely faith, nothing more. No words you say can change that.

You are simply projecting your ignorance.

To prove that all atheists (humanists) are mistaken, it is enough that I point to the observations which strongly support the survival hypothesis. This leaves only theism as a viable answer to the God-question.

[Vod]

You are simply projecting your ignorance.

Actually, you are.   

Show us any proof, proof that we can recreate ourselves.  I can prove gravity exists by dropping my pencil.

[BitMos]

I don't need science, nor religion, but God.

[Vod]

I don't need science, nor religion, but God.

You need science.  You use it to post here on this forum, as well as to live.  

You don't need a god.  Millions of us (growing everyday as education spreads) survive without one.  

[Buffer Overflow]

Why have people got inside their head that the afterlife has a connection with god? Maybe the afterlife does exist, if it does, what makes people think we will suddenly know everything and see god?

Wishful thinking, that's why. Oh, and an unhealthy dose of listening to false prophets in the mix.

Proving the afterlife, does not prove god in any way.

[Buffer Overflow]

I don't need science, nor religion, but God.

Science moves mankind forwards.
Religion moves mankind backwards.
God doesn't make any difference.

[bl4kjaguar]

You are simply projecting your ignorance.

Actually, you are.   

Show us any proof, proof that we can recreate ourselves.  I can prove gravity exists by dropping my pencil.

Sure,
Stevenson's study is completely reproducible which means that anybody who doubts the validity of this study is perfectly welcome to repeat it for themselves.
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a39

[Vod]

You are simply projecting your ignorance.

Actually, you are.   

Show us any proof, proof that we can recreate ourselves.  I can prove gravity exists by dropping my pencil.

Sure,
Stevenson's study is completely reproducible which means that anybody who doubts the validity of this study is perfectly welcome to repeat it for themselves.
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a39

How is an NDE any indication of a god?  It's just brain neurons firing randomly as they are dying.

[bl4kjaguar]

Why have people got inside their head that the afterlife has a connection with god? Maybe the afterlife does exist, if it does, what makes people think we will suddenly know everything and see god?

Because...
Not even the diehard skeptics doubt the powerful personal effects of NDEs.
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a31

Proving the afterlife, does not prove god in any way.

So where is YOUR non-god explanation for the afterlife?

To prove the survival hypothesis would discredit humanism; since all atheists are humanists, then accepting the survival hypothesis is the same as accepting that all atheists are mistaken.

Also...

Because NDEs have many common core elements, this suggests that they are spiritual voyages outside of the body. Also, if the dying brain creates NDE illusions, what is the purpose for doing it? If our brains are only a high-tech computer-like lump of tissue which produces our mind and personality, why does it bother to create illusions at the time of death? If everything, including the mind and personality, are about to disintegrate, why would the brain produce a last wonderful Grand Finale vision? Even if NDE elements can be reduced to only a series of brain reactions, this does not negate the idea that NDEs are more than a brain thing.

[bl4kjaguar]

You are simply projecting your ignorance.

Actually, you are.  

Show us any proof, proof that we can recreate ourselves.  I can prove gravity exists by dropping my pencil.

Sure,
Stevenson's study is completely reproducible which means that anybody who doubts the validity of this study is perfectly welcome to repeat it for themselves.
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a39

How is an NDE any indication of a god?  It's just brain neurons firing randomly as they are dying.

That is false:
The skeptical "dying brain" theory of NDEs has major flaws.

Anyway, I have provided for you a reproducible study that supports the survival hypothesis. NDEs are off-topic with regards to our discussion of Dr. Stevenson's study.

[Vod]

You are simply projecting your ignorance.

Actually, you are.   

Show us any proof, proof that we can recreate ourselves.  I can prove gravity exists by dropping my pencil.

Sure,
Stevenson's study is completely reproducible which means that anybody who doubts the validity of this study is perfectly welcome to repeat it for themselves.
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a39

How is an NDE any indication of a god?  It's just brain neurons firing randomly as they are dying.

That is false:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a34

Of course it's not.  Every credible doctor in the world will tell you what causes an NDE.  You can have an NDE simply being sedated for surgery. 

Is that your proof?  Brain cells being robbed of fuel and misfiring?  There's no god needed for that.

[pagalwana]

In god - we trust! Other pay cash 

[bl4kjaguar]

Hi Vod; remember how this conversation started?

Stevenson's study is completely reproducible which means that anybody who doubts the validity of this study is perfectly welcome to repeat it for themselves.
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a39

Did I give you what you wanted?

Every credible doctor in the world will tell you what causes an NDE.  You can have an NDE simply being sedated for surgery. 

Is that your proof?  Brain cells being robbed of fuel and misfiring?  There's no god needed for that.

How do you know there is nothing else needed for an NDE besides the "products of a brain and the universe of which it is a part"?

The skeptical "dying brain" theory of NDEs has major flaws. The proper approach would be to pursue the research as originally proposed and compare the hypotheses in light of the data.

Kindly review the reference if you want to cointinue on this topic:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a34

[Vod]

It's up to you to prove a god exists... not up to me to prove he doesn't exist.  

Same thing with the NDE - Scientists know what it is already... if you want us to believe science is wrong and it's some magical gateway for a soul or something, you need to provide proof, not a link to a crackpot website that speaks of fairy tales.

[Buffer Overflow]

So where is YOUR non-god explanation for the afterlife?

I know a mother that had an NDE on the operating table giving birth. When she was conscious afterwards she said she saw an object (I forget what now) high on top of a cupboard, as she looked down on herself.
There's no way she would of known about this object otherwise.

I believe her, so I believe in NDE's.
It's a spritual/soul thing. The burden of proof is on you to prove the connection between this and god.
NDE's do not prove god in anyway, shape or form.
People are connecting random dots and coming to a conclusion THEY WANT TO BELIEVE.

[Vod]

So where is YOUR non-god explanation for the afterlife?

There is no afterlife.  It was made up by people who don't understand or are scared of death.

[username18333]

If you are using the premise that no one understands quantum mechanics to assert a conclusion bearing on human knowledge, then I am afraid that your argument is lost on me.

In other words, such a network is unable to distinguish between a veridical perception and an hallucination. Doing so would require the existence of another, independent network, whose task it is to learn to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network’s hidden units. That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.

Nothing, there, provides for the acquisition of accurate “knowledge” (bl4kjaguar).