Many atheists say, "NDE's are not proof of anything because they never died by definition and when people die they supposedly go to an afterlife of some sort"...
So what about the people that were dead and went to heaven or hell then came back alive? According to you they must be lying im assuming?
Atheists seem to say that prayer can be ruled out as an being either placebo effect or cognitive behavioral therapy.
What about when you pray for others and those prayers are answered even when that person doesn't know you're praying for them, that rules out the "placebo effect" or form of "cognitive behavioral therapy".
The Big Bang theory or evolution theory still has to have a beginning, how does it make more sense that this just all of a sudden happened for no reason just by chance?
We know the human mind is limited so you're being simple minded in the sense that you can't look past limits.
I don't understand how you don't think to look further past your Big Bang theories and evolution theories. You won't let your mind think beyond that. I sincerely wish you would.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
It isn't "ruled out" per se, but it has never been shown to be more effective than placebo.
Actually the situation you describe is essentially how it has been shown to only be as effective as placebo. Take two groups of people, you tell both groups you are going to pray for their improvement, but then you only pray for group 1. It has been found that the improvement rate is the same for both groups. Or in other words: praying for a group is just as effective as telling a group they are going to be prayed for (but not actually praying).
/e On a side note: as these experiments are done in the real world and they are necessarily a bit sloppy, there are some slight deviations from the above mentioned results. Paradoxically the group that was NOT prayed for tends to do ever so slightly better than the group that actually received prayer! But the difference is not statistically significant, but it is funny, IMO!
@Towerpiller: "I don't understand how you don't think to look further past your Big Bang theories and evolution theories. You won't let your mind think beyond that. I sincerely wish you would."
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
The origin of the Big Bang and the start of life are the two greatest mysteries in science. The brave thing, the human thing, the right thing to do is to take up those challenges and apply our minds until we find the answers.
The theist way is to give up without even trying and say your imaginary friend did it. God is a security blanket, and you're all cowards and wankers hiding under it.
Our minds can't think beyond trying to put God in some box that makes sense to us but it doesn't work, our minds literally can not comprehend it but why be so simple minded and stop there. Does it make more sense to you that we just all of a sudden appeared here with no designer no nothing? The Big Bang or evolution theories can't be fully proven because you didn't see it with your own eyes but you chose to believe that because you won't let your mind go any further.
Excuse me but what justification do you have in thinking seeing something with your eyes proves it? What evidence do you have that eyes aren't deceiving you? Why are you arbitrarily choosing sight as your ultimate standard of justification?
I nominate this post for strawman of the month! In that I don't know of anyone who advocates this view.
What do you mean? Atheists think everything came by chance.
We're too complex to have just come from nothing. There are things that scientist can't even explain because it is beyond our comprehension and they to believe in a higher power. Basing everything on logic is being small minded because we're beyond that we're too in depth to not have a designer that designer being God!
He doubles down on the strawman! I just told you no one (well no one I'm aware of) endorses that view.
Ok then. Fine. Lets take it abstractly and go onto my next point, which was.
We're too complex to have just come from nothing. There are things that scientist can't even explain because it is beyond our comprehension and they to believe in a higher power. Basing everything on logic is being small minded because we're beyond that we're too in depth to not have a designer that designer being God!
Hi Towerpiller,
Who or what designed God? The God you describe seems to be far to complex to have arisen by chance from nothing.
Nothing can design the first cause. It is a necessary being.
RadicalWhiggery:
I disagree with the claim that Aquinas' proofs amount to anything. See my short note attached to a later comment by you on this thread. Also worthy of note is something Sean Carroll (physics genius associated with Caltech) pointed out. The equations of physics recognize no such thing as a "cause." The mathematics simply say that in a particular situation "B" comes after "A". No special status of "cause" is given to "A". For everyday use, and even scientific use, "cause" is a very useful notion, but it doesn't seem to be a part of deep reality. If you read his book "The Big Picture" you will get his own presentation of this remarkable conclusion. (Don't ask me to explain it!) This situation has caused some philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell, to argue that "cause" should be done away with altogether, but Sean Carroll thinks that is a bit extreme in that "cause" is still a very useful concept.
Yea I certainly disagree with Carroll's thesis there. I'll have to read his book, but the Principle of Sufficient reason has been proven several times. This would contradict Carroll's no-cause worldview.
RadicalWhiggery:
Are you saying that "cause" (as Aquinas might have understood it) is part of the deep meaning of this universe? If "yes" and if the idea has been proven several times, then it seems odd that someone of the stature of Bertrand Russell would have missed it, let alone Sean Carroll. At the very least you have a potentially fatal flaw in your argument that needs to be investigated.
The first cause argument? Justin, you need to prove there is a first cause before anyone can take this seriously. Asserting that there is a first cause is a nonstarter; you need to demonstrate it.
I've already posted the arguments that prove the first cause in other threads. That's why I referenced it as an argument and I didn't just assert there was a first cause. Also, my name's Chris.
RadicalWhiggery:
Why can't we consider a portion of nature, perhaps something we are already familiar with, perhaps something we have not yet seen, as a "necessary being" that doesn't need a designer? It seems to me that, with suitable adjustments, any argument that can cast God as a necessary being can cast a portion of nature as a necessary being. A part of nature, then, might be your "first cause."
towerpillar:
Are we too complex to be a product of evolution? If you knew evolution and paleontology as well as I do, you would not have any doubts. Most scientists don't believe in a higher power!
@towerpiller
Just curious: exactly how complex does something have to be, so we can be sure that it came from god? Or rephrased: what is the exact cut off value?
Basing everything on logic is being small minded? I want you to say that out loud once, and really listen to yourself.
townpillar:
Those who allow their minds to go "further" have no trouble believing in Zeus, the pantheon of Hindu gods, ghosts, or fairies. Unless you wish to leave these options open as serious possibilities, you had better limit your imagination to what the evidence actually says, what can be reliably observed (in the full scientific sense).
"Many atheists say, "NDE's are not proof of anything because they never died by definition and when people die they supposedly go to an afterlife of some sort"...
So what about the people that were dead and went to heaven or hell then came back alive? According to you they must be lying im assuming?"
They aren't proof of anything. Medical death is defined only by someone's heart stopping. This doesn't mean their brain has stopped. Their experiences can be explained by lack of oxygen in the brain. No one is saying they're lying about their experiences; instead, we're saying they assume their experience was more than a dream induced by euphoria due to oxygen deprivation.
I'm not sure if praying has been ruled out. But you don't present any data for prayer when the person doesn't know you are praying for them. You could make a deductive argument for why prayer works, but I don't know how well that would work.
It doesn't make sense that everything occurred for no reason at all. Refer to Aquinas' five ways. If you haven't seen them before, I've posted some of them on this forum. They show that there must be a first cause for all things. This cause must be necessary, eternal, aphysical, and atemporal.
RadicalWhiggery:
I'm a little surprised that you are using the obsolete arguments by Aquinas. I took a DVD course from a very competent philosopher (who taught at a university in Virginia if I recall) who seemed sympathetic to the idea of God. He found no proof, in Aquinas or any other source, of God's existence and took a "We just don't know" position.
I think Aquinas' first cause can work, if formulated properly.
RadicalWhiggery:
Clearly, that's a matter of opinion, an opinion that shouldn't exist if it were a real proof. I can't imagine that philosopher in Virginia passing up a version of Aquinas' arguments that works!
When has anyone died and come back to life? The heart stopping is not considered death. That is why we do CPR. Not to bring back life but to save a life.
Edit: The heart stopping is refered to as a cardiac arrest in the clinical setting.
Yes people who argue from NDEs often aren't careful with terminology regarding death. They use a medical definition as a cop out. It also suggests that personal experience can prove the afterlife. I'm sorry, but this type of subjectivism will not do. This is why I employ deductive proofs about god. Aquinas' five ways are generally acceptable in my view. But they don't say anything about an afterlife. I don't really see how the afterlife could be true from my metaphysic.
Snap! Yet another post with NO FUCKING EVIDENCE!
Can you prove anyone died and came back to life? The answer is NO you cannot! Can you PROVE anyone went to heaven or hell? NO, you cannot! Can you even PROVE there is a heaven or hell? NO, you cannot!
Can you prove prayer is an actual effect on anything? NO, you cannot!
You attribute being revived as being a divine miracle when it isn't! You attribute prayer to being a factor when it isn't anything.
YOU have to PROVE all this nonsense, not just say that we are ignorant of them. If you think that we are ignorant, provide evidence to PROVE it!
I am so sick and tired of believers NEVER proving a goddamned thing, and then claiming that their statements are fact, and that anyone that questions those unproven facts are ignorant. Or, they make some silly line of supposed logic that is clearly flaw because it makes assumptions and has a predetermined outcome that is clearly false.
UNTIL anyone can PROVE a god, and that said god actually DID anything, there is no god.
Oh, and BTW, the onus of proof is on YOU the believers because you made up your god. Not we that don't believe you.
All of you believers are so fucking arrogant condescending and smug! You can't handle that your logic is shot down because it fails the basic test of REAL EVIDENCE! Saying things like, "You weren't there" or "you cannot prove that it isn't true" isn't a valid argument. So grow up and step up to YOUR responsibility. Don't just come on this forum and proselytize and be insulted when people demand that you prove your claims.
I proved the first cause to you with Aquinas. You ignored it.
"UNTIL anyone can PROVE a god, and that said god actually DID anything, there is no god."
This is an argument from ignorance.
"All of you believers are so fucking arrogant condescending and smug! You can't handle that your logic is shot down because it fails the basic test of REAL EVIDENCE!"
I might be arrogant and condescending, but smug? No. Also you never shut down my logic. I'm not a Christian, but the level of depth you're willing to go into is astonishing low compared to the Christians I talk to. Everyday these Christians say something intelligent. You just shout at people about evidence.
@Radical
OH, BULLSHIT! You started 3 threads, essentially the same dull ignorant line of illogic. I took one of them and point by point refuted each step. The ignorant one here is you. I didn't "ignore" anything. I actually wasted my time on your silly little stream of consciousness and shot it down. And yes, you are smug! You think that you know something, yet you don't. Your intellect is just imaginary. Several people have pointed out the glaring flaws in your childish pipe dream, but YOU IGNORE them. So stop making stupid fucking statements like "I proved god", because you didn't even come close. I am sick and tired of all you arrogant childish little punks trying to appear intelligent when you get hold of a "big word" and think you know something. I bet you spend all day looking up some smart sounding term that you can misuse in some fucked up illogic scheme.
Typical:
"Man is complex
Therefore man is too complicated to arisen from nothing
Therefore a god"
That is the essence of every fucking lame brain that comes here to an atheist forum to prove us wrong. That in itself is a fallacy. Just coming here to debunk atheism is backwards.
You fuckers always fail to make the key connection in evidence. Your methods don't hold up to any standard form of scrutiny.
So the universe is complex. That doesn't mean that there is a god. What it means is the universe is COMPLEX!
Your little logic list failed on defining when time and motion began in the first place. YOU define it at the onset of the Big Bang, yet you cannot know that to be true at all.
Fucking morons the lot of you. The real fucking crime here is that you and your like force that crap onto EVERYONE! I'm tired of it!
Well first of all you made a huge error in your topic on prayer.
* One is to do with the emotional aspect of prayer of which I agree with. Why a person feels good and feels like it works.
* The other is the about the efficiency of prayer. aka statistically unlikely occurrences. The religious lottery. If the prayer you did say about the person comes true, that does not follow that it was your prayers that made it happened If you pray for the sun to come out, it most likely will eventually :/ as unknown natural processes or agents could [still be at work.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)
It is all explained in this: https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> "Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.."
and
> "Belief in the efficacy of prayer is a form of confirmation bias. Information and coincidences which, by chance, appear to support the belief are favoured and remembered while those that do not are discarded or rationalised. See also: Cherry Picking."
EDIT. and
> "Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god,much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could [still be at work.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)"
Pages