Heaven and the after-life, the skeptic's hell

[Pardalis]

I was discussing Pascal's Wager the other day with someone, and after saying that I choose not to believe because of lack of evidence the person asked me what I would say if I was in heaven before God, would I apologize and try to make amends?

I thought about it and I realized I wouldn't even be sure whether what I'd have in front of me would be God or not, that even if he told me he was how could I make sure? I wouldn't have anything to compare it with, let alone a proper definition of what that thing is. How would I even be sure I was in heaven in the first place, and not hallucinating?

That lead me to think even further that Heaven, in the Christian way anyway, could very well be the worst place for a skeptic to be. If reality doesn't exist anymore, if the laws of physics don't apply, this means we can't really be sure about anything, or inversely, if after we're dead we're given knowledge about everything, so what's the use of keeping existing forever? What's there to do when you already know everything? Wouldn't that suck? Either way we're screwed, either we can't know anything, or we know too much.

Just a thought, I didn't have a particular thing to discuss.

[Denver]

One of the parts of theology that comes into play here is called revelation. In this context, it means that God reveals himself to your spirit directly. The idea there is that not only does that prove his existence to you, but also proves the existence of your spirit at the same time (sort of a two-fer). Like having a limb or a sense you don't know you have, and then one day, it wakes up or finally encounters something it can report on.

It probably doesn't directly provide an answer to your speculation, but from my understanding that is how some theologies answer the question of how someone can be sure God is there: the above process of revelation somehow clinches it.

[aggle-rithm]

One of the parts of theology that comes into play here is called revelation. In this context, it means that God reveals himself to your spirit directly. The idea there is that not only does that prove his existence to you, but also proves the existence of your spirit at the same time (sort of a two-fer). Like having a limb or a sense you don't know you have, and then one day, it wakes up or finally encounters something it can report on.

It probably doesn't directly provide an answer to your speculation, but from my understanding that is how some theologies answer the question of how someone can be sure God is there: the above process of revelation somehow clinches it.

Sounds pretty dicey. What has become of free will if the supreme being MAKES you believe in him?

[athon]

Sounds pretty dicey. What has become of free will if the supreme being MAKES you believe in him?

Hence the problem inherent in the free-will / revelation argument. Theology has tried to rationalise that one in the past and never seems to get very far. Basically, God can't 'make you' believe by flicking a switch, as that contradicts the whole free-will law He made for Himself.

But I've considered the same question as the one Pardalis proposed, and figured I'd have little choice in the matter, as such. If I believed I was dead and a figure claiming to be God said 'I run this joint. Now, do you believe in me?', I could only believe in the same capacity as I do now; I'd believe I was seeing some figure calling themselves God in a place that I might believe was an afterlife.

That said, if He confessed to being the God of the bible, I'd also probably have a few words to exchange about His behaviour. ;) My problem then would be that I'd have an issue with a) eternity (don't like the sounds of it) and b) worshipping some deity that had an oversized ego and indulged in childish behaviour forever and a day. That would in itself be my personal Hell - sitting in front of such an arrogant son-of-a-bitch and hailing Him for countless eternities.

The response I normally get to that is that I'll be so full of love for Him that I'd simply feel compelled. Which means 'I' would no longer be 'me', in which case - I'd have a different personality altogether.

Hence I'm quite content with there being no after life, thanks.

Athon

[Silentknight]

One of the parts of theology that comes into play here is called revelation. In this context, it means that God reveals himself to your spirit directly. The idea there is that not only does that prove his existence to you, but also proves the existence of your spirit at the same time (sort of a two-fer). Like having a limb or a sense you don't know you have, and then one day, it wakes up or finally encounters something it can report on.

It probably doesn't directly provide an answer to your speculation, but from my understanding that is how some theologies answer the question of how someone can be sure God is there: the above process of revelation somehow clinches it.

If God approached me wearing a trenchcoat and fedora, I'd have the pervert arrested.

[Hokulele]

Which means 'I' would no longer be 'me', in which case - I'd have a different personality altogether.


Exactly. That is why I do not worry about this issue.

[plumjam]

One of the parts of theology that comes into play here is called revelation. In this context, it means that God reveals himself to your spirit directly. The idea there is that not only does that prove his existence to you, but also proves the existence of your spirit at the same time (sort of a two-fer). Like having a limb or a sense you don't know you have, and then one day, it wakes up or finally encounters something it can report on.

It probably doesn't directly provide an answer to your speculation, but from my understanding that is how some theologies answer the question of how someone can be sure God is there: the above process of revelation somehow clinches it.

Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).

[godofpie]

If I had to spend eternity in a place full of bible thumping christians, I would assume that to be hell. Heaven would be a place where only the people I liked would be, I could drink and drug my self silly with no repercussions, and I could fish all day long and catch just the right amount of fish. Not so many that it becomes a job, and not so few that my mind would wander to subjects such as this.:D

[arthwollipot]

Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).Personally I think that this "direct knowing" is the source of most woo. The whole idea of knowing something withough having sensed it seems to me to indicate that it's all in the mind. People are known to fabricate things in their minds that don't exist. When presented with someone who claims direct knowledge of God, is it more parsimonious to think that an entity exists which is capable of inserting knowledge of itself into someone's brain, or that the person's brain has fabricated an experience?

Anyway.

If I were to ever find myself in this situation, I wouldn't be too worried. I live a decent life. I help other people and am generally a good person. I would think that a merciful God would not punish me eternally just because I didn't spend my life on my knees.

Then again, I have no particular reason to think that the God of the Bible is particularly merciful.

[plumjam]

How do you know your own thoughts except by direct knowing?

[Hokulele]

How do you know your own thoughts except by direct knowing?


You and yrreg are here to tell me what they are.

[Pardalis]

How do you know your own thoughts except by direct knowing?

Why not ask a neurologist?

[Macoy]

Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).

Are you able to explain this concept in a current Terran language?

[Foster Zygote]

You and yrreg are here to tell me what they are.

Now that's what I call taking the pith.

[MarkCorrigan]

If God approached me wearing a trenchcoat and fedora, I'd have the pervert arrested.

As an owner of both trenchcoat AND fedora I resent that remark.:p

[MattusMaximus]

Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).

Sigh... near-death experiences explained by medical science (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html) :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight, Plumjam - you are essentially arguing that this knowledge would be magically revealed without any reference to our sensory organs?

If that is the case, what is to distinguish the supposed "revelation" from a really wicked acid trip?

And how would you distinguish the validity of two mutually-exclusive "revelations"? By what standard could you tell the true "revelation" from the false one?

[athon]

And how would you distinguish the validity of two mutually-exclusive "revelations"? By what standard could you tell the true "revelation" from the false one?

Easy. They'd both be correct. It's idealism - where there's no such thing as a rule, and the universe is whatever the hell you want it to be.

Quick - there goes the white rabbit! I got 'im!

Athon

[MattusMaximus]

Easy. They'd both be correct. It's idealism - where there's no such thing as a rule, and the universe is whatever the hell you want it to be.

Sadly enough, I've seen some people here actually make these arguments seriously. But then I simply ignore them as they (the people, that is) are nothing more than figments of my imagination ;)

Quick - there goes the white rabbit! I got 'im!

Athon

Athon, you wacky guy :)

[Kopji]

Just before he smited me I'd probably say some smartassed thing instead of apologizing.

[Radrook]

I was discussing Pascal's Wager the other day with someone, and after saying that I choose not to believe because of lack of evidence the person asked me what I would say if I was in heaven before God, would I apologize and try to make amends?

Well, from a Christian viewpoint if you get to heaven you need not apologize for anything since you have been deemed worthy of the heavenly reward based on your faith in Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice. If you hadn't known about Jesus Ransom sacrifice you wouldn't have gotten to heaven in the first place.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord


So the confusion you imagine you might experience in heaven is impossible within the parameters of biblical Christian theology.

I thought about it and I realized I wouldn't even be sure whether what I'd have in front of me would be God or not, that even if he told me he was how could I make sure? I wouldn't have anything to compare it with, let alone a proper definition of what that thing is. How would I even be sure I was in heaven in the first place, and not hallucinating?

If you made it to heaven you'd definitely have a proper definition. So your confusion itself would be sufficient proof that you are either dreaming or hallucinating.

That lead me to think even further that Heaven, in the Christian way anyway, could very well be the worst place for a skeptic to be. If reality doesn't exist anymore, if the laws of physics don't apply, this means we can't really be sure about anything, or inversely, if after we're dead we're given knowledge about everything, so what's the use of keeping existing forever? What's there to do when you already know everything? Wouldn't that suck? Either way we're screwed, either we can't know anything, or we know too much.
Just a thought, I didn't have a particular thing to discuss.

Yes, it would suck. Fortunately, however, your description of heaven isn't scripturally supported. Neither is it a Christian view of heaven. Nowhere are we told that we will be omniscient and know everything there is to be known. In fact, angels and the Son of God are said to be ignorant of the day when God brings Armageddon.


Mathew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


BTW
Nowhere are we told that heaven is a place completely devoid of physical laws or other nonphysical laws by which we could make sense of things.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,....

[arthwollipot]

How do you know your own thoughts except by direct knowing?Since when are my own thoughts evidence of anything?

[Dymanic]

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,....

Genesis 11: 7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

[ma1ic3]

after saying that I choose not to believe because of lack of evidence the person asked me what I would say if I was in heaven before God, would I apologize and try to make amends?

I would not be sorry, and I would not feel that I was wrong to disbelieve in God if I ever came face to face with him in Heaven. Likewise, I would not feel stupid for denying that there are monsters under kids beds, if I found out tomorrow that scary monsters do actually teleport into our Universe from another realm of existence, to scare little children. Believing that a decision is a bad one, based solely on the outcome, rather than the actual quality of the decision itself, is known as an outcome bias. It is perfectly possible for an irrational person to make a poor decision, and end up being right. I am sure if people tried, they could find many real life examples of bad decisions, invalid arguments, and careless accidents, that have led to positive outcomes, or conclusions that are in fact true.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).

I think in the RealWorld™ that is known as delusion. :boggled:

[Radrook]

Genesis 11: 7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.


So USA is a land of confusion because it's military actions cause confusion on the enemy? That's a very illogical premise you are proposing.

BTW

The language differentiation wasn't brought about for confusion's sake. It was inflicted in order to prevent the disorder mankind was planning in violation of the mandate given to Noah and his descendants.

[quarky]

Eternity isn't something that starts later. We are God, and this is it.

[kedo1981]

Radrook Radrook Radrook no fair rewriting the “infallible word of god” just to make your blather justified. The bible says repeatedly that god hardens hearts and prevents folks from seeing the truth. DON”T YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE.
Jesus stated that “All those who speak my name will not enter the kingdom of heaven”
What will all the Fundys think when after a life of Fundy-ness they don’t have ticket for admission.

[Shalamar]

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord




Mathew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,....


I see you're still putting out bible quotes as proofs of.. something. Why is that?

[Dymanic]

So USA is a land of confusion because it's military actions cause confusion on the enemy? That's a very illogical premise you are proposing. The people were God's enemy?

The language differentiation wasn't brought about for confusion's sake. It was inflicted in order to prevent the disorder mankind was planning in violation of the mandate given to Noah and his descendants.

According to Radrook. According to Genesis 11:6, it was because:

"...the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

Nothing about mandates or disorder. Ever try actually reading the book? The people were trying to reach heaven by building a tower of mud bricks. God was concerned that they might succeed. Would you say that His concerns were well founded?

[Pardalis]

If you made it to heaven you'd definitely have a proper definition. So your confusion itself would be sufficient proof that you are either dreaming or hallucinating.
But I would still be me right? If I'm still me, then I would consider the possibility that this is not really heaven, and that guy not really god. I would try to find out for myself where I am, and find out independently who that guy is.

Yes, it would suck. Fortunately, however, your description of heaven isn't scripturally supported. Neither is it a Christian view of heaven. Nowhere are we told that we will be omniscient and know everything there is to be known. In fact, angels and the Son of God are said to be ignorant of the day when God brings Armageddon.
Maybe we won't know god's secret plans, but I get the impression Christians believe we'll get all the answers we seek.

BTWNowhere are we told that heaven is a place completely devoid of physical laws or other nonphysical laws by which we could make sense of things.Your quote doesn't support that, just the fact that we're dead and still existing would contradict a few physical laws. And what is an unphysical law? As I was saying, Heaven would be a materialist's nightmare.

[Malerin]

Sigh... near-death experiences explained by medical science (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html) :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight, Plumjam - you are essentially arguing that this knowledge would be magically revealed without any reference to our sensory organs?

If that is the case, what is to distinguish the supposed "revelation" from a really wicked acid trip?

And how would you distinguish the validity of two mutually-exclusive "revelations"? By what standard could you tell the true "revelation" from the false one?

I'll see your article in Skeptical Inquirer by an anesthesiologist and raise you an 8-year long NDE study published in The Lancet:

“Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE. Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience. Patients' medication was also unrelated to frequency of NDE. Psychological factors are unlikely to be important as fear was not associated with NDE.”

…

“Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.”

And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.”

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Edit:

"With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

[MattusMaximus]

Your point, Malerin?

Perhaps I should have stated earlier that medical science is in the process of explaining NDEs, not having completely explained them. This point I concede as I erred in the manner in which I posted the link. My point is that modern medicine & science is making inroads into explaining the supposedly-unexplainable NDE - no miracles or supernatural required.

But if your post is meant to say that NDEs cannot be explained by medical science, then I say you are simply engaging in an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) - as are those who maintain that NDEs are supernatural.

Incidentally, should I even pay attention to you, Malerin, seeing as how you're just a figment of my imagination? Who am I talking to, anyway? Hmmph, those crazy leprechauns again... :rolleyes:

[athon]

Yup, fairly well known paper, this one. Not replicated, unfortunately, and has a lot of misassumptions that have been discussed before, as well. Still, dualists seem to love it. Not sure why, though.

“Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE.Furthermore, seriousness of the crisis was not related to occurrence or depth of the experience. If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience.

This is one hell of an assumption. There could be numerous contributing factors. In any case, let's look at the converse - if all of those patients had 'duality' of mind and body, then by the same token they also should all have experienced NDE. The fact that they didn't shows there is a physical variation...unless we assume some of them simply had no 'souls' to begin with...

“Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG.”

The 'verified observations' were not blinded (Sabom, 1982), from what I understand of Sabom's anecdote. Which detracts majorly from their validity, allowing for a number of possible and more likely causes behind this piece of evidence. This reflects poorly on the paper. As this would be the only way to confirm that some form of consciousness remained during the flat EEG period, the entire paper falls flat.

Nobody disputes that EEG could flatline and a person could recall memories afterward. Yet memories are tricky things, especially regarding unconscious states - try waking up in the morning and giving an exact time of each dream you had and their duration. You'll find they won't match external quantifications.

Athon

[MattusMaximus]

Thanks Athon.

I had wondered how long it was going to take for this NDE paper to be shot full of holes on this thread. This is one reason I love hanging around on skeptic forums, as woo like this gets nailed pretty quickly & thoroughly. Btw, do you have a link to an analysis of that paper?

So, we now have reference to a poorly-constructed, non-blinded study which has questionable results which, apparently, cannot be replicated. And this is evidence of the supposed "reality" of NDEs being supernatural?

Wow, talk about low standards :rolleyes:

Yup, fairly well known paper, this one. Not replicated, unfortunately, and has a lot of misassumptions that have been discussed before, as well. Still, dualists seem to love it. Not sure why, though.

I'm guessing because they think it offers "scientific proof" upon which they can hang their philosophical hats. You know, standard woo.

[athon]

Thanks Athon.

I had wondered how long it was going to take for this NDE paper to be shot full of holes on this thread. This is one reason I love hanging around on skeptic forums, as woo like this gets nailed pretty quickly & thoroughly. Btw, do you have a link to an analysis of that paper?

This online article (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-18.html) does a pretty good job of showing the weaknesses in it. One could always argue it is clearly a 'skeptic' rebuttal, but I have a hard time arguing with the reasoning in it, or the medical facts on it.

So, we now have reference to a poorly-constructed, non-blinded study which has questionable results which, apparently, cannot be replicated. And this is evidence of the supposed "reality" of NDEs being supernatural?

It's more that the study is trying to argue that it's highly unlikely that physiological factors can explain NDEs. It relies on two points - one is that the patients EEG were flat during the period of claimed experience, and the second is that the hypotheses such as anoxia and high-stress neurochemical variations can't be true for various reasons. The problem is that the first point has never been blind-tested, and relies solely on anecdotes (more so, from nurses who were relating patient recollections...hence third hand), and the second point's reasoning would stand equally for a dualist hypothesis as well; indeed would sooner reduce one's confidence in a dualist hypothesis than any physiological one, given that physiology is known to contain more variables.

Wow, talk about low standards :rolleyes:

Well, pseudoscience is defined essentially as low-standard science.

Athon

[applecorped]

I was discussing Pascal's Wager the other day with someone, and after saying that I choose not to believe because of lack of evidence the person asked me what I would say if I was in heaven before God, would I apologize and try to make amends?

I thought about it and I realized I wouldn't even be sure whether what I'd have in front of me would be God or not, that even if he told me he was how could I make sure? I wouldn't have anything to compare it with, let alone a proper definition of what that thing is. How would I even be sure I was in heaven in the first place, and not hallucinating?

That lead me to think even further that Heaven, in the Christian way anyway, could very well be the worst place for a skeptic to be. If reality doesn't exist anymore, if the laws of physics don't apply, this means we can't really be sure about anything, or inversely, if after we're dead we're given knowledge about everything, so what's the use of keeping existing forever? What's there to do when you already know everything? Wouldn't that suck? Either way we're screwed, either we can't know anything, or we know too much.

Just a thought, I didn't have a particular thing to discuss.

***Derail***
Stanley Kubrick's Boxes was on the Sundance channel last night. It was quite good and worth a watch if you haven't seen it already.

Nice OP btw. :)

[Malerin]

Your point, Malerin?



You seemed to be suggesting medical science had explained NDE's. The Lancet is one of the most respected journals in the world. The study's findings were criticial of standard theories, like oxygen deprivation.

Perhaps I should have stated earlier that medical science is in the process of explaining NDEs, not having completely explained them. This point I concede as I erred in the manner in which I posted the link.

Well, that's why I posted a rebuttal source.

My point is that modern medicine & science is making inroads into explaining the supposedly-unexplainable NDE - no miracles or supernatural required.

The way I read it, there's still a lot of mystery involved. Within the study itself, they reported a nurse who supposedly verified a flat-lined patient's OBE.

But if your post is meant to say that NDEs cannot be explained by medical science, then I say you are simply engaging in an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) - as are those who maintain that NDEs are supernatural.

No, my point was to show that no one really knows why NDE's occur. The study in the Lancet was the longest study ever done (don't know if it's the largest).

Incidentally, should I even pay attention to you, Malerin, seeing as how you're just a figment of my imagination? Who am I talking to, anyway? Hmmph, those crazy leprechauns again... :rolleyes:

Whatever floats your boat.

[MattusMaximus]

This online article (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-18.html) does a pretty good job of showing the weaknesses in it. One could always argue it is clearly a 'skeptic' rebuttal, but I have a hard time arguing with the reasoning in it, or the medical facts on it.

Food for thought, Malerin.

[athon]

Food for thought, Malerin.

I don't think Malerin is quite saying he supports the paper, as such, but rather is trying to hide in that vague zone where so long as something isn't 'proven', all options are therefore equal. As science doesn't deal in proofs, he's free to speculate whatever he wants and feel that it has equal weight to our own position.

I don't need to tell you where this falls down...

Athon

[MattusMaximus]

You seemed to be suggesting medical science had explained NDE's. The Lancet is one of the most respected journals in the world. The study's findings were criticial of standard theories, like oxygen deprivation.

Crap in a respected journal is still crap. Did you read the criticism of that paper that Athon posted? Seems pretty damning to me.

Well, that's why I posted a rebuttal source.

Yes, I see that. How about a credible rebuttal?

The way I read it, there's still a lot of mystery involved. Within the study itself, they reported a nurse who supposedly verified a flat-lined patient's OBE.

And just how does a nurse's anecdote "confirming a patient's OBE" provide evidence of anything? I cannot believe that you're seriously arguing on a skeptic forum that anecdote = evidence.

No, my point was to show that no one really knows why NDE's occur. The study in the Lancet was the longest study ever done (don't know if it's the largest).

As Athon pointed out, the study is flawed. And, imo, it is fatally flawed. As for your claim that NDEs are completely unexplained, I have to disagree - we have much evidence that explains many aspects of these events. Not the whole story, but we're filling in the gaps.

Are you going to make an argument similar to that put forth by creationists? You know, the one where they say we cannot accept evolution because we still have some gaps in the fossil record? It seems that you're heading in that direction.

Whatever floats your boat.

Hey, you're the one who goes on and on in other threads about solipsism being a valid argument. Get over your non-existent hurt feelings ;)

[MattusMaximus]

I don't think Malerin is quite saying he supports the paper, as such, but rather is trying to hide in that vague zone where so long as something isn't 'proven', all options are therefore equal. As science doesn't deal in proofs, he's free to speculate whatever he wants and feel that it has equal weight to our own position.

I don't need to tell you where this falls down...

Athon

Exactly. I just nailed him on this point in my most recent post. It is the same argument made by creationists when they say we cannot accept evolution because there are still gaps in the fossil record.

[Malerin]

Yup, fairly well known paper, this one. Not replicated, unfortunately, and has a lot of misassumptions that have been discussed before, as well. Still, dualists seem to love it. Not sure why, though.

There's probably not a whole lot of funding for NDE research. This was a pretty large study spanning eight years. It might take awhile for a similar study to come out.



This is one hell of an assumption. There could be numerous contributing factors. In any case, let's look at the converse - if all of those patients had 'duality' of mind and body, then by the same token they also should all have experienced NDE. The fact that they didn't shows there is a physical variation...unless we assume some of them simply had no 'souls' to begin with...

I agree the fact that not everyone has NDE is any evidence for duality. I see the author's reasoning, though- if it were a purely physical phenemenon, shouldn't we expect to see it across the board? Example: people bleed when they're cut, people should have NDE's when their brain is oxygen deprived. There may be other factors involved to explain the low percentage, but it's a good prima facia point.




The 'verified observations' were not blinded (Sabom, 1982), from what I understand of Sabom's anecdote. Which detracts majorly from their validity, allowing for a number of possible and more likely causes behind this piece of evidence. This reflects poorly on the paper. As this would be the only way to confirm that some form of consciousness remained during the flat EEG period, the entire paper falls flat.

They also interviewed over a hundred people. Sabom's anecdote was not the basis for the paper. Pam Reynold's case remains fascinating and controversial. There is another NDE case Hamilton talks about in Scalpel and Soul (body cooled, blood flow cut off to the brain). This is a very rarely done procedure, so not much data on it.

Nobody disputes that EEG could flatline and a person could recall memories afterward. Yet memories are tricky things, especially regarding unconscious states - try waking up in the morning and giving an exact time of each dream you had and their duration. You'll find they won't match external quantifications.

The similiarities of the core experiences are striking, don't you think? In a flatine situation, with a jumble of recalled memories, why would there be such a coherent account, and why would it have a spiritual quality to it? The authors of the paper make this point at the end, when they compare the accounts of people with medically induced NDE's vs. the people they interviewed.

[MattusMaximus]

I agree the fact that not everyone has NDE is any evidence for duality. I see the author's reasoning, though- if it were a purely physical phenemenon, shouldn't we expect to see it across the board? Example: people bleed when they're cut, people should have NDE's when their brain is oxygen deprived. There may be other factors involved to explain the low percentage, but it's a good prima facia point.

Why would you assume this? Are you saying that in every case the person is dying in exactly the same manner? Perhaps there are nuances to having an NDE which involve physical factors that we don't fully understand yet? Why are you willing to completely throw out a physical explanation based upon such a flimsy argument?

They also interviewed over a hundred people. Sabom's anecdote was not the basis for the paper. Pam Reynold's case remains fascinating and controversial. There is another NDE case Hamilton talks about in Scalpel and Soul (body cooled, blood flow cut off to the brain). This is a very rarely done procedure, so not much data on it.

Okay, so they have over a hundred anecdotes instead of just one. Malerin, the plural of anecdote is not evidence :rolleyes:

The similiarities of the core experiences are striking, don't you think? In a flatine situation, with a jumble of recalled memories, why would there be such a coherent account, and why would it have a spiritual quality to it? The authors of the paper make this point at the end, when they compare the accounts of people with medically induced NDE's vs. the people they interviewed.

See my previous criticisms above. You continue to engage in the same logical fallacy over and over.

[athon]

There's probably not a whole lot of funding for NDE research. This was a pretty large study spanning eight years. It might take awhile for a similar study to come out.

Oh I'm sure there are reasons for it. Funding usually goes towards things that have some decent supporting evidence - obviously a catch 22, but given that this is the best a study like this can produce, it doesn't make for rich grounds to seed a science on.

I agree the fact that not everyone has NDE is any evidence for duality. I see the author's reasoning, though- if it were a purely physical phenemenon, shouldn't we expect to see it across the board? Example: people bleed when they're cut, people should have NDE's when their brain is oxygen deprived. There may be other factors involved to explain the low percentage, but it's a good prima facia point.

Unfortunately, it isn't. The reasoning is actually quite poor, and is virtually an argument from ignorance (as far as logic goes). There is no reason to expect a system such as this to be ubiquitous, given the potential variables at work. In fact, that's the very reason we have developed tools such as probability and statistics in conjunction with science - to account for the fact that systems are typically complex. For instance, not all people will respond to a given drug. Does that suddenly mean the drug has no physiological grounding? No - it means the chemistry behind it varies according to differences in physiology within a population.

They also interviewed over a hundred people. Sabom's anecdote was not the basis for the paper. Pam Reynold's case remains fascinating and controversial. There is another NDE case Hamilton talks about in Scalpel and Soul (body cooled, blood flow cut off to the brain). This is a very rarely done procedure, so not much data on it.

Sabom's anecdote was a prime example, however, of the nature of the evidence. It was all anecdotal - there were no controls. That doesn't make it a bad paper, as such, but it does make for a poorly supported conclusion.

The similiarities of the core experiences are striking, don't you think? In a flatine situation, with a jumble of recalled memories, why would there be such a coherent account, and why would it have a spiritual quality to it? The authors of the paper make this point at the end, when they compare the accounts of people with medically induced NDE's vs. the people they interviewed.

It's no doubt a fascinating field from a neurological perspective. And if you're asking for answers to those questions, I could only speculate. Yet it's no different to creationist reasoning - it's all argument from ignorance. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs, but rather increments of evidence. There are undoubtedly complexities in neurology which we are only starting to understand. Nothing in those questions you've provided falsifies neurological hypotheses - they only demonstrate the lack of complete models. Nobody disputes that, yet by no means does an incomplete model give any leniancy to another model which has zero evidence.

Athon

[Malerin]

If the study was so flawed, I would expect The Lancet to have published a retraction by now (or not agreed to publish it in the first place), as they did here http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)60148-8/fulltext

This is not at all similar to creationist's complaining about gaps in the fossil record. In order to be similar, the creationists would have to be able to reference an evolutionist's study, published in a respected journal (and not retracted for any reason), which questions the validity of the causes of evolution.

As to Mark Crislip's rebuttal article, I'm not a doctor, so I'm not really qualified to evaluate Lommel's team's version of "clinical death" vs. "How long does it take to flatline? If there is zero perfusion, experts at my hospital tell me it is more like 20 seconds. That's with no perfusion. And the EEG experts tell me that the sensitivity of an EEG for brain function is more like a one megapixel camera than a 5 megapixel. The brain probably doesn't start to die until several minutes elapse. In Oregon an EEG is considered so insensitive it does not have to be included as one of the criteria for determining if someone is brain dead; although we get it anyway, a flatline EEG is only part of the mix."

My point was that the longest and largest NDE study ever done (I checked, it is the largest) rejected some of the naturalistic causes of NDE's.

Mark Crislip is free to submit his analysis to The Lancet. Either he hasn't done so, or they don't find it compelling enough to retract any part of the study. MM, it's kind of funny to hear you calling a study that has stood for seven years in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world "woo". The Lancet has been around almost 200 years. You would think they would know a thing or two about "woo".



And since when is ancedotal evidence not evidence? If I see the license plate of a car that has just run someone over, are the cops going to ignore me because I don't have a photograph to back it up? If a patient who reports an NDE gives an account that includes the contents of a message placed where no one can see it, wouldn't that be evidence? If your wife (or husband) says they were late coming home because of traffic are you in a sort of epistemic limbo until you can confirm their story?

[edge]

Your forgetting one thing that meditating with out drugs or injuries can produce out of body also. Then there is the accidental soul travel that can happen either on the way to sleep or set of by external stimuli.
Those also seem to have a religious context to them.

[Malerin]

Oh I'm sure there are reasons for it. Funding usually goes towards things that have some decent supporting evidence - obviously a catch 22, but given that this is the best a study like this can produce, it doesn't make for rich grounds to seed a science on.



Unfortunately, it isn't. The reasoning is actually quite poor, and is virtually an argument from ignorance (as far as logic goes). There is no reason to expect a system such as this to be ubiquitous, given the potential variables at work. In fact, that's the very reason we have developed tools such as probability and statistics in conjunction with science - to account for the fact that systems are typically complex. For instance, not all people will respond to a given drug. Does that suddenly mean the drug has no physiological grounding? No - it means the chemistry behind it varies according to differences in physiology within a population.



Sabom's anecdote was a prime example, however, of the nature of the evidence. It was all anecdotal - there were no controls. That doesn't make it a bad paper, as such, but it does make for a poorly supported conclusion.



It's no doubt a fascinating field from a neurological perspective. And if you're asking for answers to those questions, I could only speculate. Yet it's no different to creationist reasoning - it's all argument from ignorance. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs, but rather increments of evidence. There are undoubtedly complexities in neurology which we are only starting to understand. Nothing in those questions you've provided falsifies neurological hypotheses - they only demonstrate the lack of complete models. Nobody disputes that, yet by no means does an incomplete model give any leniancy to another model which has zero evidence.

Athon

I think we're actually agreeing on a lot of things here. I'm not claiming the paper is the definitive word on NDE's. It's an interesting study that a reputable medical journal chose to publish. I posted it as a rebuttal to MM's claim (that I guess he wasn't actually making).

Physical = Made of matter and existing independent of the mind or perception. I think I can anticipate your next question.

[Malerin]

Okay, so they have over a hundred anecdotes instead of just one. Malerin, the plural of anecdote is not evidence :rolleyes:

Um, so everyone was lying to them? If anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, how does psychology or psychiatry work?

Patient: "Doc, I'm feeling depressed."
Psychologist: "Prove it."

[athon]

If the study was so flawed, I would expect The Lancet to have published a retraction by now (or not agreed to publish it in the first place), as they did here http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)60148-8/fulltext (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2808%2960148-8/fulltext)

The study isn't flawed, IMO. Not as such. It is simply based on extremely weak reasoning. Journals, even those like the Lancet, do occasionally let controversial papers through. If the study itself contained factual errors, or was based on incorrect assumptions, then they might well need to retract. In this case, the conclusions aren't wrong, they are simply weak given the nature of the evidence.

This is not at all similar to creationist's complaining about gaps in the fossil record. In order to be similar, the creationists would have to be able to reference an evolutionist's study, published in a respected journal (and not retracted for any reason), which questions the validity of the causes of evolution.

MM is pointing out that the basis of your argument is in the same faith as that of a creationist's. They also point out apparent weaknesses in an argument in an attempt to support a second totally baseless model, which is illogical at best.

My point was that the longest and largest NDE study ever done (I checked, it is the largest) rejected some of the naturalistic causes of NDE's.

The portion of the study which is sizeable is the number of interviews and evaluations of NDE reports. You could have ten times this number, and if the basic premise is flawed, it won't matter how big it is. In this case, the premise is flawed - variation does not falsify physiology as a cause. This leads to a weak conclusion.

Mark Crislip is free to submit his analysis to The Lancet. Either he hasn't done so, or they don't find it compelling enough to retract any part of the study. MM, it's kind of funny to hear you calling a study that has stood for seven years in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world "woo". The Lancet has been around almost 200 years. You would think they would know a thing or two about "woo".

Again, the study itself is not flawed, even if the premise it stems from is. I've read a large number of papers in my day with questionable premises that are worthwhile as papers. The Lancet has no need to retract, as the information itself has value, even if their conclusions and premises don't. That's how science works - journal articles only need to be pulled if the objective information they put forward is faulty or misleading. That is not the case in this paper, as far as I can tell.

And since when is ancedotal evidence not evidence? If I see the license plate of a car that has just run someone over, are the cops going to ignore me because I don't have a photograph to back it up? If a patient who reports an NDE gives an account that includes the contents of a message placed where no one can see it, wouldn't that be evidence? If your wife (or husband) says they were late coming home because of traffic are you in a sort of epistemic limbo until you can confirm their story?

Well, that's another can of worms. There are already several threads on evidence and anecdotal evidence around. You'll find I agree that anecdotes are a form of evidence, however they are weak and rely on large amounts of additional supporting evidence. In cases like this one, an account needs to be supported by a demonstration of controls (especially blinding) in order to lend it weight. Otherwise, there are far more likely explanations for their accounts which take precedence over idealist explanations.

Athon

[athon]

I think we're actually agreeing on a lot of things here. I'm not claiming the paper is the definitive word on NDE's. It's an interesting study that a reputable medical journal chose to publish. I posted it as a rebuttal to MM's claim (that I guess he wasn't actually making).

Fair enough. I agree that the study itself is interesting, yet it is more or less spoiled by conclusions that don't follow from the information. The same data set, however, might prove to be quite useful for a sociologist exploring the phenomenon.

Physical = Made of matter and existing independent of the mind or perception. I think I can anticipate your next question.

:D I suggest we don't derail this thread, in which case - I've opened another one for this question here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130922).

Athon

[quarky]

There may be some lost NDE's, as well. People that survive a flatline experience, yet come out of it brain damaged and unable to communicate. The intact memory is required to have a sense of self. Even if the sequence of memories is disturbed, via Alzheimer's, for instance, there is a loss of self...or at least the self that could report back coherently.

[MattusMaximus]

Um, so everyone was lying to them? If anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, how does psychology or psychiatry work?

Another logical fallacy - false dichotomy. You assume that either

1) all the people's anecdotes are factually correct and therefore reliable, or
2) they are all lying.

You forget many other explanations, such as

3) they believe what they are saying, but there is still no validity to their claims of supernatural experience.

Your claim of anecdote outweighing objective, verifiable, and repeatable scientific analysis is a classic of pseudoscience. This claim on your part also shows that you know virtually nil about the psychology behind eye-witness reports, anecdotes, belief, cognitive dissonance, etc.

Patient: "Doc, I'm feeling depressed."
Psychologist: "Prove it."

Yes, so because the patient is saying they are depressed that must mean they are clinically depressed. You know, there actually is a medical diagnosis for clinical depression, and "I feel sad" doesn't cut it :rolleyes:

You know, Malerin, it takes more than caring to be a doctor. I'm guessing you don't practice medicine as a profession?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, from a Christian viewpoint if you get to heaven you need not apologize for anything since you have been deemed worthy of the heavenly reward based on your faith in Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice.

Wow, seriously? I don't have to apologize?? Awesome. So I can even mock God in his face and it's ok anyway because I've already been deemed worthy of the heavenly reward? Cool. Can I also pee in his carpet and get laid with his wife?

[Silentknight]

Yes, this is something many people report in NDEs. Direct knowing, not mediated by anything (such as sense-data).

So if the five senses are out, then that means I'd have to use my sixth sense to receive direct revelations, right? Okay, let's fire up the sixth sense and find out what I can see...




AAAIIIEEEEE! DEAD PEOPLE!

Now I remember why I stopped doing that. :scared:

[Malerin]

Another logical fallacy - false dichotomy. You assume that either

1) all the people's anecdotes are factually correct and therefore reliable, or
2) they are all lying.

You forget many other explanations, such as

3) they believe what they are saying, but there is still no validity to their claims of supernatural experience.

Your claim of anecdote outweighing objective, verifiable, and repeatable scientific analysis is a classic of pseudoscience. This claim on your part also shows that you know virtually nil about the psychology behind eye-witness reports, anecdotes, belief, cognitive dissonance, etc.



Yes, so because the patient is saying they are depressed that must mean they are clinically depressed. You know, there actually is a medical diagnosis for clinical depression, and "I feel sad" doesn't cut it :rolleyes:

You know, Malerin, it takes more than caring to be a doctor. I'm guessing you don't practice medicine as a profession?

"According to the definitions of most medical, psychological and psychiatric bodies, there is a commonality in the diagnosis of depression. Most depression tests have a very similar framework. Almost without exception, clinical depression will be diagnosed if a certain number of feelings, that are signs of depression, are present over a certain period of time"

(1) depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.



(2) markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others)



(3) significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day. Note: In children, consider failure to make expected weight gains.



(4) insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day



(5) psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down)



(6) fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day



(7) feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick)



(8) diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others)



(9) recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide



http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/Depression_Information/signs.htm

So when you tell the doctor you feel depressed, you've lost weight recently, are having trouble sleeping, and are suicidal, their response is what? I don't believe it till you prove it? Please. Depression is diagnosed based on anecdotal accounts of how a patient feels and what they're experiencing

Anecdotal evidence is commonly used in court cases (eyewitness testimony), and psychology/psychiatry and any branch of medicine which deals with self-reporting would be useless without it. How do you think the whole field of NDE research began, if not for people telling about their experiences near the moment of death?

I think you want to claim anecdotal evidence is not as strong as evidence of other kinds, which is another discussion. But it is evidence. I assume you don't walk around in an intellectual fog until you can verify everything everyone's ever told you.

[Silentknight]

3, 4, 5, and 6 are all physical symptoms. As far as depression being diagnosed by how a patient feels, so what? The diagnosis for every single disease that doesn't have any visible physical symptoms starts with the patient describing to the doctor how he or she feels. This in no way proves that the disease does not have a physical cause. Sometimes a patient can be sick and not even be aware of it for a long time. Thankfully we have means of diagnosis that do not rely solely on what the patient is feeling.

What, do you go up to cancer patients and tell them they could cure themselves just by thinking about it?

[Malerin]

3, 4, 5, and 6 are all physical symptoms. As far as depression being diagnosed by how a patient feels, so what? The diagnosis for every single disease that doesn't have any visible physical symptoms starts with the patient describing to the doctor how he or she feels. This in no way proves that the disease does not have a physical cause. Sometimes a patient can be sick and not even be aware of it for a long time. Thankfully we have means of diagnosis that do not rely solely on what the patient is feeling.

What, do you go up to cancer patients and tell them they could cure themselves just by thinking about it?

How does this have any bearing on the claim "Anecdotal evidence is not evidence"? If you tell your doctor you feel X in location Y, that is evidence for them to do further testing. They're not going to throw you out of the office because you didn't bring lab results with you. I'm not claiming that things don't have physical causes (possibly they don't because I'm agnotic about materialism)- I'm claiming that anecdotal evidence IS evidence. We rely on it everyday (e.g., your wife significant other tells you to pick up some eggs on the way home. Do you check the fridge to verify their story :rolleyes:)

[athon]

So when you tell the doctor you feel depressed, you've lost weight recently, are having trouble sleeping, and are suicidal, their response is what? I don't believe it till you prove it? Please. Depression is diagnosed based on anecdotal accounts of how a patient feels and what they're experiencing

Non sequitor argument, I'm afraid.

Depression isn't an assessment on causation, but rather the reporting of a symptom. To compare this with NDE, I don't think anybody has a problem with agreeing that X people all reported a sensation. Based on this, I'd say the likelihood of them all lying is very, very low. Therefore something is causing them to all experience a sensation.

If that sensation was unpleasant, and a remedy was found that diminished that unpleasant sensation, then a doctor could recommend that remedy on the basis of the anecdote.

On the other hand, like NDE, there is no single, clear cause of depression. It is linked with many neurological systems which are still being investigated.

Anecdotal evidence is commonly used in court cases (eyewitness testimony), and psychology/psychiatry and any branch of medicine which deals with self-reporting would be useless without it. How do you think the whole field of NDE research began, if not for people telling about their experiences near the moment of death?

Again, anecdotes are evidence...just not necessarily for what you think.

For a person to say 'I experienced X', you can be moderately sure they experienced that. If they then interpret 'X' to mean something, e.g., 'I experienced the perception of a green man in my lounge = alien from other planet' or 'I experienced sensation of not being on the ground = I was actually flying', then we have zero evidence for the interpretation, while we have some value in the evidence of their account of experience.

Athon

[MattusMaximus]

How about this, Malerin?

Anecdotal evidence is really lousy evidence.

Feel better?

As to this statement...

Anecdotal evidence is commonly used in court cases (eyewitness testimony), and psychology/psychiatry and any branch of medicine which deals with self-reporting would be useless without it. How do you think the whole field of NDE research began, if not for people telling about their experiences near the moment of death?

Yes, and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence in court cases. Do you know how many innocent people in my home state (Illinois) have been wrongfully convicted of murder simply based upon eyewitness testimony? Answer: so many they shut down the damned capitol punishment system in this state. That's where an over-reliance on anecdote can get you.

Note, those same people were eventually released from death-row based not upon anecdote, but solid, verifiable, and objective evidence - DNA, for instance.

So let's say you're on trial for murder, and when push comes to shove, you'd feel comfortable with possibly being convicted on the basis solely of eyewitness testimony? You put that much value on anecdotal evidence? If the prosecution was offering only anecdotal evidence, would your respond in kind or would you go with actual physical evidence?

Now go back to burning your strawmen.

[Malerin]

How about this, Malerin?

Anecdotal evidence is really lousy evidence.

Feel better?

As to this statement...

No, because it's not true. If 20 independent eyewitnesses saw person X murder person Y, that's extremely strong evidence. Anecdotal evidence can be unreliable, but then so can physical evidence. Ever hear of Piltdown Man?

[arthwollipot]

Your forgetting one thing that meditating with out drugs or injuries can produce out of body also. Then there is the accidental soul travel that can happen either on the way to sleep or set of by external stimuli.
Those also seem to have a religious context to them.But they also have known physical explanations.

[Radrook]

The people were God's enemy?

They had declared themselves God's enemies just as the preflood people had. Our behavior either makes us friends or enemies of God. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Psalm 68:1
Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him.


According to Radrook. According to Genesis 11:6, it was because:

"...the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

Nothing about mandates or disorder. Ever try actually reading the book?


Obviously you aren't familiar with the mandate given Adam and Noah in Genesis are you? That's why you fail to notice that the people involved were violating that mandate. Actually, our disagreement isn't because you read and I don't. It's because you read and isolate and I read in context. Biblical context which must bear on the scripture and sheds light on it. Furthermore, your assumption just doesn't harmonize with God's attribute of almightiness. Instead you describe a fearful cringing God fearful that his creatures might enter his heaven and harm him. Sorry but that pathetic description is repeatedly contradicted by the rest of the Bible writers and is therefore wrong.


Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
God originally said to man after the Flood, "Replenish the earth." Man said to each other, "We are not going to scatter and replenish. We are going to get together and stay together and build a city and a tower so that we will never be scattered." ECT REBELLION against God's command. ://www.geocities.com/cobblestoneministries/Babel_The_Center_of_Unity.html


The people were trying to reach heaven by building a tower of mud bricks. God was concerned that they might succeed. Would you say that His concerns were well founded?

The ziggurat was to have a cubicle at its top where the god was supposed to present himself to the priest. That's the way they sought to reach into heaven, via contact with their supposed false god. The expressions God used in reference to their puny efforts were irony. A mockery of their naivete. God does laugh, you know?

Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire [a]
and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

[b]4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.


Concerns? An almighty God doesn't fear what puny man does.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


He sometimes expresses himself in those human terms so that you can understand as human understands because there is no other way for humans to understand besides the human way.

Psalm 103:14
For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.


Furthermore, the Bible tells us that to survive in heaven we need to be physically transformed and that God is the only one capable of transforming us.

1 Corinthians 15:49-51

49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,


Neither is his heaven described in the Bible as being within earth's thin atmosphere. Actually, not even within the heaven of heavens which is the biblical term for the cosmos.

2 Chronicles 6:18
But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!

So he couldn't have meant what you are supposing he meant.

Babel - The Center of Unity
http://www.geocities.com/cobblestoneministries/Babel_The_Center_of_Unity.html

[Dymanic]

Neither is his heaven described in the Bible as being within earth's thin atmosphere.In other words, "No, the people had not even the slightest chance of reaching heaven by building a tower of mud bricks".

Concerns? An almighty God doesn't fear what puny man does.So why bother sabotaging the project?

[Shalamar]

I KNOW I'm on Ignore... But I can't help myself.

Radrook, why are you still whipping out your bible, and using quotes from it as refutations? You said yourself that it doesn't count.



Psalm 68:1
Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him.

Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire [a]
and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

[b]4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.




THIS made me laugh though.

Concerns? An almighty God doesn't fear what puny man does.

GOD SMASH PUNY MAN!


Should I quote Radrook AGAIN to show how he said that one shouldn't use quotes from the bible? I think he needs a better way to make his arguments.

[Autolite]

"I was discussing Pascal's Wager the other day with someone, and after saying that I choose not to believe because of lack of evidence the person asked me what I would say if I was in heaven before God".

"Hey, how about some lunch? I'm buyin'".

[Belz...]

That lead me to think even further that Heaven, in the Christian way anyway, could very well be the worst place for a skeptic to be. If reality doesn't exist anymore, if the laws of physics don't apply, this means we can't really be sure about anything, or inversely, if after we're dead we're given knowledge about everything, so what's the use of keeping existing forever? What's there to do when you already know everything? Wouldn't that suck? Either way we're screwed, either we can't know anything, or we know too much.

Hell, we'd even know EXACTLY what the upcoming bit of bliss will be like. Talk about spoilers!

[Radrook]

In other words, "No, the people had not even the slightest chance of reaching heaven by building a tower of mud bricks".

So why bother sabotaging the project?

Because it went contrary to God's mandate to populate the earth not just one region of it as the builders planned. Also, the builder of it-king Nimrod, was in opposition to God. It would have been a center of false worship for all mankind.

Genesis 1
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Genesis 9
1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.


Genesis 11:
4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.



Please read the explanation at the website I provided a link to. It goes into greater detail.

[Darth Rotor]

Pardalis:

This Heaven and Hell thing, as I understand it, is in the presence of, or completely missing and the absence of, God. What is key to all this is that the physical body remains behind (unless you are Mary and Jesus, see Assumption and Resurrection/Ascension) and the spirit/soul arrives somewhere and somewhen. I have been advised more than once that God is unbound by time, and thus when we die, time as you and I experience it in the flesh is not applicable to the state of grace in Heaven. One simply is, and is thus free of the constraints of Time. That never made any sense to me until I read a set of fiction books by Robin Hobb, who is IIRC Catholic, or raised as one. Suddenly, what I'd been presented with previously clicked.

So, if you are not "with God" where/when are you? Well, somewhere/somewhen else. Presuming that sentience remains in this state, I suspect that the average atheist/skeptic (like the many I have met on this board) would find some way to amuse him/her self wherever and whenever that is. If it's in a lake of fire, without a physical body being there, studying the minute variations of the flame and lava would be a source of quite some interest, for example. And no distractions! :D One could even argue with Larsen over the flames for a long time. Wait, might that be Larsen's Heaven, and your Hell?

The assumption of suffering at that level assumes that those not in the state of Heaven, with God, deep in their heart of hears wish to be "with God" when life is ended. But what if one didn't give a flying fart? Then the absence of God isn't suffering, is it?

Since God leaves the path to him as conditional on the choice to take it, then provision for the rest is "somewhere/when" else. That "other condition" is assumed to be bad. Heck, with God knowing how wonderful being with God is (if yer gonna create a Universe, you might have the ego to match, eh?) of course God encourages his children to follow that path.

We can use a bit of a parent analogy here, if you like. You love your children, but they may not follow the path in life you set out for them. You still love them, even if they stray.

If those going to that other state are already not suffering by not being "with God, " then there'd be little suffering in the bodiless stage to not be "with God." For those in Heaven/With God, that other state would be as a default inaccessible anyway, as being with God precludes "not being with God."

A possible Hell for the not with God state is an eternity of conscious boredom. However, if this board of skeptics is any indication, if even two of those spirits in that state run across each other in the otherwhere/otherwhen, or commune in any way, the Larsen jokes would start almost immediately, as would an attempt to reach down to Sylvia Brown and screw with her through the ether! :D

For all we know, "not with God" is a torment of too much beer and pizza for eternity, whilst watching the Lions play on every TV set equivalent in the non physical state.

DR

[Ichneumonwasp]

They also interviewed over a hundred people. Sabom's anecdote was not the basis for the paper. Pam Reynold's case remains fascinating and controversial. There is another NDE case Hamilton talks about in Scalpel and Soul (body cooled, blood flow cut off to the brain). This is a very rarely done procedure, so not much data on it.







Slight correction...........body cooling and complete cardiac arrest with no blood flow to the brain is actually quite common for many cardiac procedures. There is plenty of data on it. It is less common for neurosurgeons to do this, but cardiothoracic surgeons do it frequently.

I also don't think Pam Reynold's case should be seen as all that controversial. Look at the timeline of events -- helps if you have medical training, of course -- but she apparently reported no sensations while her EEG was flatline. The things that she reported hearing in the OR occurred long before she was placed on bypass; and the other experience -- seeing the white light and her family -- would have occurred during the warming period. I'm not sure this is the sort of case anyone would really want to use to document dualism.

EEGs, by the way, do not go flat 10 seconds after total loss of blood flow. It takes one to three seconds after the heart stops before we see any discernable change, and it is usually 15 to 20 seconds, at least, before the EEG goes flat. In surgical cases, where the body is cooled, it takes many minutes -- dependeing on how the tech is doing it up to 20 minutes or more, but usually 5 minutes or so -- for the EEG to go flat.

[Ichneumonwasp]

This Heaven and Hell thing, as I understand it, is in the presence of, or completely missing and the absence of, God. What is key to all this is that the physical body remains behind (unless you are Mary and Jesus, see Assumption and Resurrection/Ascension) and the spirit/soul arrives somewhere and somewhen. I have been advised more than once that God is unbound by time, and thus when we die, time as you and I experience it in the flesh is not applicable to the state of grace in Heaven. One simply is, and is thus free of the constraints of Time. That never made any sense to me until I read a set of fiction books by Robin Hobb, who is IIRC Catholic, or raised as one. Suddenly, what I'd been presented with previously clicked.




If, when in heaven, we are not bound by time, then how is there any passage of time to speak of doing anything? Or, from another perspective -- look at this from the experience of a person dying -- if heaven is eternal, unchanging bliss (no passage of time) how is this experientially any different from the last microsecond of existence as the brain dies (if that last microsecond is a blissful experience)?

[MattusMaximus]

No, because it's not true. If 20 independent eyewitnesses saw person X murder person Y, that's extremely strong evidence. Anecdotal evidence can be unreliable, but then so can physical evidence. Ever hear of Piltdown Man?

Really? So if you were on a jury during a murder trial, you would vote the defendent guilty based solely upon eyewitness testimony? If so, you have extremely low standards of evidence and I hope you never do jury duty. Trials that result in wrongful convictions are full of jurors like yourself.

And if eyewitness testimony is so useful, then why is it that so many eyewitness accounts of UFOs (it's an alien spacecraft, etc) are found to be so dead wrong after the fact?

Hell, I had a guy tell me one time that when he visited a "haunted house" he witnessed a sandwich make itself right in front of his eyes (presumably it was made by a ghost). Since there was no one else present to refute his claim with an eyewitness account, are we to then assume that he was, by default, correct in his conclusion?

[Radrook]

Wow, seriously? I don't have to apologize?? Awesome. So I can even mock God in his face and it's ok anyway because I've already been deemed worthy of the heavenly reward? Cool. Can I also pee in his carpet and get laid with his wife?

Obviously if you have that trash attitude you aren't going to get in are you?

BTW

Is all this sarcastic crap necessary in order to get your point across? Obviously from your standpoint it is-isn't it. Which of course is your right up to a point and on my screen I am the one who sets that point.

[normdoering]

This online article (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-18.html) does a pretty good job of showing the weaknesses in it. One could always argue it is clearly a 'skeptic' rebuttal, but I have a hard time arguing with the reasoning in it, or the medical facts on it.

There certainly are serious problems with the evidence for NDEs. However, people resort Pascal's wager in other ways:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Pascals-Scare-Tactic

The stripped down and distorted version of the argument that usually pops up in amatuer debates between theists and atheists, isn't the version that was posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal in note 233 of his book, Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes on Christian apologetics. The original version is a bit longer and has some historical importance for people interested in probability theory and the philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.

The modern, stripped down and distorted version gets it wrong. It usually goes something like this: "Since you can't know if God exists, you should believe God exists anyway because then you'll get the rewards religion promises and if you're wrong and God doesn't exist then you haven't lost anything."

The problem with that distorted version of Pascal's Wager is that you have to be insane to make it work. Sane people do not decide to believe things because they want to believe them or because they find some advantage in believing them. Sane people reserve judgment until enough evidence is found to be convincing. If you want to trim Pascal's Wager down to essentials it would be better to say: "Since you can't know if God exists, you should act as if God existed anyway because then you'll get the rewards religion promises and if you're wrong and God doesn't exist then you haven't lost anything." That would be closer to what Pascal was saying and it's closer to what Scare Tactics' victims are doing.

"Acting as if" is not quite the same thing as believing, though it might lead to believing eventually. Pascal didn't tell people to just believe things, he told them to try and convince themselves. For example, Pascal wrote:

"Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process this will make you believe, and will dull you-will quiet your proudly critical intellect..."

There you go, all you have to do in order to believe is to act like you believe. Dab on the holy water, go to church, and "by a simple and natural process this will make you believe." Don't worry about if what you believe is real, this acting "will dull you" and "quiet your proudly critical intellect." Then the truth you can't really know won't matter.

Note how Pascal suggests that you "learn of those who have been bound like you... people who know the way which you would follow..." before telling you to go to church. He's talking about hanging around with believers. To a certain extent SciFi's show Scare Tactics illustrates just how easy it is to "believe" in crazy things if the conditions are right and one of the conditions happening on Scare Tactics is that you're being surrounded by others who seem to believe, or rather, who are acting like they believe, in some crazy ****. Fear, a kind of belief, is especially catching and you don't have to know why the other people are afraid to start feeling it yourself.

[Darth Rotor]

If, when in heaven, we are not bound by time, then how is there any passage of time to speak of doing anything? Or, from another perspective -- look at this from the experience of a person dying -- if heaven is eternal, unchanging bliss (no passage of time) how is this experientially any different from the last microsecond of existence as the brain dies (if that last microsecond is a blissful experience)?
Good question, and one I don't know the answer to. Might be that you're on to the answer.

How that squares with the whole Purgatory notion of Catholic Doctrine and the entire Jesus is coming back, and he's gonna be pissed is, well, clumsy. Contradictory even. The whole "waiting in line" thing based on the Return/Second Coming model of how it all plays out leaves Purgatory as that same brief-yet-eternal moment you just mentioned, in a state of being aware of being punished with the sentient sense of self. Not the kind of answer I think satisfies much of anyone, but the best I can puzzle out.

DR

[Malerin]

Slight correction...........body cooling and complete cardiac arrest with no blood flow to the brain is actually quite common for many cardiac procedures. There is plenty of data on it. It is less common for neurosurgeons to do this, but cardiothoracic surgeons do it frequently.

I also don't think Pam Reynold's case should be seen as all that controversial. Look at the timeline of events -- helps if you have medical training, of course -- but she apparently reported no sensations while her EEG was flatline. The things that she reported hearing in the OR occurred long before she was placed on bypass; and the other experience -- seeing the white light and her family -- would have occurred during the warming period. I'm not sure this is the sort of case anyone would really want to use to document dualism.

EEGs, by the way, do not go flat 10 seconds after total loss of blood flow. It takes one to three seconds after the heart stops before we see any discernable change, and it is usually 15 to 20 seconds, at least, before the EEG goes flat. In surgical cases, where the body is cooled, it takes many minutes -- dependeing on how the tech is doing it up to 20 minutes or more, but usually 5 minutes or so -- for the EEG to go flat.

Are you sure that blood flow is completely cut off to the brain in cardiac procedures? Why would they do that? My dad had a quadruple bypass, had his core temperature reduced, but bloodflow to the brain was never cut off. My understanding is that they have to cut off bloodflow to the brain to operate on the aneuryism.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Are you sure that blood flow is completely cut off to the brain in cardiac procedures? Why would they do that? My dad had a quadruple bypass, had his core temperature reduced, but bloodflow to the brain was never cut off. My understanding is that they have to cut off bloodflow to the brain to operate on the aneuryism.


Not talking about cardiac bypass but one of the ways that aortic arch repairs are/were performed. I don't keep up with all the ins and outs of the procedures since I no longer have to be involved in them, but it used to be that complete circulatory arrest was used with profound hypothermia and EEG monitoring. The surgery would not proceed until the EEG was flat. Hypothermia and heart lung bypass are used for CABGs and valve repairs without EEG monitoring (usually).

Nowadays bypasses with cannulation of the brachial or innominate artery are done, but from what I understand there are some who still use hypothermia with complete arrest.