Arno Allan Penzias (born 26 April 1933) is an American physicist, radio astronomer and Nobel laureate in physics who is co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology.
Arno Penzias believed that his research in astronomy showed that the universe exists as a result of a supernatural plan.
From Cosmoquotes:
"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_penziasYes, Arno Allan Penzias was Jewish, he believed in God, he also believed Jesus was not Messiah and a real Messiah ought to come one day and save us all from evil. He was raised Jewish, no scientific research could change his mind set, his dogmatic view of the world and it didn't really matter. He found traces of the Big Bang and he believed in God. The God thing remained a belief even when he said it might be a supernatural plan. The difference between him and Badecker, for example, is he didn't tell the world he found the proof for God, because he didn't. But the most important thing is that it is irrelevant that this physicist believes or not in God. He wasn't alone, Robert Woodrow Wilson was the co-discoverer, he did not believe in a God. Does that mean anything? No. The founder of the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and he strongly believed this might collapse religion. The pope told him there would be no such thing, he could make it be a dogma in which everyone would have to believe in. Did it matter that he was a catholic priest? Did that change the truth of the theory? No, it did not. Truth acts the same everywhere, scientific discoveries are the same everywhere because they carry truth, based on evidence, on proof. However, something that does not act the same everywhere is religion, the one claiming to hold the truth.
There you have a difference between religion and truth. What do you call something that does not act like truth and is not the same everywhere? Well, atheism is a position that does not act like truth
It certainly cannot clarify the evidence of survival research; where is the explanation for all 100 proofs that I gave? Survival is apparently a fact of reality and many lines of evidence unite in establishing this. I already proved that atheism is impossible to reconcile with the evidence.
Furthermore,
Are all atheists rational? If so then they would reject all spiritual thinking. But this position is not supported by the evidence.
Since there is scientific evidence of Survival it suggests that all humanists are wrong about their core belief that "you only live once".
Good reading about survival evidence:
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-supportable-evidence-to-life-after-death-and-even-GodI am sorry, atheism does not claim moral laws or to know exactly what is the cause of the existence, therefore it acts as truth by admitting the lack of knowledge. Religion does not admit to that, it claims to know precisely who created us, why and when. Of course not all atheists are rational since not all people are rational but that doesn't affect our subject with anything. As for the link you have provided, my dear friend, the first comment says absolutely everything about it. It simply explains to you why NDEs are not scientifically valid proofs of the after life or God because of the lack of information. Maybe one day, science will be able to track down and measure these NDEs and will find a clear answer, whatever that answer would it be. But until then, they are not considered proof for near death experience or God.
Actually NDEs and reincarnation cases as well as other related phenomena can be considered to be objective experiences. The lack of quantitative methods does not prevent one from concluding that survival is real, I conclude that survival is the simplest explanation for the totality of the evidence based on over 100 points and cases, if you have an open mind then you will look into them and see for yourself.
I'm sorry, I believe you have an authority problem. You may decide for yourself whatever the fuck you want, that's why it's called a belief. However, the fact that you believe the testimony of people who experienced NDEs proves afterlife and God does not mean it actually does and the rest of the world, including people who research this profesionally must listen to you and must believe the same as you. Scientists have concluded it is not enough, some of these scientists are also religious. You can believe whatever, they are not evidence, case closed.
So basically you accept the beliefs of scientists as authority? I do not see specifically why you reject the testimony of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Anthony Flew, both famous skeptics; what specifically would refute the evidence that convinced these men? Do you even have an argument that addresses facts or is it mere speculation? What about the fact that skeptical arguments against NDE are invalid? You have the burden of proving that survival has been ruled out yet you present no evidence. On the other hand is a vast wealth of evidence and documented cases with physical evidence included, all of it suggesting the survival of the personality. You act as if there is no physical evidence being presented and yet there are many varied phenomena which are very hard to explain precisely because of that physical evidence!
It is not evidence from various reasons. Testimony is not really scientific evidence, it can be part of, but you need to supervise what is happening to the subject, or at least understand why and how it is happening. Now, to answer your stupid question, when scientists decide something is not enough to become evidence in a scientific research, of course I accept their words instead of listening to a guy on a forum or some folks on a blog. That is why they are called scientists, because they do the research, dumbass. As for the 'burden of proving', no I do not have it, you actually do. I told you specifically where to look at in the link you provided and now you ask me to prove it to you? You are slightly becoming a Badecker, not reading replies and saying the same shit times and times again. Read, analyze, then talk.
You make the claim that all the evidence is based on testimonies, that is not true. As far as supervising the subject, what about when the CIA tested one psychic and found his telekinetic abilities to be genuine?? This already proves that physical matter can be acted upon at a distance by the mind, the next step is to accept that minds can survive physical death, i.e. the survival hypothesis.
Famous scientists and skeptics did supervise parapsychological research, I posted that link many times.
I posted over 100 points of evidence many of which involve physical evidence. If you have an open mind then you can read and analyze all the cases and the physical evidence which supports the survival hypothesis. There is even neurological evidence indicating that NDE is an experience "at least as real" as waking reality.
You do not give an accurate representation of the evidence, it is biased to say that there is not enough evidence; scientism is obviously a bias that works against parapsychological research but that bias does not excuse you from evaluating the evidence presented; over 100 points were presented and many of these have been thoroughly researched, reviewed, and debated, and do include physical evidence; indeed, much of the argument for survival stands on physical evidence yet you still insist that it is completely anecdotal. I think it is you who is posting the same stuff here when you should be reading the evidence; it is fairly straightforward to evaluate physical evidence, and I posted a lot of it, much to your consternation.
To be clear, survival is a simple explanation for the evidence, skeptical explanations usually involve trickery but this seems implausible given the circumstances and number of cases. Prove me wrong!
Over 100 points, horace; these points prove my argument, I doubt that you can plausibly explain them without survival. These points are summaries of evidence and primary sources as well as scholarly articles.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18891891
