Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 256. (Read 845650 times)

If she had written the Bible over and over, then her words would have for a fact been truth.

I believe that you have stated that the way to be blessed by God is to meditate upon God's Law day and night (Psalms 1). Is that correct?

And what prevents you from saying this same thing about the Phoenix Journals?

The fact is that this Grandmother managed to write a 200-page book EVERY 3 WEEKS FOR YEARS, hundreds of books in total.  How was this prodigious output, covering such a wide range of topics, possible?  Please do not be too quick to reject the truthful answer, that she scribed DIRECTLY for our Heavenly Father, exactly as stated.

The Bible was brought into being by God in His own way. It is wording that God uses to bring about salvation for those who hear or read it. This doesn't mean that they can't reject what they hear or read. It means that there is no other way to be saved than through what God works in the hearts of people, personally and individually, god to each person, regarding the salvation provided by Jesus.

This is a problem, it is true; it is called the "Content-Source Problem" and it is why each must discern for self and use all available resources to determine the truth, and then simply make a decision one way or the other. It may not be possible to experiment directly upon something originating from another dimension, but this does not mean that you cannot make conclusions about the likely truth of the message and the likely identity of the source.

Look at it this way.  There are very few people in the world who would follow the way of damnation and destruction if they understood that there was a way to peace and joy open to them. People don't believe because they don't want to believe.

The evidence is there. All you need do is Google words to the effect of "why the Bible is the Word of God" or "history of the writing of the Bible" and you will find all kinds of things that show that the Bible couldn't have happened.

I have seen no proof that shows that any Bible is completely true.

Your ancient book leaves much to be desired, for example it has confused everyone about "I and my father are one" when really there is NO NEED to be confused about this; Christ came to show us the way, he was not the "Son of God" and he could not "save" anyone because each soul must be responsible for saving self (Psalms 1).

Bible has all kinds of hidden messages, and it has been rewritten, and Paul's teachings were added, and you posit a hidden (occult) motive to explain why Jesus said "they say as much" at his trial. Is this really the unadulterated truth that you claim it is? God is open, the truth is laid bare in the Journals, and your only issue with them is that they contradict the doctrine of Paul. Like I said, Christian Gnosticism has an equal claim to authentic faith, having grown up alongside the mainstream, and the first Christians were merely Jews who believed that Emmanuel was the Jewish Messiah, and this is confirmed by modern scholarship on the subject.

Now, if you had said "investigate the teachings of Christ", I would have been able to agree with you, because that man taught goodness in accord with the Law and the golden rule; hard to disagree with that!

And what prevents you from saying this same thing about the Phoenix Journals?

It isn't the ability of repeating the science that is in question. The source of the info provided is the thing that is questionable hearsay, in every repeat.



EDIT: Imagine that a thousand people each found a bottle floating in from the ocean at the beach yesterday. And inside each bottle there was a message that said something to the effect of, " Help. The Titanic is sinking, and we are all about to be drowned. Please come and rescue us!"

We have the scientific technology to determine how old the paper of the messages is, and how old the glass bottles are. But we don't have the scientific methods to prove anything about whatever it is that proclaims the messages that the mediums get as the messages are proclaimed to the mediums themselves.

That may suffice if it were not possible to replicate these studies (#39, #41, and the AWARE study) but since they are repeatable, they qualify as science.

Actually, it does not suffice to cast doubt upon all of these researchers' methods (by way of attacking their integrity) in an attempt to discredit their observations. That is prejudice.

Now that we have proven scientifically that God exists, go the next step and investigate the Bible.

The things surrounding the coming into being of the Bible show that it is an impossible-to-exist book. The only way that it could exist as it is and as it has come about, is through the miraculous guidance of an all-powerful God. Same said for the universe and mankind.

Actually, it will satisfactorily suffice to reject all the claims, because nobody knows where the claims come from. All suggestions of where they come from are hearsay.

"Origin" has to do with things in this universe. People are all extremely familiar with "origin" because they are aware that they had one. God is so extremely much greater than mankind that, if He had an origin, the substance and meaning of it would be way beyond anything mankind could begin to comprehend in any way. In fact, God is so great beyond mankind that, to mankind, even if God did have an origin, God would not only seem eternal, but He WOULD be eternal in every way.

There was 1 verifiable result of veridical perception during a period when the brain absolutely could not function. What is the problem with that conclusion? I think it is remarkable, it definitely needs more study.
52 points support this idea.
The burden of proof is upon skeptics to show how the materialist paradigm can explain the facts surrounding NDE; you have not supplied any scientific evidence to back up your assertion that these stories are made up, indeed there is good science in point #52 and others that refutes this idea, so I do suggest that you first provide a hypothesis that actually fits the observations.

What is the "ability" you refer to?
The survival hypothesis does not propose a purpose or mechanism behind the personality transfer. It stands on its own as a scientific hypothesis without needing a purpose or mechanism.
If you are still confused, I suggest you read A Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation by Robert Almeder and other books and papers by this author.

Point #39 is valid because Stevenson's research is generally excellent and same goes for most reincarnation research; even a hardened skeptic recently admitted that this evidence was strong. Even Sam Harris made this admission about Stevenson: "Either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is going on".

Point #41: Regression during Hypnotherapy is valid evidence; The (5) main reason why at least some of these claims must be considered as evidence are outlined in the link; I am tired of copy-pasting everything from that page into this thread.

It simply will not do to reject all of these qualitative observations. What hypothesis would you use to explain them??

Just because you said so and some crackpots who get 1 possible result out of thousands?
Again, we don't do things for nothing: what purpose would such ability have? And no, nobody can recall anything, now we're moving goal posts to witchcraft scams - AKA paranormal activities... and if you go down that road then I've to assume Julius Caesar, Napoleon and Cleopatra had multiple souls, taken for the number of people they reincarnated in. 

Go and read the Phoenix Journals, starting with Journal #27.
You can also use the search feature on this page; very useful.

You don't understand God? Read the truth about God in the Journals!
I suggest that you print them out to avoid the EMF radiation coming from your computer.

It is possible to recall past lives. See points #39 and #41.
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html

It is unclear what you mean by "ability" and by what criteria it is "useless".

The evidence supports survival, and it refutes the humanist worldview. The idea that "you only live once" is useless because it has been falsified, same with the idea that Man is the founder of all knowledge.

Yes, but what purpose would that serve?

You can't recall anything from who or what you were! Karma punishments?! The whole sense of justice requires the convicted to know why he was convicted, otherwise makes no sense at all.

Or is just like QA said; God's soul supplier at AliBaba went out of stock so he recycles and refurnish souls?

But I've to say that would be fun if you could recall your past lives, and we won't be doing this discussion over far-fetched fabricated results by people who saw what they want to see in the first place, we would have empirical evidence.
Just imagine, two US soldiers during Iraq invasion:
-Man, when I was Abdul Muhammad I used to take black coffee in that corner right there. That other guy there - shouts ALI! - was my cousin, he can't recognize me now.
 

Surely the references are more valuable than the websites themselves. Why not critique the references? Oh, I see that you have critiqued one reference of mine; let's see if your critique stands up to the evidence...

What does it prove?
This proves that indeed there was 1 verifiable result of veridical perception during a period when the brain absolutely could not function. What is the problem with that conclusion?
Oh, I see you claim that the patient is "good at making up stories"? How would that work, exactly?
I suppose that the woman with the OBE in point #9 was simply "good at guessing a five-digit number"?
And then for points #19, #20, you would presumably claim that these people were good at "making up" valid scientific theories and predictions? Same for #27?

These controls were put in place in order to eliminate the possibility of making up stories, effective methods were used so it is highly surprising that even 1 case was verified, so it cannot be dismissed, but still more research needs to be done. I am glad we can agree that this is an example of good science.


Reincarnation is plausible due to the evidence of veridical perception and veridical memories in many forms of experience; 52 points summarize the evidence gained from experience; it is totally dishonest to dismiss all qualitative data with the "making up stories" hypothesis because it is a totally inadequate explanation, it does not fit the NDE. There is even a cool study from PLOS ONE referenced in point #52 which provides strong evidence that these experiences are not made up. I suggest you dig further into these scientific references and consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival while being open to new paradigms.

It is also important to mention that NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone, that they change people unlike hallucinations and dreams, and that the skeptical theories surrounding NDEs have many flaws. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon skeptics to show how the materialist paradigm can explain the facts surrounding NDE; you have not supplied any scientific evidence to back up your assertion that these stories are made up, indeed there is good science in point #52 and others that refutes this idea, so I do suggest that you first provide a hypothesis that actually fits the observations, then you can gather evidence to support this (perhaps by doing replication studies).

This might be relevant to the discussion: http://www.youtube.com/v/p7UwpIV2MqY&fs

I just have to pose the question of, what is the origin of your God?

If you decide to say something around the lines of, "He is eternal," then I'd like to propose that if this in fact is true, then God must be an atheist.

No, it makes perfect sense. God bought his soul maker from alibaba and they ran out of stock and couldn't get any more. He has to reuse souls but wants you to believe his soul maker is still in perfect working order so he makes the reincarnated souls boot up to a fresh clean slate every time.

Hey, it makes as much sense and any of the other religious drivel everyone believes!