A few cells in a Petri-dish

[Freddy]

Not at all. Did you watch the video? It’s been posted for what 10 mins…come on friend. You complained that evidence provided that someone’s near death experience was real was a joke”oh they saw a red sock”. I just linked you the greater part of what they do which is much much more. Take a loook for yourself!

It’s a run of the mill nde. Nothing special. They are a dime a dozen. A lot concerning hypoxia which she obviously suffered from. In very cold water. The stories of people being revived from long term immersion in cold water are legion. And the results of hypoxia are very well known.

And she is a surgeon and she said she literally died? Good grief.

And what you experience can be common - seeing dead relatives etc. But as far as religious experiences go, what you see is what you believe:

‘In one study carried out in 1985, the experiences of 16 Asian Indians had been compared with those of Americans and it had been found that the Indians had often encountered Yamraj, the Hindu king of the dead, while the Americans had not.’ http://www.horizonresearch.org/near.../religion-culture-and-near-death-experiences/

 

[fide]

C’mon, fide. I’m just having breakfast. This is a discussion for late at night with a glass of good malt staring into the camp fire!

It can be hard to know how to do it, but the Lord teaches through St. Paul,
Eph 5:15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise,
Eph 5:16 making the most of the time, because the days are evil.

Your reference to “my Truth” was a grenade tossed into the camp fire, so forgive me if I got too serious too quickly. These are dangerous times, and the subjectivism/relativism/pluralism cocktail being sipped in many conversations in many cultures, it seems, reveals the danger. The “dictatorship of relativism,” of which Card. Ratzinger warned, is only growing. It is important, I think, for anyone even close to attraction to such beliefs, to hear the caution: such is hazardous to your health, and life. Human persons were designed and formed and created for absolute, eternal Truth. Only misery awaits persons and cultures drawn away from their vocation to God.

To seek Him! To seek Truth! There lies the path for us.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

C’mon, fide. I’m just having breakfast. This is a discussion for late at night with a glass of good malt staring into the camp fire!

It can be hard to know how to do it, but the Lord teaches through St. Paul,
Eph 5:15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise,
Eph 5:16 making the most of the time, because the days are evil.

Your reference to “my Truth” was a grenade tossed into the camp fire, so forgive me if I got too serious too quickly. These are dangerous times, and the subjectivism/relativism/pluralism cocktail being sipped in many conversations in many cultures, it seems, reveals the danger. The “dictatorship of relativism,” of which Card. Ratzinger warned, is only growing. It is important, I think, for anyone even close to attraction to such beliefs, to hear the caution: such is hazardous to your health, and life. Human persons were designed and formed and created for absolute, eternal Truth. Only misery awaits persons and cultures drawn away from their vocation to God.

To seek Him! To seek Truth! There lies the path for us.

That’s what I meant by your truth (and I appreciate that a lot of others claim it as well). But what if I say I’ve tried your truth and found it wanting?

I’ve a feeling that your attitude would not be: ‘Fair enough. Good luck on your search’. It would be more along the lines of ‘You’re not looking hard enough’.

 

[Abrosz]

I just did, why did you ignore it?

Huh? Do you really think that an anecdote is “evidence”? The number of anecdotal evidences for the Loch Ness monster is large, some even present a video. The same for aliens creating mysterious crop circles. Do you believe them?

But if you confuse objective evidence with anecdotal hearsay, then I have to say good bye.

 

[Servant31]

@Abrosz

I’ll then ask again. What evidence do you want? And we both know “soul-o-meter” isn’t a response.

 

[Servant31]

How is that run of the mill? You criticized the worldly evidence of knowing that they couldn’t have otherwise known… by saying “oh they had a big experience and then come back talking about worldly stuff”.

I addressed that by saying they completely changed their life and spent a huge amount time and energy saying a profound message (consistent with someone who would have had an experience like this), and you then said “oh run of them mill NDEs”. If you keep moving the goalpost you will never be satisfied. But that’s not being objective.

Writing books, completely changing your life from bad to good, reducing your income, becoming a pastor, speaking around the country, doing mission trips usually with a lot of ridicule… that’s all done for fun or something…

All to fool you… lol sorry friend but I have a tough time getting there.

 

[Abrosz]

I’ll then ask again. What evidence do you want? And we both know “soul-o-meter” isn’t a response.

Actually it is a serious response, expressed in a somewhat playful form. But I will elaborate for you.

1. The soul is alleged to be something that exists objectively and ontologically.
2. It is not an axiomatic proposition.
3. As such one must present an objective epistemological method, which will allow the skeptic to perform the proposed steps and come to the conclusion that there is a “soul”.
4. Of course first it is necessary to provide a rational definition for it. Not some meaningless “animating principle”.
5. Moreover, it needs to be able to separate the different types of souls.

No anecdotal “evidence” can perform these requirements.

 

[fide]

That’s what I meant by your truth (and I appreciate that a lot of others claim it as well). But what if I say I’ve tried your truth and found it wanting?

I’ve a feeling that your attitude would not be: ‘Fair enough. Good luck on your search’. It would be more along the lines of ‘You’re not looking hard enough’.

Many people reject even the search for a truth that includes this:

Lk 9:23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Lk 9:24 For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.
Lk 9:25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?

So if you are looking for yourself in the “truth” that you want to find, then certainly a path that calls for self-denial, even to loss of life as you know it, even to a cross, then certainly you would find my suggestion “wanting”! A strong prerequisite for this path is a love for, a longing for, truth - no matter what the cost. But even prior to that, of course, is the belief that truth itself exists. And this culture is trying its best to be as far away and free from any possible pre-existent and absolute Truth, as they can get. The only Jesus who is, is definitely not “politically correct”.

But no, I would never wish anyone “good luck” - I don’t belief in luck.

 

[Servant31]

My friend if it’s serious I would reccommend you then don’t put argumentative terms into the description “meaningless”

Not some meaningless “animating principle”.

Anecdotal evidence often is used as the initial step in scientific exploration. A patient comes in with a complaint of pain or another malady. There may or may not be measurable physiological signs present, such as elevated protein, WBC counts, or increased body temperature… but the initial evidence is as you would describe “anecdotal”.

Planets existed long before our ability to see them. Astronomers could eventually, but the exploration came first. If we say “astronomy is simply anecdotal evidence” after all only small percentage of the population reports these things. Then the exploration never begins in the first place. This was also long before anyone could define exactly what a planet is. There was certainly no epistemological metholodogy to determine it, there was certainly no differential definition.

• As such one must present an objective epistemological method, which will allow the skeptic to perform the proposed steps and come to the conclusion that there is a “soul”.
• Of course first it is necessary to provide a rational definition for it. Not some meaningless “animating principle”.
• Moreover, it needs to be able to separate the different types of souls.

Due to the above stated I reject the notion that I must provide you with these three things. Whether or not one believes stars exist they do, irregardless of anyone’s ability to prove it with evidence satisfying to you personally. Evidence exits but you have chosen to reject it as insufficient.

I wish you good luck on your life’s journey, and we can part ways having to agree to disagree. Best regards, good will to your future endeavors,
Serv

 

[Abrosz]

My friend if it’s serious I would reccommend you then don’t put argumentative terms into the description “meaningless”

When I say “meaningless”, it means meaningless for me. I am always willing to learn new things.

Anecdotal evidence often is used as the initial step in scientific exploration.

Sure. Just like imagination or fantasy. First step, YES. but as long as it stays there, it does not help furthering our knowledge.

Due to the above stated I reject the notion that I must provide you with these three things.

No, the word “must” is inapplicable. It was YOU, who asked ME, what would I need to accept the concept of the soul. I merely answered you.

Evidence exits but you have chosen to reject it as insufficient.

I would reject anecdotal or hearsay “evidence” (when it comes to assert some ontologically existing reality), no matter what the subject might be. YMMV.

I wish you good luck on your life’s journey, and we can part ways having to agree to disagree. Best regards, good will to your future endeavors,

I can reciprocate these good wishes!

 

[Freddy]

How is that run of the mill? You criticized the worldly evidence of knowing that they couldn’t have otherwise known… by saying “oh they had a big experience and then come back talking about worldly stuff”.

I addressed that by saying they completely changed their life and spent a huge amount time and energy saying a profound message (consistent with someone who would have had an experience like this), and you then said “oh run of them mill NDEs”. If you keep moving the goalpost you will never be satisfied. But that’s not being objective.

Writing books, completely changing your life from bad to good, reducing your income, becoming a pastor, speaking around the country, doing mission trips usually with a lot of ridicule… that’s all done for fun or something…

All to fool you… lol sorry friend but I have a tough time getting there.

I think you are confusing whether someone who has had an nde actually believed it with whether it actually happened.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s what I meant by your truth (and I appreciate that a lot of others claim it as well). But what if I say I’ve tried your truth and found it wanting?

I’ve a feeling that your attitude would not be: ‘Fair enough. Good luck on your search’. It would be more along the lines of ‘You’re not looking hard enough’.

Many people reject even the search for a truth that includes this:

Lk 9:23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Lk 9:24 For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.
Lk 9:25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?

So if you are looking for yourself in the “truth” that you want to find, then certainly a path that calls for self-denial, even to loss of life as you know it, even to a cross, then certainly you would find my suggestion “wanting”! A strong prerequisite for this path is a love for, a longing for, truth - no matter what the cost. But even prior to that, of course, is the belief that truth itself exists. And this culture is trying its best to be as far away and free from any possible pre-existent and absolute Truth…

Truth with a capital T? No, it doesn’t exist.

What I am looking for, and have been for quite some time, is understanding. And I feel that I’m some way along the track. Enough to realise that there’s a lot I don’t know. And enough to realise that a lot of people are on the wrong track entirely.

But I dont evangelise. I dont proselytise. This is a one man trip. I don’t need to convince anyone that they’re heading in the wrong direction. Why? Well, I guess the journey is what’s important, not the destination.

 

[fide]

Why? Well, I guess the journey is what’s important, not the destination.

If the journey is all you can believe in, then you have little choice except to make the best of it. The criteria for “best” become relevant - and significant. I hope you choose wisely, the morality on the journey. If you do, you may well discover the destination.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Why? Well, I guess the journey is what’s important, not the destination.

If the journey is all you can believe in, then you have little choice except to make the best of it. The criteria for “best” become relevant - and significant. I hope you choose wisely, the morality on the journey. If you do, you may well discover the destination.

If you’re right and I’m wrong but we both travel wisely, then maybe we’ll arrive at the destination together.

 

[Servant31]

So then are you saying that it didn’t happen and they only believe something fictional? I’m sorry but I’m not following your reasoning.

 

[fide]

If you’re right and I’m wrong but we both travel wisely, then maybe we’ll arrive at the destination together.

That is entirely possible. The Lord threw a lifejacket to me, when I knew not what to ask - so I know He can save anyone! (no offense intended to anyone but me…)

As our friend Jesse Jackson once said, “Keep hope alive!”

 

[Abrosz]

So then are you saying that it didn’t happen and they only believe something fictional? I’m sorry but I’m not following your reasoning.

Nothing surprising about it. Innumerable people believed the Geocentric universe. Also believed that illnesses (especially epilepsy) are caused by demons. Also that the brain is just the organ to cool the blood - after all Aristotle cannot be wrong!

There are st least two problems with NDE. One is that NDE is not death. Another one that it cannot be examined in controlled studies.

 

[Freddy]

So then are you saying that it didn’t happen and they only believe something fictional?

Yes…

 

[Servant31]

Ok, well that’s your choice to believe or disbelieve. However I would encourage you to look broadly. Scientific evidence can sometimes be the last pillar on the bridge. I’m a scientific person myself, and science is great but it’s not always the entire story, especially when It comes to spiritual things. Best regards mate.

 

[MPat]

Ours are meant to be rational.

Yes.

But that is clearly fatal for your “explanation”. You claim:

Proposed when we thought we were separate from the rest of creation. Before we knew that we were an accident of the evolutionary process. So we needed something to differentiate us from the rest of the animals so it was considered that that might be a soul. Something that endows us with ‘being human’. And because the corporeal body dies and decays it needed to be eternal.

So, you claim that the goal was to differentiate humans from animals, and, because of that, people invented something that animals also had (although somewhat different)? And the goal was to make that “something” immortal - and, because of that, people invented something that is mortal for animals?

It is not just that you have nothing to support this story. It is bad even as a fictional story. It has severe plot holes.

And, to repeat: why is the explanation that you do not understand what a soul is supposed to be “unacceptable” to you?

For, you know, the reasonable answer to that suggestion would have included showing a bit more curiosity…

You mean that you have the authority to prescribe what the experimenter should decide? That the experimenter is not allowed to bring the development to the conclusion he wishes?

No. I meant that if you want to claim that you use our definition, you have to actually use it. Whole. Not just the part you like.

And our definition depends on conditions most suitable for development of the subject (in this case, the embryo).

Researcher wanting to terminate that development might be a condition most suitable for him getting funding, but it is not most suitable for development of the embryo.

“We happen to believe” is not an argument.

In this case it is a statement pointing out that our opponent does not know what he is arguing against.

Any time that you develop a soul-o-meter, which will show “no soul” or “material soul” or “immortal soul”, you will be able to demonstrate the existence of a soul. Go ahead and do it. You will receive a Nobel prize at the successful conclusion.

That is not an answer.

By the way, while you mentioned Nobel Prize in order to mock, it is actually a real scientific problem. One partial “soul-o-meter” (if that’s the name you want) was used in Viking program in 1976.

For, you see, “detecting soul” is actually the same as “detecting life”…