Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

There are two problems with the questions you pose.1)They involve science not being able to figure something out and then drawing a conclusion from that.Science does not draw conclusions from a lack of evidence, only from positive evidence.2)There is no reason to conclude Godidit or any supernatural cause to any question science currently cannot answer.Since we are human and imperfect, and science is a human endeavor, it is quite possible that nobody will ever think of a solution for some problem. It may also be that the evidence we need to understand something, such as the origins of the universe, are just lost to time, or humans simply will never have the capacity or intelligence to comprehend it fully.Just because we do not understand something, and may never understand it, does not mean that any supernatural means must be invoked.It simply means that we do not understand.

quote:

---

Only the difference is - that these events (NDE's)are inherently supernaturalistic and not invoked.

---

No, you are missing the point.Near-death experiences are not inherently supernatural.The parts we understand about them are explainable by natural means.The parts we are unclear on are parts we do not understand.Plugging Godidit into the parts we do not understand is the fallacy of God of the Gaps, mike.It could be the case that the parts we do not understand have a natural cause that we do not understand, and may never understand.Just because we do not understand something does not mean that it doesn't have a purely natural cause.

quote:

---

The only conclusion which seems to be plausible, is that there is life after death, as the patients are brain-dead at the time and therefore we aren't invoking anything that they aren't already claiming.

---

Are you positive that these people are brain dead? Or, had only their hearts and breathing stopped and they were being brought back?I don't think you can say exactly when these near death experiences are happening, anyway, because it isn't like the people experiencing the phenomena are aware of the time, and any observers have no idea what is being cognitively experienced by them, either.

quote:

---

So if - as you say, we will never have an answer, why do you ideologically claim that God/supernatural can't be that answer,

---

I don't say that, and never have.Science cannot tell us if God is the cause. If you would like to insert God into that gap, be my guest.

quote:

---

or that it is invoked?

---

The invocation of "Godidit" into a gap in our knowledge is a logical fallacy that you should be extremely familiar with by now, mike.

quote:

---

It sounds like you just dismiss these claims because of stubborn pre-conception and atheistic inclinations.

---

Well, there must be a problem with your hearing.

quote:

---

If someone said that ligtning was because of God - then that would be invoking Goddidit. But when someone meets God how are we invoking him? Is he not already in the picture?

---

Let's say I am able to stick an electrode in your brain without your knowledge and I stimulate a particular part of your brain. You suddenly have a deeply profound religious experience in which you feel connected with the divine.Your explanation of this experience is that you were in the presence of God.My explanation is that I tweaked your brain to induce a particular emotional state.Just because you have a powerful emotional experience doesn't mean that the experience has any basis in reality.Just ask any schizophrenic.

quote:

---

Isn't "God did it" pretty much the SOP since ancient times?

---

Absolutely.

God is not a "simple" explanation, God is a "simplistic" explanation. A "simple" explanation makes few untested assumptions. A "simplistic" explanation is so unspecified that there's nothing to test. Occam stated that explanations should not "posit unnecessary entities". In other words, if A,B and C explain all the available evidence, there is no need to explain the evidence with "A,B,C and D".Occam did not say at all that all explanations must be simple, or that simpler explanations that lack explanatory power are to be preferred.Indeed, there's no reason at all to think that all the phenomena of the universe have a "simple" explanation. Science often deals with great complexity, and "Godidit" works in practice as simply a way of avoiding trying to understand this complexity. Actually you're right, Godidit does answer many questions. More importantly, it answers all possible questions, even logically contradictory ones.Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?Godidit.Why is the expansion of the universe NOT accelerating?Godidit.Any explanation that can explain ALL possibilities, and is contradicted by none, is no explanation at all. What is your evidence that NDE's occur simultaneously with brain death? That is, assuming you have cases of brain death and NDEs occuring in the same person, how do you know WHEN the NDE occurred?

quote:

---

Wow, I find it amazing how you think God would be so incapable pertaining to his own creation.

---

I've made no claims whatsoever regarding God's capabilities.

quote:

---

If it got past you, my point is that it's NOT that it is just a simple explanation.

---

No, it is a simplistic explanation.It is so unspecified and vague that it's assumptions cannot be tested.

quote:

---

It's that the explanation is an incredibly good one.

---

No, it is the opposite of a good explanation.Please explain how "Godidit" will lead to better understanding of various phenomena.

quote:

---

I have shown this with my Hypothesis of consciousness - which shows just how logical and plausible God is, as an intelligent conscious agency of order.

---

What are the potential falsifications for your hypothesis?What evidence, if found, would falsify your hypothesis?

quote:

---

Multiple big bangs are unnecessary entities, multiple orgasms may not be.

​

No seriously, one big bang is A, two Big bangs is B, and infinitely so.

​

Why? Because it's only invoked because of numbers. It's only invoked because they know that chance needs many numbers in order to work. So you invoke all that - or one singular explanation, that is far more plausible - that a Creator fine-tuned the universe.

---

But your "explanation" that "a Creator fine-tuned the universe" is neither explanatory nor falsafiable.

quote:

---

Well, Ian McCormack, whom was stung by the box jellyfish - recalled his time of death because he said he fell asleep (gave up), and this coincided with his time of death also - as he was taken to the morgue. He then thought he wole up in a dark room but couldn't find any walls. What's certain is that he died, and that his brain was therefore not conscious enough to induce anything other than gaseous emmisions.

---

Nothing you say here indicates that McCormack's NDE happened simultaneously, or after, brain death.Actually, nothing in that account mentions any medical person reporting any reading of brain activity at all, so all we are left with is a person's own subjective account while he was under the influence of a neurotoxin.Mike, what you are indulging in is the God of the Gaps fallacy. You point to the gaps in our knowledge of brain activity surrounding death, and highly speculative cosmological hypothese and conclude that because science doesn't have all the answers, your personal conception of a single all-powerful, omnipresent God must be present and active in those places.Have you considered that there might be bajillions and bajillions of individual gods which are each responsible for a single particle of matter, and that there are as many gods as there are particles in the universe?That fits with the evidence as well as your one God, and explains just as well.