The Bible code
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
when I taught Sunday School to 5-7 yo kiddos (I was 26-35 then), they always guessed that i was
either 12 or 70...
either 12 or 70...
A
You stated you'd like to see Christians "follow you into reason" but I haven't seen you exhibit much of it. You are not simply composed of matter but you are also a spirit whom will enter dimensions apart from this material universe upon the death of your mortal body where you will be judged by God. Time is running out for you grandpa and that slight shiver of unease belies what presently awaits you should that happen now; however, as long as life lasts the door of repentance is never closed. So far, you've made the wrong choice. You can choose to make a better one.
λέγει γάρ Καιρῷ δεκτῷ ἐπήκουσά σου καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σωτηρίας ἐβοήθησά σοι· ἰδοὺ νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἰδοὺ νῦν ἡμέρα σωτηρίας·
How I found God and peace with my atheist brother: PETER HITCHENS traces his journey back to Christianity | Daily Mail Online
You are right. Many of them have no sense of age, but there is one sign that is more telling. Occasionally one of them in the past would slip and call me dad. Now when they make that mistake they call me grandpa.
Did I say that? I suppose it's possible, but if I did it was not in this thread. I'm happy you are paying attention though.
If by my not showing much reason you simply mean that I don't believe in God, that's one thing, but if you actually have in mind something I once said about God, then I'd like to discuss it with you. Were you just making a general comment or did you actually have something in mind?
I believe I am composed only of matter. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary, but if you think you've got a substantial argument that might change my mind I'd like to know about it.
I think you believe we will take our memories and personalities with us into the next life, at least those of us who believe the requisite things to gain admittance to paradise; but I have not seen any evidence that our memories will survive the demise of the brain. Think of those suffering from advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease. If memories and personalities are attached to the soul then why should a disease that disrupts the physical pathways of the brain produce memory loss and disrupt the personality?
Sooner than you know.
A creative comment, but not one based on knowledge. You are mistaken. I am experiencing no unease. You should retract this particular statement as you don't want to go about making any false claims about another that other members are likely to read. I wouldn't want anyone to get a false impression regarding my state of mind.
I can see you've read Peter Hitchens, so have I, but I must advise you his experiences as an atheist were quite unlike mine. It was unease that brought him back to the fold. Perhaps you think all atheists experience this same sense of apprehension?
I am not guided by faith, only by reason. I have searched diligently for a reason to believe in a deity. I haven't found one. AOK, faith does seem to be a requisite for belief as there does not appear to be any actual evidence for God's existence.
Our own existence, or that of the universe, does not prove God's exist as one cannot rule out the possibility that science has the answers. Then there is always that really remote possibility that the universe and life were created instead my Marduk or some other deity. So even if you don't accept the findings of science there are always other supernatural explanations to discount. So, our own existence is only evidence of God for those who already believe in God.
I have not examined every single biblical prophecy, but the ones I have looked closely at seem not to support any of the claims being made for them by Christians. I know that many people accept prophecy, but it really makes me wonder with what frame of mind they are reading them as the assertions seem so blatantly erroneous to me.
Aside from the presence of ourselves in the universe and prophecy what other supports are there for belief? I’d really like to know.
I read his book The Rage Against God. I found the book interesting but realized as atheists that he and I had very little in common. What drove him to atheism was not what took me there and what brought him back to belief was absent in me.
I hadn’t seen this essay by Peter Hitchens. I look forward to reading it. Thank you.
If by my not showing much reason you simply mean that I don't believe in God, that's one thing, but if you actually have in mind something I once said about God, then I'd like to discuss it with you. Were you just making a general comment or did you actually have something in mind?
I believe I am composed only of matter. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary, but if you think you've got a substantial argument that might change my mind I'd like to know about it.
I think you believe we will take our memories and personalities with us into the next life, at least those of us who believe the requisite things to gain admittance to paradise; but I have not seen any evidence that our memories will survive the demise of the brain. Think of those suffering from advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease. If memories and personalities are attached to the soul then why should a disease that disrupts the physical pathways of the brain produce memory loss and disrupt the personality?
Sooner than you know.
A creative comment, but not one based on knowledge. You are mistaken. I am experiencing no unease. You should retract this particular statement as you don't want to go about making any false claims about another that other members are likely to read. I wouldn't want anyone to get a false impression regarding my state of mind.
I can see you've read Peter Hitchens, so have I, but I must advise you his experiences as an atheist were quite unlike mine. It was unease that brought him back to the fold. Perhaps you think all atheists experience this same sense of apprehension?
I am not guided by faith, only by reason. I have searched diligently for a reason to believe in a deity. I haven't found one. AOK, faith does seem to be a requisite for belief as there does not appear to be any actual evidence for God's existence.
Our own existence, or that of the universe, does not prove God's exist as one cannot rule out the possibility that science has the answers. Then there is always that really remote possibility that the universe and life were created instead my Marduk or some other deity. So even if you don't accept the findings of science there are always other supernatural explanations to discount. So, our own existence is only evidence of God for those who already believe in God.
I have not examined every single biblical prophecy, but the ones I have looked closely at seem not to support any of the claims being made for them by Christians. I know that many people accept prophecy, but it really makes me wonder with what frame of mind they are reading them as the assertions seem so blatantly erroneous to me.
Aside from the presence of ourselves in the universe and prophecy what other supports are there for belief? I’d really like to know.
I read his book The Rage Against God. I found the book interesting but realized as atheists that he and I had very little in common. What drove him to atheism was not what took me there and what brought him back to belief was absent in me.
I hadn’t seen this essay by Peter Hitchens. I look forward to reading it. Thank you.
Your link turns out to be an excerpt from Hitchens' book, so I have read it.
Where as at 15 he had burned the family Bible mine was one of my prized possessions, and I had just purchased my beloved NEB, making it my third Bible (and this was as an atheist, by the way). Where as he said he despised his fore-bearers I honoured mine and invested a good deal of time in genealogy. Where as he became aware of his mortality in middle life, I learned as a young man that I was mortal as I nearly died at age twenty-five. I could go on with the differences, but rest assured, as an atheist, he was nothing like me.
Where as at 15 he had burned the family Bible mine was one of my prized possessions, and I had just purchased my beloved NEB, making it my third Bible (and this was as an atheist, by the way). Where as he said he despised his fore-bearers I honoured mine and invested a good deal of time in genealogy. Where as he became aware of his mortality in middle life, I learned as a young man that I was mortal as I nearly died at age twenty-five. I could go on with the differences, but rest assured, as an atheist, he was nothing like me.
A
You have been exposed to a great deal of evidence refuting the false worldview you've chosen. But you exercised your will to reject it and continue in denial.
Without a doubt, you have a spirit with a soul and you will stand before Creator God. That will be in or apart from His appropriation for sin. Presently, in your case, it will definitely be without any appropriation... a choice you willfully made.
When my friend died of Cholera, he left his body with all of its physical impairments. He said it was like "waking up" and he never felt more alive than at that time. Obviously, an Alzheimer's sufferer will retain their full memory upon the death of their mortal body. This is because though the brain is damaged, the mind is not because it is a noncorporeal entity.
The mind's 'tool' can be damaged impeding the workman in this material environment; however, in the spiritual realm these "tools" are unnecessary and the workman is able to operate fine without them exactly as my friend experienced.
As Dr. Owen and his colleagues discovered (see the 'Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State' study published in the September 2006 issue of Science), mental function and brain function don't always correlate. This is because mental function isn’t the same thing as brain function. Mental function is not linked to brain function in a strict cause-and-effect relationship as you mistakenly believe.
You are mistaken about a great many things and simply choosing to exercise your will in dismissing all evidence to the contrary as is your habit.
It is a fact that you've chosen your position in the face of an enormous body of evidence refuting it while surrounded by an enormous number of scholars and intellectuals that have produced a wealth of publications making that body of evidence readily available to you. Your position didn't choose you as you falsely assert.
It's obvious that you are guided by a strong faith in your mistaken beliefs and that you have exercised your will with negative volition toward the evidence refuting them and that, my friend, is not reason nor reasonable.
Your discomfort will be acute when you stand before Creator God after your spirit separates from your mortal body. The time for salvation is now. Will -->Faith-->Knowledge/Experience-->Belief. It's for a reason that faith is always a verb in the Gospel of John (e.g. a direction of life that God begins validating). St. John and Peter H. can show you the way.
Without a doubt, you have a spirit with a soul and you will stand before Creator God. That will be in or apart from His appropriation for sin. Presently, in your case, it will definitely be without any appropriation... a choice you willfully made.
When my friend died of Cholera, he left his body with all of its physical impairments. He said it was like "waking up" and he never felt more alive than at that time. Obviously, an Alzheimer's sufferer will retain their full memory upon the death of their mortal body. This is because though the brain is damaged, the mind is not because it is a noncorporeal entity.
The mind's 'tool' can be damaged impeding the workman in this material environment; however, in the spiritual realm these "tools" are unnecessary and the workman is able to operate fine without them exactly as my friend experienced.
As Dr. Owen and his colleagues discovered (see the 'Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State' study published in the September 2006 issue of Science), mental function and brain function don't always correlate. This is because mental function isn’t the same thing as brain function. Mental function is not linked to brain function in a strict cause-and-effect relationship as you mistakenly believe.
You are mistaken about a great many things and simply choosing to exercise your will in dismissing all evidence to the contrary as is your habit.
It is a fact that you've chosen your position in the face of an enormous body of evidence refuting it while surrounded by an enormous number of scholars and intellectuals that have produced a wealth of publications making that body of evidence readily available to you. Your position didn't choose you as you falsely assert.
It's obvious that you are guided by a strong faith in your mistaken beliefs and that you have exercised your will with negative volition toward the evidence refuting them and that, my friend, is not reason nor reasonable.
Your discomfort will be acute when you stand before Creator God after your spirit separates from your mortal body. The time for salvation is now. Will -->Faith-->Knowledge/Experience-->Belief. It's for a reason that faith is always a verb in the Gospel of John (e.g. a direction of life that God begins validating). St. John and Peter H. can show you the way.
I believe I am composed only of matter. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary, but if you think you've got a substantial argument that might change my mind I'd like to know about it.
I think you believe we will take our memories and personalities with us into the next life, at least those of us who believe the requisite things to gain admittance to paradise; but I have not seen any evidence that our memories will survive the demise of the brain. Think of those suffering from advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease. If memories and personalities are attached to the soul then why should a disease that disrupts the physical pathways of the brain produce memory loss and disrupt the personality?
A creative comment, but not one based on knowledge. You are mistaken. I am experiencing no unease. You should retract this particular statement as you don't want to go about making any false claims about another that other members are likely to read. I wouldn't want anyone to get a false impression regarding my state of mind.
I can see you've read Peter Hitchens, so have I, but I must advise you his experiences as an atheist were quite unlike mine. It was unease that brought him back to the fold. Perhaps you think all atheists experience this same sense of apprehension?
I am not guided by faith, only by reason. I have searched diligently for a reason to believe in a deity. I haven't found one. AOK, faith does seem to be a requisite for belief as there does not appear to be any actual evidence for God's existence.
I think you believe we will take our memories and personalities with us into the next life, at least those of us who believe the requisite things to gain admittance to paradise; but I have not seen any evidence that our memories will survive the demise of the brain. Think of those suffering from advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease. If memories and personalities are attached to the soul then why should a disease that disrupts the physical pathways of the brain produce memory loss and disrupt the personality?
A creative comment, but not one based on knowledge. You are mistaken. I am experiencing no unease. You should retract this particular statement as you don't want to go about making any false claims about another that other members are likely to read. I wouldn't want anyone to get a false impression regarding my state of mind.
I can see you've read Peter Hitchens, so have I, but I must advise you his experiences as an atheist were quite unlike mine. It was unease that brought him back to the fold. Perhaps you think all atheists experience this same sense of apprehension?
I am not guided by faith, only by reason. I have searched diligently for a reason to believe in a deity. I haven't found one. AOK, faith does seem to be a requisite for belief as there does not appear to be any actual evidence for God's existence.
A
Besides the point which is Will -->Faith-->Knowledge/Experience-->Belief. Peter figured out, like so many of the rest of us that were once in your untenable cosmic position, that when we exercised our will toward faith in the Christian worldview that God eventually came along side us and confirmed it with both knowledge and experience resulting in a validated vetted belief in a reality we had once wrongfully dismissed. It's for a reason that faith is always a verb in the Gospel of John (e.g. a direction of life that God begins validating).
You keep going back and trying to correlate Peter's life experiences with your own when I make this point but I'm not suggesting you do that. I'm simply using Peter as a case example of an atheist who exercised Will -->Faith-->Knowledge/Experience-->Belief.
People like Peter and myself never got to the experience part of the equation until we had exercised our will to live a genuine Christian worldview as if it was true. Then we found out, in time, that Christianity certainly is true because God interacted with us and we experienced the supernatural. The problem then is how to explain it... lol. How do you explain the hand of God entering your chest and healing a serious heart condition? How do you put into words what felt like a hand of liquid energy pulsating with pure love? How do I explain a loving heavenly father somehow shining a spiritual spotlight on me and keeping it there for weeks at a time? How do I explain the very air coming alive somehow and separating violent street gang members intent on harming me for no reason other than my physical proximity in passing through their neighborhood from continuing to try to attack me? Sometimes, I am without words when explaining the supernatural.
But I'm never without words when I see someone like you posted up denying realities that I have experienced. You're wrong. The sands of your life are running through your fingers and you're not even close to ready for your encounter with God. And that is a choice you make.
You keep going back and trying to correlate Peter's life experiences with your own when I make this point but I'm not suggesting you do that. I'm simply using Peter as a case example of an atheist who exercised Will -->Faith-->Knowledge/Experience-->Belief.
People like Peter and myself never got to the experience part of the equation until we had exercised our will to live a genuine Christian worldview as if it was true. Then we found out, in time, that Christianity certainly is true because God interacted with us and we experienced the supernatural. The problem then is how to explain it... lol. How do you explain the hand of God entering your chest and healing a serious heart condition? How do you put into words what felt like a hand of liquid energy pulsating with pure love? How do I explain a loving heavenly father somehow shining a spiritual spotlight on me and keeping it there for weeks at a time? How do I explain the very air coming alive somehow and separating violent street gang members intent on harming me for no reason other than my physical proximity in passing through their neighborhood from continuing to try to attack me? Sometimes, I am without words when explaining the supernatural.
But I'm never without words when I see someone like you posted up denying realities that I have experienced. You're wrong. The sands of your life are running through your fingers and you're not even close to ready for your encounter with God. And that is a choice you make.
*18* Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six
1. Six hundred = 600
2 Threescore = 60
3 and six = 6
Added together and this equals = 666.
As for the Hebrew arrangement: Obviously God's plan of redemption or His Word was not confined or finished with the Hebrews, but it would also include the Gentiles, too.
1. Six hundred = 600
2 Threescore = 60
3 and six = 6
Added together and this equals = 666.
As for the Hebrew arrangement: Obviously God's plan of redemption or His Word was not confined or finished with the Hebrews, but it would also include the Gentiles, too.
This is strictly a belief based upon faith. You have a desire for it to be true, but you have no evidence. If memory is not tied to brain function then no one should ever suffer from Alzheimers.
You and I have a different understanding of what the mind represents. I see the mind as simply the sum total of the activity taking place in the brain. You may believe the mind can exist apart from the brain, but there is no evidence this is true. This belief is part of your faith, and that’s fine, but saying things like “Obviously, an Alzheimer's sufferer will retain their full memory upon the death of their mortal body” is a claim that bares no fruit. There is nothing obvious about it. It is not a truth claim, it is a faith based claim.
Your friend’s heart may have stopped pumping temporarily, but his brain was still alive and he was evidently in a dream state. A great deal of research on NDEs has been carried out in the last few years and the findings all point to a non-paranormal origin.
Owen did not make this claim. What he said is as follows: “... recent functional neuroimaging studies have suggested that islands of preserved brain function may exist in a small percentage of patients who have been diagnosed as vegetative.”
“Islands of preserved brain function” – did you catch that. You probably got your interpretation of his work from a Creation Science website, but he certainly never said anything of the sort.
http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/papers/vs/VS_science2006.pdf
You and I have a different understanding of what the mind represents. I see the mind as simply the sum total of the activity taking place in the brain. You may believe the mind can exist apart from the brain, but there is no evidence this is true. This belief is part of your faith, and that’s fine, but saying things like “Obviously, an Alzheimer's sufferer will retain their full memory upon the death of their mortal body” is a claim that bares no fruit. There is nothing obvious about it. It is not a truth claim, it is a faith based claim.
Your friend’s heart may have stopped pumping temporarily, but his brain was still alive and he was evidently in a dream state. A great deal of research on NDEs has been carried out in the last few years and the findings all point to a non-paranormal origin.
Owen did not make this claim. What he said is as follows: “... recent functional neuroimaging studies have suggested that islands of preserved brain function may exist in a small percentage of patients who have been diagnosed as vegetative.”
“Islands of preserved brain function” – did you catch that. You probably got your interpretation of his work from a Creation Science website, but he certainly never said anything of the sort.
http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/papers/vs/VS_science2006.pdf
Why do we need bible codes to glorify God's word.....The HS in us testify of God's word, the faith that God gave us testify of his word....bible codes should not be used period... that is why God gave us faith, for us to trust him...and prayer to communicate with him....
Are you saying if the bible code said the bible was not true you would believe what the code said....
Are you saying if the bible code said the bible was not true you would believe what the code said....
Last edited:
A
I agree that your atheist belief is based upon faith and that you exercise your will as if were true. But it is not true. It is a false worldview that you have chosen to place your faith in.
And, as usual, you simply dismissed a serious scientific study that created a firestorm of discussion amongst scientists holding to strict naturalism resulting in a change of position for more than a few of them. But then, as usual, you choose to reject what you do not understand in addition to that which you do understand but which doesn't fit the false view of the world that you've chosen for yourself.
As I stated, Dr. Owen and his colleagues discovered (see the 'Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State' study published in the September 2006 issue of Science); mental function and brain function don't always correlate. This is because mental function isn’t the same thing as brain function. Mental function is not linked to brain function in a strict cause-and-effect relationship as you mistakenly believe.
And what is the purpose of trolling around creation websites looking for quotes of Owen's to attribute to me as if I ever said them: it's a meaningless ad hominem exercise. I'm not responsible for the misinformation on anyone's website. I'm sourcing a study in Nature. Why don't you pull that study and see what the results are for yourself instead of trolling around creation websites or skipping it to repeat a hypothesis that Owen may have made?
As Deem stated:
"Owen and his colleagues did a fascinating series of tests. First, they asked a group of normal volunteers to have a kind of research MRI scan of their brain, called a functional MRI (fMRI). fMRI doesn’t measure the actual activity of the neurons in the brain, but it measures the blood flow and brain metabolism in specific regions of the brain. It has been found to correlate to some extent with mental activity. Thinking about things can make the metabolism in certain parts of the brain increase, and fMRI can detect this. The observation that brain activity can locally increase brain blood flow and metabolism was originally made a century ago, in animals in the lab, so it’s not new. What is new is that we can now measure it in living people non-invasively, using fMRI.
The Cambridge researchers asked the volunteers to think of things, like playing tennis or walking across the room, and they recorded their fMRI brain responses. They also presented the volunteers with nonsense words, to distinguish understanding in the brain from the mere reflex to sounds. The response to understanding was different from the response to sound. The fMRI test seemed to test understanding, not just reflexes.
They did the same tests to the woman who was in a persistent vegetative state. They asked her to imagine playing tennis or imagine walking across the room, and they did the sham test with random words as well.
When they examined her fMRI responses, they found that her fMRI patterns were identical to those of the normal awake volunteers. By fMRI criteria, she understood. In fact, by fMRI criteria, she was as conscious as the normal volunteers. Her brain was massively damaged, to the extent that she had been diagnosed as having no mind at all. Yet the blood flow and metabolism patterns in her brain were those of a normal person. And just like normal people, she showed different fMRI responses to nonsense words. So she not only heard what was said to her, but she understood, and complied with the researchers’ requests to think about specific activities like playing tennis and walking across a room.
Owen’s study generated enormous interest among researchers, physicians and the public, not only for its implications for diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (e.g. the implications for the Terri Schiavo case), but because of what it suggests about deeper questions about the relationship between the mind and the brain. Many other studies of fMRI in patients in persistent vegetative state are underway, and several studies recently completed with other patients tend to support Owen’s findings.
From a scientific standpoint, Owen’s study is important for three reasons. The first is obvious; the last two are more subtle, but very important:
Note that each of the three conclusions that can be inferred from Owen’s study is evidence for the lack of correlation between various methods of assessing consciousness based on assessment of material properties of the brain. The inconsistency between the fMRI and the other standard methods of assessment is striking. If the mind is the brain, why would different measures of brain function yield contradictory measures of mind function? If materialism is true, correlation between brain function and mind function should converge, not diverge."
When a person's spirit/soul separates from their mortal body; they are no longer limited by the impairments of their mortal body. Spiritual dimensions certainly exist beyond your myopic denial of them and you're going to enter them upon the death of your mortal body. It's a claim with a body of evidence both scientific and experiential. You simply continue to falsely assert the opposite even when you are handed the evidence. This is an act of will on your part. This is an act of negative volition on your part. You certainly can choose to exercise your will differently.
The truth is that the paranormal element in NDEs has long been recognized; however, few near-death studies have focused on this aspect of the experience. But many of those who've studied the paranormal element in NDEs, including recent studies, are stating the opposite of your assertion.
For example, Dr. Greyson (Chester F. Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, and the former director of The Division of Perceptual Studies) argues for an expanded discussion about the mind-brain relationship and the possibilities of human consciousness.
Watching genuine NDEs exhibit all kinds of evidences that transcend strict materialism, including extrasensory perception (ESP) in which the revived person is able to recount specific information they have never been exposed to about the lives of other people they've never met for example, tends to lead honest researchers to that conclusion.
The data is clear that NDEs often produce paranormal experiences to an extent that even the scientific literature uses the terminology "alternative reality" (see 'Increase in Psychic Phenomena Following Near-Death Experiences by Bruce Greyson). That would be the one you work so hard to deny.
Now please provide the studies you assert show "A great deal of research on NDEs has been carried out in the last few years and the findings all point to a non-paranormal origin."
^ Where are they? I'd love to show you where the mark was missed. Please provide your sources and don't just make the assertion.
And, as usual, you simply dismissed a serious scientific study that created a firestorm of discussion amongst scientists holding to strict naturalism resulting in a change of position for more than a few of them. But then, as usual, you choose to reject what you do not understand in addition to that which you do understand but which doesn't fit the false view of the world that you've chosen for yourself.
As I stated, Dr. Owen and his colleagues discovered (see the 'Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State' study published in the September 2006 issue of Science); mental function and brain function don't always correlate. This is because mental function isn’t the same thing as brain function. Mental function is not linked to brain function in a strict cause-and-effect relationship as you mistakenly believe.
And what is the purpose of trolling around creation websites looking for quotes of Owen's to attribute to me as if I ever said them: it's a meaningless ad hominem exercise. I'm not responsible for the misinformation on anyone's website. I'm sourcing a study in Nature. Why don't you pull that study and see what the results are for yourself instead of trolling around creation websites or skipping it to repeat a hypothesis that Owen may have made?
As Deem stated:
"Owen and his colleagues did a fascinating series of tests. First, they asked a group of normal volunteers to have a kind of research MRI scan of their brain, called a functional MRI (fMRI). fMRI doesn’t measure the actual activity of the neurons in the brain, but it measures the blood flow and brain metabolism in specific regions of the brain. It has been found to correlate to some extent with mental activity. Thinking about things can make the metabolism in certain parts of the brain increase, and fMRI can detect this. The observation that brain activity can locally increase brain blood flow and metabolism was originally made a century ago, in animals in the lab, so it’s not new. What is new is that we can now measure it in living people non-invasively, using fMRI.
The Cambridge researchers asked the volunteers to think of things, like playing tennis or walking across the room, and they recorded their fMRI brain responses. They also presented the volunteers with nonsense words, to distinguish understanding in the brain from the mere reflex to sounds. The response to understanding was different from the response to sound. The fMRI test seemed to test understanding, not just reflexes.
They did the same tests to the woman who was in a persistent vegetative state. They asked her to imagine playing tennis or imagine walking across the room, and they did the sham test with random words as well.
When they examined her fMRI responses, they found that her fMRI patterns were identical to those of the normal awake volunteers. By fMRI criteria, she understood. In fact, by fMRI criteria, she was as conscious as the normal volunteers. Her brain was massively damaged, to the extent that she had been diagnosed as having no mind at all. Yet the blood flow and metabolism patterns in her brain were those of a normal person. And just like normal people, she showed different fMRI responses to nonsense words. So she not only heard what was said to her, but she understood, and complied with the researchers’ requests to think about specific activities like playing tennis and walking across a room.
Owen’s study generated enormous interest among researchers, physicians and the public, not only for its implications for diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (e.g. the implications for the Terri Schiavo case), but because of what it suggests about deeper questions about the relationship between the mind and the brain. Many other studies of fMRI in patients in persistent vegetative state are underway, and several studies recently completed with other patients tend to support Owen’s findings.
From a scientific standpoint, Owen’s study is important for three reasons. The first is obvious; the last two are more subtle, but very important:
- Owen’s study demonstrates that normal consciousness might be present in some patients who have met the clinical criteria for persistent vegetative state, which is defined as a state lacking consciousness.
- It demonstrates that methods of assessing brain state and function (e.g., MRI, EEG, clinical examination, fMRI) can differ profoundly in their assessment of consciousness.
- It demonstrates that an indirect assessment of brain function (fMRI, which measures regional blood flow and brain metabolism), may reveal evidence for consciousness when more direct methods (clinical examination, EEG) fail to detect consciousness.
Note that each of the three conclusions that can be inferred from Owen’s study is evidence for the lack of correlation between various methods of assessing consciousness based on assessment of material properties of the brain. The inconsistency between the fMRI and the other standard methods of assessment is striking. If the mind is the brain, why would different measures of brain function yield contradictory measures of mind function? If materialism is true, correlation between brain function and mind function should converge, not diverge."
When a person's spirit/soul separates from their mortal body; they are no longer limited by the impairments of their mortal body. Spiritual dimensions certainly exist beyond your myopic denial of them and you're going to enter them upon the death of your mortal body. It's a claim with a body of evidence both scientific and experiential. You simply continue to falsely assert the opposite even when you are handed the evidence. This is an act of will on your part. This is an act of negative volition on your part. You certainly can choose to exercise your will differently.
The truth is that the paranormal element in NDEs has long been recognized; however, few near-death studies have focused on this aspect of the experience. But many of those who've studied the paranormal element in NDEs, including recent studies, are stating the opposite of your assertion.
For example, Dr. Greyson (Chester F. Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, and the former director of The Division of Perceptual Studies) argues for an expanded discussion about the mind-brain relationship and the possibilities of human consciousness.
Watching genuine NDEs exhibit all kinds of evidences that transcend strict materialism, including extrasensory perception (ESP) in which the revived person is able to recount specific information they have never been exposed to about the lives of other people they've never met for example, tends to lead honest researchers to that conclusion.
The data is clear that NDEs often produce paranormal experiences to an extent that even the scientific literature uses the terminology "alternative reality" (see 'Increase in Psychic Phenomena Following Near-Death Experiences by Bruce Greyson). That would be the one you work so hard to deny.
Now please provide the studies you assert show "A great deal of research on NDEs has been carried out in the last few years and the findings all point to a non-paranormal origin."
^ Where are they? I'd love to show you where the mark was missed. Please provide your sources and don't just make the assertion.
Back at you.
False, AOK. I wanted to believe in God, I truly did, but I have a personality type that is inherently sceptical and I require confirmation of belief. Every single argument for God is loaded with other ways of interpreting the claims. In fact many of the claims, when looked at closely, make no sense (and here I am thinking particularly of prophecy).
You know, the liberal scholarship is available to you as well. Have you read any of it?
The conservative scholarship, that you are referring to here, is in the minority. There are the opposing views of a larger body of biblical scholars that you are not taking into consideration in this discussion. You act as if they don’t exist, but most of my current views are derived from them. Those things you accuse me of dismissing I have not dismissed out of hand. They have been discounted by the scholarship that you have failed to acknowledge. The scholarship that I read exclusively in the beginning is that which you accuse me of ignoring. I moved on to the liberal scholarship much more recently.
This back and forth banter really gets us nowhere AOK, but you accused me of ignoring your truth. I ignore nothing. I explore everything. I’d rather we discussed specifics.
My position didn’t choose me as I falsely claim? Not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about the way I came to be an atheist?
A special note to you though. I don’t tell anything falsely. I have always been honest in everything.
That I am not in agreement with your view of reality does not make me wrong. We need to talk specifics, not generalities. Perhaps you would like to choose one piece of evidence that you think is particularly strong as proof for God and we can discuss it? My interest is not to convert you to atheism, only you can do that, but rather I wish to show you that there are other plausible ways of understanding.
I wish to make clear that nothing in science or history can disprove the existence of God though both these things may require a re-evaluation of what you believe about him.
False, AOK. I wanted to believe in God, I truly did, but I have a personality type that is inherently sceptical and I require confirmation of belief. Every single argument for God is loaded with other ways of interpreting the claims. In fact many of the claims, when looked at closely, make no sense (and here I am thinking particularly of prophecy).
You know, the liberal scholarship is available to you as well. Have you read any of it?
The conservative scholarship, that you are referring to here, is in the minority. There are the opposing views of a larger body of biblical scholars that you are not taking into consideration in this discussion. You act as if they don’t exist, but most of my current views are derived from them. Those things you accuse me of dismissing I have not dismissed out of hand. They have been discounted by the scholarship that you have failed to acknowledge. The scholarship that I read exclusively in the beginning is that which you accuse me of ignoring. I moved on to the liberal scholarship much more recently.
This back and forth banter really gets us nowhere AOK, but you accused me of ignoring your truth. I ignore nothing. I explore everything. I’d rather we discussed specifics.
My position didn’t choose me as I falsely claim? Not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about the way I came to be an atheist?
A special note to you though. I don’t tell anything falsely. I have always been honest in everything.
That I am not in agreement with your view of reality does not make me wrong. We need to talk specifics, not generalities. Perhaps you would like to choose one piece of evidence that you think is particularly strong as proof for God and we can discuss it? My interest is not to convert you to atheism, only you can do that, but rather I wish to show you that there are other plausible ways of understanding.
I wish to make clear that nothing in science or history can disprove the existence of God though both these things may require a re-evaluation of what you believe about him.
P
The Bible is full of wisdom. Could God encode messages in it? I think so. Does the Lord understand mathematics? I think so.
Could God place numerical codes in the Bible? I think so. Is numerology of the devil? Yes it is, but satan cannot create, he
can only pervert so I would not be quick to say that the Bible does not have code. However, our salvation thru Jesus blood
is plain for all to understand. There are many levels to scriptures, and as one seeks more knowledge of Jesus, the Holy Spirit
will guide to understanding.
Could God place numerical codes in the Bible? I think so. Is numerology of the devil? Yes it is, but satan cannot create, he
can only pervert so I would not be quick to say that the Bible does not have code. However, our salvation thru Jesus blood
is plain for all to understand. There are many levels to scriptures, and as one seeks more knowledge of Jesus, the Holy Spirit
will guide to understanding.
No, I am saying his life experiences were all very different from mine.
No, what happened with Peter Hitchens is that he never quite got over his fear of hell. As he got older and his mortality began to weigh upon him more this fear increased and eventually overcame him. The only way he could elevate it was by returning to the Anglican Church and seeking the salvation of Christ.
I understand his plight in that the same fear once consumed me and brought me back to God at age sixteen. You understand well, I am sure, that this fear of hell is taught at a very young age to children, and whether they learn it implicitly, or explicitly, the fear is real and it is very hard to shake. As the song lyric says, "I know there ain't no heaven, but I pray their ain't no hell." The American philosopher Susan Sontag once argued that no atheist could rest content until that last dragon was slain, and the dragon she meant was the fear of hell.
A few years back I chatted at length with a fellow atheist about this very issue. He had not gotten over this latent fear and wondered how I had been able to shake it. It was not faith, or knowledge, or life experience that brought Peter Hitchens back to God -- it was the emotion of fear that started him on that road. It was not logic. It was not rationality. His experience does not apply to me. His experience had nothing to do with Francis Collins finding God. Every atheist who returns to God does so for a different reason, as does every Christian who moves away from belief. All experiences are unique. It is a mistake to generalize.
No, what happened with Peter Hitchens is that he never quite got over his fear of hell. As he got older and his mortality began to weigh upon him more this fear increased and eventually overcame him. The only way he could elevate it was by returning to the Anglican Church and seeking the salvation of Christ.
I understand his plight in that the same fear once consumed me and brought me back to God at age sixteen. You understand well, I am sure, that this fear of hell is taught at a very young age to children, and whether they learn it implicitly, or explicitly, the fear is real and it is very hard to shake. As the song lyric says, "I know there ain't no heaven, but I pray their ain't no hell." The American philosopher Susan Sontag once argued that no atheist could rest content until that last dragon was slain, and the dragon she meant was the fear of hell.
A few years back I chatted at length with a fellow atheist about this very issue. He had not gotten over this latent fear and wondered how I had been able to shake it. It was not faith, or knowledge, or life experience that brought Peter Hitchens back to God -- it was the emotion of fear that started him on that road. It was not logic. It was not rationality. His experience does not apply to me. His experience had nothing to do with Francis Collins finding God. Every atheist who returns to God does so for a different reason, as does every Christian who moves away from belief. All experiences are unique. It is a mistake to generalize.
The nonbelievers says there is no God....the word of God says ...
Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
And that is generalize on both counts...and no mistake
Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
And that is generalize on both counts...and no mistake
A
Negative. Unlike you, I examine and qualify all evidence: I don't simply ignore or deny it if it fails to comport to atheism.
Every single argument for atheism is loaded with other ways of interpreting evidence atheists use to support their false assertion. That's the point. You've fallen right into your own trap.
Your personality type is important to God; however, it's not that important to me. Having interacted with God and the supernatural and discovered that it aligns with the Christian worldview, what evidence can you give me that it doesn't actually exist even though I've experienced it, interacted with God, been supernaturally healed, seen the impossible become possible, witnessed the paranormal in both the good way (e.g. God's kingdom) and have also seen paranormal occult activities which are forbidden to engage in as they open the door to the demonic and the kingdom of Satan. See the problem? Your position is false. That's the problem.
How is "liberal scholarship" which fails to align with reality going to negate reality? It hasn't the power to do so. At most, it can only deceive people from experiencing a good deal more of reality than they thought possible.
Scholarship moves in cycles through history. If you're a student of historical scholarship, then you already know this. The blue team has acquired a stronghold in the West (though it lost its dominant position in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union and conservative scholarship is on the rise in China) not because it's correct in the aggregate but rather because the blue team discriminates with a heavy hand against conservative scholarship jealously guarding the political construct they have fabricated.
Look at the peer-reviewed study of political diversity in the field of social psychology published this month in the Journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars and found that in decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, liberal scholars admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.
Is it starting to sink in? The survey questions were so blatant that the results actually surprised the researchers. One question asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).” More than a third of the respondents said that they certainly would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them” or deny them tenure, etc...
Simply because liberals have managed to gain a stronghold that they jealously hold to the point of overt discrimination and persecution of conservatives in a particular place and time does not equate to their position itself being correct nor, in any way, nullify correctness brought by conservatives.
Without a doubt, your atheistic worldview is false; liberal scholarship is riddled with error; and I am correct when I tell you that God exists and interacts with human beings and so do spiritual dimensions (including what the ancients termed 'heaven' and 'hell') beyond this physical universe exist.
You seriously need to stop positing that you're on some kind of a truth seeking fact finding mission here because that is not observable. You live in a world of denial in which you ignore everything that fails to conform to the false worldview you've chosen displaying a very strong negative volition against any and every empirical evidence for God and the Christian worldview and also that which rebuts/refutes your chosen false worldview. You seriously need to reevaluate your own behavior in this regard. There's a complete disconnect between what you claim and what you do. I believe that you're aware of the great disparity between your stated intent and your actual behavior but who knows? Maybe you're not aware of it.
Every single argument for atheism is loaded with other ways of interpreting evidence atheists use to support their false assertion. That's the point. You've fallen right into your own trap.
Your personality type is important to God; however, it's not that important to me. Having interacted with God and the supernatural and discovered that it aligns with the Christian worldview, what evidence can you give me that it doesn't actually exist even though I've experienced it, interacted with God, been supernaturally healed, seen the impossible become possible, witnessed the paranormal in both the good way (e.g. God's kingdom) and have also seen paranormal occult activities which are forbidden to engage in as they open the door to the demonic and the kingdom of Satan. See the problem? Your position is false. That's the problem.
How is "liberal scholarship" which fails to align with reality going to negate reality? It hasn't the power to do so. At most, it can only deceive people from experiencing a good deal more of reality than they thought possible.
Scholarship moves in cycles through history. If you're a student of historical scholarship, then you already know this. The blue team has acquired a stronghold in the West (though it lost its dominant position in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union and conservative scholarship is on the rise in China) not because it's correct in the aggregate but rather because the blue team discriminates with a heavy hand against conservative scholarship jealously guarding the political construct they have fabricated.
Look at the peer-reviewed study of political diversity in the field of social psychology published this month in the Journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars and found that in decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, liberal scholars admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.
Is it starting to sink in? The survey questions were so blatant that the results actually surprised the researchers. One question asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).” More than a third of the respondents said that they certainly would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them” or deny them tenure, etc...
Simply because liberals have managed to gain a stronghold that they jealously hold to the point of overt discrimination and persecution of conservatives in a particular place and time does not equate to their position itself being correct nor, in any way, nullify correctness brought by conservatives.
Without a doubt, your atheistic worldview is false; liberal scholarship is riddled with error; and I am correct when I tell you that God exists and interacts with human beings and so do spiritual dimensions (including what the ancients termed 'heaven' and 'hell') beyond this physical universe exist.
You seriously need to stop positing that you're on some kind of a truth seeking fact finding mission here because that is not observable. You live in a world of denial in which you ignore everything that fails to conform to the false worldview you've chosen displaying a very strong negative volition against any and every empirical evidence for God and the Christian worldview and also that which rebuts/refutes your chosen false worldview. You seriously need to reevaluate your own behavior in this regard. There's a complete disconnect between what you claim and what you do. I believe that you're aware of the great disparity between your stated intent and your actual behavior but who knows? Maybe you're not aware of it.
Last edited: