If we're using terms like "tangible evidence", then I assume we're talking in scientific terms. If we're talking scientifically, then you need phenomena, a theory to explain them, and ways of testing that theory. "I would say..." isn't a scientific statement. What qualifies as "tangible evidence" has to be easily understood and agreed upon by everyone. If people don't agree that something is evidence of something, then it's meaningless. Like, if I suggest that graphite pencils are electric insulators, and you say that's bollocks, we can create an electric curcuit with a light bulb. We both agree that if the light bulb turns on when the electric circuit passes through a graphite pencil, then it's definitely not an insulator, regardless of our initial positions. So if the world at large doesn't agree that NDEs are necessarily evidence of God, then it's a meaningless argument. When you theorize God, it doesn't flow logically that when people are near death that they will necessarily see God. You can look at evidence and say, "This fits in with a theory of God." That's fair, but calling it evidence is not scientific. NDEs also fit with my theory that people seek ultimate authority the the worse and worse their living conditions are. I don't claim that it's evidence that I'm right, just that it supports or "fits" my theory. In other words, it proves nothing at all.

I said NDEs do provide tangible evidence of a spirit, not God. Having a spirit is tangible evidence of God. Not all NDEs provide such evidence, but as I mentioned, some people come back to life with information they shouldn't, or couldn't have.

I confess I didn't watch the whole thing (I guessed where it was going once it trailed away from logical enquiry, and so far I haven't heard any surprises -- if there's anything new and interesting in this particular story, lemme know where and I'll watch).

That's fairly typical, I have to say. I don't know if it an atheist thing, or a generational thing and I am speaking to a lot of young atheists, but very often people will refuse to even look at certain kinds of information and testimony, based on their preconceived notions, and their own self-confidence that they've "predicted" what is coming. This is of course a perfect shield for their own ignorance, the censoring of anything which could possibly change their mind, by discounting it in advance. Many atheists have outright told me that if it's longer than a paragraph or two they won't even read it.

The testimony in this video is unique and very interesting, nothing short of incredible actually, and no you couldn't possibly predict what was going to happen. You didn't even make it to him getting into the ambulance.

About the mother praying at that moment. It's possible that there is some connection between mother and child that hasn't been properly measured, that only occurs when children are under extreme stress, and even then, only in rare cases (most mothers don't report "knowing" their children were suffering or dying when they hear the news later). That doesn't require Yahweh, or even any God. It's just a phenomenon that we don't know about. And again, "We can't explain it," isn't evidence of God any more than fully explaining the phenomenon is proof that God is fake.

God told her to pray at that moment, and Ian heard the words of her prayer. You need to watch the video if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about this.

If you cannot provide a test whose conclusion we both agree on for God's existence, then by scientific definition, you have no theory at all. When I press you, the only test you provide is me givnig myself fully to God, and the proof will be that he will contact me eventually if I do it well enough. There's so many loopholes in that to begin with, that no matter how long I did it without result, you'd be able to say why it didn't work. Also, even if it did have a result, I wouldn't agree that the result is proof of God. My theory is that if someone wants to believe something hard enough, and if they bend their will to believing it, they can come to beleive anything they want. It's widely dismissed as "self-delusion" or "choosing to live in a fantasy world" if you're talking about anything other than religoius faith. Some, including myself, also include religious faith in that category. No matter how real it seems, if you convinced yourself of it, that's a good reason to believe you might be deluded. Bottom line, there's no test that we generally agree on, so there's no theory, just your faith that it's true.

You are still operating under the faulty premise that you could suss God out by pointing an instrument at Him. Does that seem logical to you, that you could test for God? That if you just had the right test, suddenly God will appear and say "I guess you got me." The very notion is absurd, yet here you are demanding empirical proof for Gods existence.

What I told you is that only God can provide you revelation of His existence. He has given you a way to know Him, through His Son Jesus Christ. Yet, you refuse to do the one thing which would yield any results. You could pray this prayer, for instance:

"God, I don't know if you're there or not. If you are there, I want to know you. Please let me know you are real and I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior."

Could you pray that prayer and mean it? Are you interested in the truth?

I'm not sure why, but to people of faith, there seems to be a fear that everything unexplained, if not explained by their God, is somehow a strike against him. That's not at all how science or logic work. There is no phenomenon that requires God to be responsible for it, except the ones he is specifically described as having done himself in the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that says people's experiences when suffering extreme mental trauma must be caused by God. If they're explained some other way, your theory of God stands just as strong as before. It's when you go attributing everything that YOU don't understand to God's hand that you get yourself into trouble because when those things are later objectively explained another way then you have to change your story. Better to think critically from the begining, and say with authority what God definitely is and isn't, and what God definitely is and isn't responsible for. Then, if any single one of those things is disproven, then you can simply agree that your description of God is wrong.

Again, I said that NDEs evidence of a spirit and not necessary God.

You missed my comment above about God and patience. You've said elsewhere that God lives outside time, and looks at the history of the universe like a movie that he can browse and interfere in at will. But then you also say that he has "patience" which can "wear out". "Patience", by definition, means being forced to wait, and "wearing out" means eroding in time, both of which require living in time. These two ideas of God both living outside of time and having patience which wears out, if words have meaning, are incompatible. They cannot both be true. If you continue to hold to both of those claims about your God, then that's proof that he doesn't exist as you describe him

That isn't how I described it. That was your interpretation of my comment, that God peruses the Universe like a movie. God necessarily exists outside of time and space because He created them. Since He is eternal He is not bound by time. However, that isn't to say that what is happening "now" isn't real. God is the reason we have time, and that things are happening in this moment. The future has not happened yet, there is only now. God operates in this moment, and He isn't limited by time. That is how He can be everywhere at the same time, doing an infinite number of things at the same time. God can also step into time, as His Son did.

>> ^messenger:

And actually this is in 3 dimensions as sound waves travel from its source (your speakers) to your ears in a spherical manner...like boobs growing bigger and hitting you in the ear holes>> ^bamdrew:

however the setup was audio in a 1-dimensional space, to which I cry NAY! ... also color,... lets call that a sub-spatial dimension... 3.5 dimensions! you monsters.
>> ^Quboid:
>> ^bamdrew:
you fools! ... the audio is another dimension! as is the time across which this video occurs!
you've created another 3D transformers movie... God help us...

Audio's not a dimension, it exists as waves within our 4 dimensional space/time. But the time in this a 2nd dimension, which means this is 2D and therefore have more depth than the actual movies ... (or, I don't know, some other lazy "omg the movies suckzz lol!" type joke, I'm tired).

however the setup was audio in a 1-dimensional space, to which I cry NAY! ... also color,... lets call that a sub-spatial dimension... 3.5 dimensions! you monsters.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^bamdrew:
you fools! ... the audio is another dimension! as is the time across which this video occurs!
you've created another 3D transformers movie... God help us...

Audio's not a dimension, it exists as waves within our 4 dimensional space/time. But the time in this a 2nd dimension, which means this is 2D and therefore have more depth than the actual movies ... (or, I don't know, some other lazy "omg the movies suckzz lol!" type joke, I'm tired).

>> ^bamdrew:

you fools! ... the audio is another dimension! as is the time across which this video occurs!
you've created another 3D transformers movie... God help us...


Audio's not a dimension, it exists as waves within our 4 dimensional space/time. But the time in this a 2nd dimension, which means this is 2D and therefore have more depth than the actual movies ... (or, I don't know, some other lazy "omg the movies suckzz lol!" type joke, I'm tired).

you fools! ... the audio is another dimension! as is the time across which this video occurs!

you've created another 3D transformers movie... God help us...

Hah, this is weird. I've been looking through Oldman clips for the last couple of weeks now (he's my second favourite actor in the universe) and found this one too, but didn't think to post it. Also one of my favourite movies, god bless Luc Besson!

Great sift. This is going in my queue http://www.netflix.com/Movie/God-on-Trial/70110762

Tags for this video have been changed from 'idie, movie, god of war, parody, comedy, drama' to 'idie, movie, god of war, parody, comedy, drama, waterbirth' - edited by ponceleon

Very interesting. This must be the type of show the movie God of Cookery is based on.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
I could only dream of becoming as good an actor as F. Murray Abraham in this movie. God he was at the top of his game.


F. Murray Abraham had a game?

I could only dream of becoming as good an actor as F. Murray Abraham in this movie. God he was at the top of his game.

This movie has defined nearly my whole life. Everything was so perfect in the mid 90's, and so was this movie. God bless Hackers.

Makes me want to cry and laugh watching this. I better stop!

The Neural Amplifier was another scary movie. God, I love this game, Civilization in space and perfected.

He's invoked my movie god, Heston. Daphne, the end is for you. :-D

Great Movie, new edition just came out with all the cast talking about the movie. God love the 80's!