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:

Very well written, but I'm afraid entirely wasted on your intended audience.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
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 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).

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.

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.

About the mother again. All of that could have been wishful thinking/guilty conscience. Mothers often feel guilty when horrible things happen to their children, and one way of "making up for it" in their own minds (or socially) is to tell themselves (or others) that they were suffering too at the same time, and even at a distance were praying for God to intercede.

So I can't explain what happened, but I can provide two decent theories that don't require God.

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.

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 requrie 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.

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 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).

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.

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.

About the mother again. All of that could have been wishful thinking/guilty conscience. Mothers often feel guilty when horrible things happen to their children, and one way of "making up for it" in their own minds (or socially) is to tell themselves (or others) that they were suffering too at the same time, and even at a distance were praying for God to intercede.

So I can't explain what happened, but I can provide two decent theories that don't require God.

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.

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 requrie 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.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
Yet another example of a numinous experience caused by severe mental trauma. This is exactly what I theorise happened to you, as I mentioned in one of our previous conversations. This lends some support to it. We are genetically predisposed to seek guidance from authority figures, and the worse our condition, the more we seek it out. Being at death's door is the weakest condition possible, and add to that mental trauma, and the brain makes up whatever idea it needs to survive at that moment, and it seems real.
Also, if God wants us to know him so bad, why does he have to attack us with jellyfish first? He can either let us know outright he's there, or leave us a few clues and hope we put the pieces together ourselves. There's no need for torture.

If it's a numinous experience, how do you explain his mother interceding for him in prayer at the exact moment all of this is taking place?
God doesn't have to attack you with jellyfish, but he will use some means like that to get your attention if you continue to fail to respond to the 100 other ways He tried to reach you. Most often, men are so prideful and stubborn that it takes a full realization of their mortality, or a hitting of rock bottom, for them to realize how much they need God. When you're young and healthy, you feel so strong and self-assured, but it's an illusion..you are at the mercy of forces you don't understand each and every moment of each and every day. Life is fragile, but arrogance lends a false sense of security. They think they don't need Him, that they're getting along just fine on their own. It's only because they don't realize they are a heartbeat away from deaths door, and its only His mercy that keeps them there.

>> ^critical_d:

It will surprise you how quickly your pc will accumulate dust, hair, and fuzzies like this one did. Best scenario is the overall lifetime of the pc will be diminished (heat is a computer killer) and worse case is a short circuit in the box catches the nasties on fire and your house burns down.
If you do (and you should) want to clean out the dust then I suggest using canned air or a camera dust blower. Vacuum cleaners can build up a static charge that will wreck the computer if you aren't careful. The compressed air like these guys use is awesome for filling tires but there always seems to be water (condensation?) in the take that comes out when you use it.
This is just my advice based on personal experience so think of it as law take it with a grain of salt, I am sure others have had better luck but I wouldn't take the risk.
More info:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/283255-31-safe-vacuum
http://www.howtogeek.com/57870/ask-how-to-geek-why-you-should-never-vacuum-your-pc-converting-books-for-the-kindle-and-controlling-multiple-co
mputers-
with-one-keyboard/


It's more weird that SOME old computers are fairly clean inside even in the same place!

It will surprise you how quickly your pc will accumulate dust, hair, and fuzzies like this one did. Best scenario is the overall lifetime of the pc will be diminished (heat is a computer killer) and worse case is a short circuit in the box catches the nasties on fire and your house burns down.

If you do (and you should) want to clean out the dust then I suggest using canned air or a camera dust blower. Vacuum cleaners can build up a static charge that will wreck the computer if you aren't careful. The compressed air like these guys use is awesome for filling tires but there always seems to be water (condensation?) in the take that comes out when you use it.

This is just my advice based on personal experience so think of it as law take it with a grain of salt, I am sure others have had better luck but I wouldn't take the risk.

More info:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/283255-31-safe-vacuum

http://www.howtogeek.com/57870/ask-how-to-geek-why-you-should-never-vacuum-your-pc-converting-books-for-the-kindle-and-controlling-multiple-computers-
with-one-keyboard/

Yeah, take that Will Smith and Oprah. God forbid you guys can become superstars and multi-millionaires. You have to "stay genuine", and never change, even if it means staying dirt poor or mediocre. Conforming to some vague notion of "blackness" is more important than personal achievement.

And fuck Obama too, and Ursula Burns, and any other black person with talent, drive and determination, who happens to have charisma and appeals to other races. And god forbid someone undergoes personal transformation and change to succeed, especially in a society where the chips are stacked against them on day 1. No, it's better to know one's place.

Yeah, Barack, Ursula, Will and Oprah, even though you guys are actually transforming what it means to be african american and black by kicking down barriers, so that black kids can feel they can do anything and be anyone, FUCK YOU.

Will, you should still be rapping about Philly with the other ol' skool rappers on tour on the c-circuit. Oprah, you should still be doing "who's the father!!" shows and competing with Jerry Springer and Maury. Ursula, wasn't middle management enough? And Barack my man, you did much more good as a community organizer.

C, your premise and line of thinking is ridiculous. Can you explain to me what role is acceptable for a black man? You castigate Will Smith for being weak then complain about Samuel Jackson and Denzel Washington? These guys aren't flava flav for gods sake.

Please forgive me for not seeing your sarcasm, if that's what this is. >> ^chingalera:

When it comes right down to it, who really gives a fuck why Will Smith back-slapped a reporter, or why the reporter decided to kiss him. All that really matters is that Will Smith, one of the whitest black men in America, will never get any revenue from me, as I plan to download the film from many of my friends around the world who won;t shed a tear when Hollywood dies.
He can join the other list of sell-out negroes in Hollywood who have taken the $Bait$ and become masters of a weak stereotypical representation of the African-American male.
There's the ultimate hero negro: Denzel Washington, Jim Brown, (AKA, The Victim of Society Negro
The Superhero Negro: Wesley Snipes, Samuel L. Jackson, Laurence Fishburne
The Historical Hero negro Cuba Gooding Jr., Denzel Washington, Will Smith
The Sidekick negro-Sam Jackson, Morgan Freeman, Don Cheadle
Cop/Psychologist/Social Worker Negro-Sydney Poitier, Whoopi Goldberg
and then there's the , "Only African-American female to ever win an Academy Award for best actress getting ass-raped negress, Halle Berry
Fuck Will Smith, he's another total sell-out.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Surprising how it didn't trip any transformer fuses. Around here, whenever a squirrel tries to go from one live wire to another while touching both, he gets fried, and everyone on that circuit loses power until they can replace the fuse. It doesn't keep pumping power through it.


Probably 3 phase industrial lines.

>> ^nach0s:

1) So when the grid goes out, lift short-circuits and planes drop straight out of the sky?
2) You car's battery maintains its charge via the alternator. The Prius (being picked clean by some unreasonbly attractive looking woman) charges itself (i.e. it doesn't plug-in) via friction (google it). Unless it's some EMP event, at least some cars will run.
2) For a semi-post apoc environment, the denizens look incredibly tailored and freshly primped.


Seems the idea is more like an EMP on some crazy-go-nuts scale. Even that wouldn't explain why new electronics can't be made, but, you know, it's sci-fi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#E1

And. . . yeah you might think the clothing and makeup industries would suffer from the end of civilization, but we have our priorities.

Surprising how it didn't trip any transformer fuses. Around here, whenever a squirrel tries to go from one live wire to another while touching both, he gets fried, and everyone on that circuit loses power until they can replace the fuse. It doesn't keep pumping power through it.

1) So when the grid goes out, lift short-circuits and planes drop straight out of the sky?
2) You car's battery maintains its charge via the alternator. The Prius (being picked clean by some unreasonbly attractive looking woman) charges itself (i.e. it doesn't plug-in) via friction (google it). Unless it's some EMP event, at least some cars will run.
2) For a semi-post apoc environment, the denizens look incredibly tailored and freshly primped.

My circuits are failing...

^ Almost every American sketch comedy show from the late-70s and early-80s, Popeye, Mork & Mindy, Good Morning Vietnam, Dead Poets Society, Baron Munchausen, The Fisher King, Toys, Hook, Aladdin (say what you will about the movie, but his genie is THE genie), Mrs. Doubtfire, The Birdcage (remake), Good Will Hunting, Patch Adams, What Dreams May Come (I liked it at least), One hour Photo, Insomnia (remake), and then there's all of his random, unforgetable guest appearance and talk show circuit adlibbing...

Or do you just mean in recent years?

My thoughts exactly.
>> ^Shepppard:

I only see one prong of the tazer in him, Meaning, that the circuit can't complete and he's not getting any shock whatsoever (obviously).
Could be wrong though, if someone manages to see the second one.

I only see one prong of the tazer in him, Meaning, that the circuit can't complete and he's not getting any shock whatsoever (obviously).

Could be wrong though, if someone manages to see the second one.

>> ^spawnflagger:

I like the concept, but I cannot upvote it, because it has BLEEP-ing nothing to do with mother-BLEEP-ing quantum mechanics. It charges via magnetic induction, and you need a special battery/adapter on the device to do the charging.
The question is - will you pay $$$ for the mat and adapters, just so you don't have to plug a charge cable in?
It might be popular in the future if it becomes an open standard and all cell phones/etc have the charging circuits built in.


Oh I dunno... I think you can call it quantum mechanics, just like you can say an auto accident killed someone because of quantum mechanics, pauli exclusion principle quantum field theories etc. You sure as hell could come up with a quantum description for the electromagnetic interactions here right?