tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post6905184799217860018..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: The Atheist’s New ClothesDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-77496016711303972852020-10-21T22:21:05.997-04:002020-10-21T22:21:05.997-04:00"Either way, the idea of empirically testing ..."Either way, the idea of empirically testing for God would be the atheist's only basis of pretending that he has a knowledge claim. So that's surely a problem for him, but none at all for us."<br />Actually there is an even greater problem nowadays for the atheist. And that is that now, with modern technology testing for God and a hereafter has been going on successfully for quite a while. It is now feasible for modern technology to have a patient clinically die and then to resuscitate him/her and tell their story. (The specialization is often to use cardiac arrest patients). Very reputable research clinics and medical specialists have and are currently pursuing this approach quite successfully. Do a search on the internet. Based on the observations and descriptions of the revived person the existence of a hereafter and God has unequivocally been established. <br />Case 1. A young woman dies from cardiac arrest and after revival insists on being put in contact with her cousin. Her reason is that she died and was wandering across a large grassy field (with other souls) when she saw a young man in the distance who looked familiar in a uniform carrying a rifle. She went towards him and they embraced when he recognized her as his cousin. He explained to her that he had been engaged in battle and had been mortally wounded.<br />After coming out of surgery and being put in in contact with his family the woman learned that he indeed had died in battle at around the time she met his spirit. <br />There are numerous similar cases published in scientific literature dedicated to this field.<br />Case 2. This involves a very typical and standard testimonial from a person who was not in surgery. A mother was in a state of half sleep when she all of a sudden saw her adult son stand at the foot of her bed. He was totally soaked with water which was dripping from his clothes. He smiled at her and conveyed with his expression and gestures that she should not worry and that he would be alright. He then disappeared. His now very concerned mother phoned the place/contacts where her son lived and learned that he had drowned a while ago when his car accidentally plunged into water. <br />Case 3.<br />This is the most often tested type of case for survival and awareness of the spirit after death. A patient might die during a cardiac procedure and is told so by the doctors. They ask him/her to participate in an experiment. Which is that after the patient is put under for the operation medical personnel will hide specific items unfamiliar to the patient in the operating theater. In addition the procedure with all conversations will be video taped. If the patient agrees and if the patient dies during the medical procedure (brain dead as defined for official death) and can nevertheless be revived then the patient often conveys that he/she died, floated above his/her body and was able to see everything going on in the operating room, including where the items had been hidden, and what the conversation was in the room. After revival the patient then describes the hidden items, where they are hidden and what the conversation was.<br />And so on. Papers, books, interviews with this research are readily available on the internet nowadays. The result is that the continued existence of a person as what can be described as a soul and a continuum, a spiritual reality, is firmly established by experiment. As such it represents a solid test of character for the run of the mill atheist, which they will probably solidly flunk. <br />Nevertheless, the important lesson here is that God is not indifferent and supplies the needed tools in any time to allow us to recognize him.<br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-70336164521742009142017-12-21T15:43:48.243-05:002017-12-21T15:43:48.243-05:00I'd just say you're right -- by definition...I'd just say you're right -- by definition, God (if we mean by that term the Christian God), is above and beyond the universe. He is the Cause for it, the Originator of it, not some creature within it. Right on.<br /><br />Now, perhaps it would be surprising if we saw absolutely no possible evidence of a Creator within the universe ... say, if there were no marks of order and design in nature at all. We would wonder why a Creator would make such a place; but since we ourselves are beings constituted by order, and living within a universe governed by laws, that objection is well covered by the observable order in the universe. Even Dawkins admits that belief in God is a winsome empirical hypothesis -- he just insists it's an incorrect one (though without reason, it would seem).<br /><br />But all that just makes the atheist's claim of "knowing" the non-existence of God all the more foolish. If God were within the universe, then to go looking by empirical methods might be sensible; and the atheist's failure to find evidence he's willing to recognize might have some modicum of relevance to the question. But if, as we believe, God is beyond all that, then there is absolutely nothing revealed to us by the atheist's empirical test, even if there were one he could do!<br /><br />Either way, the idea of empirically testing for God would be the atheist's only basis of pretending that he has a knowledge claim. So that's surely a problem for him, but none at all for us.Immanuel Cannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-47051370584412703992017-12-21T09:38:59.805-05:002017-12-21T09:38:59.805-05:00Great point about the one who goes everywhere and ...Great point about the one who goes everywhere and knows everything being God. But one issue I have with the dilemma is that I'm not trying to prove that God is hidden inside the universe somewhere. By definition, God has to be unlimited by the universe in order to be infinite, otherwise an infinite being inside the universe would fill up the universe. If God were hidden inside the universe somewhere, that would make him a demigod.Teacher Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13864703240654412465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-12879168785820406922014-09-14T09:14:38.166-04:002014-09-14T09:14:38.166-04:00Agreed, Russ. And if you check my next post on at...Agreed, Russ. And if you check my next post on atheism, coming shortly, I'll even point out why the business of trying to prove "no God" is far, far more problematic than trying to prove there IS one. <br /><br />See if you like that when it comes out. It's titled, "Head to Head". That is, unless Tom changes the title.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-68354728759137422502014-09-13T11:43:17.938-04:002014-09-13T11:43:17.938-04:00Quite right, most intellectuals who argue against ...Quite right, most intellectuals who argue against Christian or Muslim faith specifically or religion in general admit readily that there is no proof for "No God"Quisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13290921435307877508noreply@blogger.com