On Dr Ben Carson, the Devil, science vs medicine and saving life

_{kairosfocus

September 29, 2015

Atheism, Ethics, Neuroscience, Politics, rhetoric, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I passed by and noted a dismissive comment (or a few) regarding US Presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Dr Ben Carson:

CASE A: he’s running for President of the United States of America; he’s a politician who’s put religion and science into his platform. He willingly exposed himself to criticism and does not deserve a pass because he did good things as a surgeon.

CASE B: Dr Carson. He is clearly a talented physician, but get him talking about evolution or cosmology and he turns into Ken Ham. Looks like a classic case of willful ignorance to me; he should know better. Is that acceptable for the president of a world power?

CASE C: Surgery is to science what carpentry is to engineering.

CASE D: it is a sad and disturbing aspect of our times that the scientific views of a neurosurgeon could be swayed by an argument rooted in the supposed existence of an atavistic embodiment of evil, Satan.

I believe this pattern requires an answer, and so:

KF, 29: >>Folks,

I see, above, a snide dismissal of the possibility of a devil.

Perhaps, the White Rose Martyrs, from that same central european country, can tell us a few things about the matter, in their tracts that cost them their lives:

WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!

WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler’s mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.

Given a long, sad and evidently unfinished history of significant political leaders who have manifested destructive mesmerising deception and Nero-like demonically murderous violence or enabling of such, we need to pay these paid- for- in- blood- and- tears words very careful heed.

Further to this, in recent weeks, the issue of the mass slaughter of is it 58 million American babies since 1973 has been forcefully put on the table in the context of the demonstrated pattern of the cutting up of these little boys and girls and selling their organs for tainted medical research all too reminiscent of Dr Mengele and co at Auschwitz. Research indicates that the global total at the same time is of order many hundreds of millions, altogether forming a mass global holocaust of the most innocent and voiceless among us, the worst in history.

The major media voices, with scarce few exceptions, are implicated in at minimum enabling behaviour.

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad you will be full of darkness. If the imagined light in you is darkness, how great is your darkness.

I ask: who said that, on what occasion, as recorded in what piece of literature. And, how is this connected to Dr Carson?

In the case of Dr Carson, we have a man who instead of enabling the imagined light that is instead destructive darkness, dedicated himself to saving lives of children, improving their health and life prospects, and in so doing became a world class pioneer in neurosurgery, one of the most difficult facets of medicine.

A professional discipline steeped in knowledge and skill in many linked scientific domains.

Where the patent fact is, for many many areas of its praxis, macro-evolutionary theory, despite many assertions to the contrary, has proved utterly irrelevant.

Save, that the events of Dr Mengele and co are connected with a drastic breakdown of ethics tied to the ways in which evolutionary materialist ideology and its fellow travellers, dressed up in lab coats, seized control of institutions and the imaginations of the elites from the late C19 on.

Dr Carson, by his life, has shown us through example that a seventh day adventist and it seems young earth creationist, can successfully practice deeply scientific fields at the highest level. (BTW, I am not such an adventist.)

He has shown how the ethics of the gospel move one to save life.

He has shown how members of races of even imagined genetically inferior IQ and from very deprived circumstances can through vision, determination and parental input (imagine, an illiterate demanding regular book reports and using that to spark educational transformation) rise to the very highest levels despite obstacles.

He has shown that such a person, in retirement, can stand up in the face of a civilisation headed over the cliff and say, there is a better way, come let us turn back before it is too late.

And what is the reaction of the jaded, sophisticated, sneering media elites?

Oh, he says sibboleth, not shibboleth, let us destroy him as he is a threat to our agendas.

For shame!

GEM of TKI

PS: Oddly, just last evening (while substituting for a substantive tutor) I was demonstrating to local physics students roughly comparable to freshmen, angular momentum conservation. Dr Carson has in fact in brief alluded to some of the difficulties of solar system formation models, relative to the distribution of angular momentum. Such is an issue, and in fact, confident manner to the contrary, there is no established, demonstrated to be empirically reliable theory of spontaneous solar system formation. Again, this highlights a common failure to give a balanced view of strengths and limitations of science and science education. And in particular the tendencies to ignore the vera causa principle and to treat models as though they were facts.>>

I think we need to look again, at how we are thinking, at how we allow media to manipulate us, at how we project ideologically and what we suppress in the context of what we imagine is light in us. END

Comments

kairosfocus @42:
I simply note ... But, the blanket sweeping away you suggest simply does not wash.
I do no such thing; your emotions are blinding you. The person Jesus, a First-Century Judean carpenter could well have existed and preached at length; his crucifixion is entirely plausible, and the persistence of his followers quite possible. The only part I have to remain skeptical of is references to miracles. They are reported but not verifiable. I do not say these reports are false, only unreliable.
Your problem, patently, is not being careful and prudent, it is that the substance of the history is so antithetical to your worldview preferences that you have selectively hyperskeptically dismissed it.
You neatly describe yourself; it’s not uncommon for someone to see in their adversary what they fear to find in themselves. I dismiss nothing, I just reserve assent. That’s a very different thing.
This is closely parallel to the attitude shown by those of the side you support who spent weeks here recently trying to dismiss and resist self-evident truth.
Whatever the New Testament story is, it is not self-evident. @44:
I note that a prudent, careful thinker will respect first principles and will exert reasonable, appropriate and consistent standards of warrant for cases, acting as well on the assumption of charity.
Agreed. But a careful and prudent thinker will not just accept assertions by you as facts; they will consider and critique them as they think they must.
A good test is, can you acknowledge that error exists is not just general opinion or empirically credible but undeniably and self evidently so . . .
Of course error exists.
...thus grounding that self evident, knowable truth and knowledge exist.
Self-evident, knowable truth exist; as does knowledge.
That you apparently do not perceive a sharp difference between that and hyperskepticism, whether global (= we know we cannot know anything)...
See, here is how I know your hostility blinds you: I have never written that we cannot know anything. Quite the contrary, we can know things. But your hatred has concealed what I've written from you. You are angry at me for things I have never said. What happened to that “assumption of charity” you wrote about earlier?
...or selective (applying double-standards of warrant that give cover for rejecting what one is inclined not to accept), speaks volumes.
I apply the same rational standards to every proposition. But again, your hostility blinds you. sean s.sean samis_{October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PST}

DS, I think we are talking to different contexts now . . . and 42 is on the world's most famous carpenter. On the case I and others saw recently, I speak to the inside/outside view and the issue of adequate warrant for observed fact. That is to history in effect, and I note that what has surfaced is evidentialism joined to selective skepticism, where it seems that the a prioris on what is possible drive the response to evidence. The hazard being, locking out reasonable evidence on an a priori that begs the question. That, is not epistemically safe. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PST}

KF, If your post #42 was not referring at all to the levitation incidences, then I withdraw the second sentence of my post #45. However you continue to imply that our reservations regarding those incidents indicate a defect in us, which I contend is empty well-poisoning and silly psychologizing, for rhetorical purposes of course. BTW, do you think it is possible that someday we might see scientific evidence of levitation?daveS_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PST}

DS, I am sorry, but here you have missed the mark. The issue on the table for the moment is the basic historical existence of a carpenter and itinerant preacher from Nazareth, in a further context of attempted dismissal of prime source documents and serious weight of argument. (Cf. 101 here, there is much more, some little of it linked.) To conclude, on warrant -- where, on fair comment, were any other relevant individual involved the sort of dismissiveness of person and sources we so commonly see simply would not be there . . . -- that there is inappropriate selectively hyperskeptical dismissiveness is not empty well poisoning or silly psychologising. In fact there is good reason to hold that the basic historicity of the world's most famous carpenter and eyewitness lifetime credible record with good chain of custody are not on trial, we are in our response to that weight of evidence. The sad fact is, that ever so many in our day unfortunately fail the test; fail it because of an ideological problem, in the end. Where also, it is now common among the same circles to dismiss first principles of reason, starting with distinct identity. Such issues and evident patterns are not healthy signs. KF PS: Let me also note also that to hold studious doubt without good reason when a person of known good character speaks on matters they would reasonably know about, bespeaks a basic problem. Indeed, I suggest that per the Kant Categorical Imperative that such a hermeneutic of suspicion, if it were to become the standard in the community, would lead to its collapse.kairosfocus_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PST}

KF,
Your problem, patently, is not being careful and prudent, it is that the substance of the history is so antithetical to your worldview preferences that you have selectively hyperskeptically dismissed it. This is closely parallel to the attitude shown by those of the side you support who spent weeks here recently trying to dismiss and resist self-evident truth. As some of those truths are literally the foundation of reason, we can safely draw our conclusions as to what we are dealing with.
There is certainly a lot of psychologizing and well-poisoning going on here. I expect that even some of your ID colleagues find sean samis' stance quite appropriate.daveS_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PST}

F/N2: I note that a prudent, careful thinker will respect first principles and will exert reasonable, appropriate and consistent standards of warrant for cases, acting as well on the assumption of charity. A good test is, can you acknowledge that error exists is not just general opinion or empirically credible but undeniably and self evidently so . . . thus grounding that self evident, knowable truth and knowledge exist. That you apparently do not perceive a sharp difference between that and hyperskepticism, whether global (= we know we cannot know anything) or selective (applying double-standards of warrant that give cover for rejecting what one is inclined not to accept), speaks volumes. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PST}

F/N: If you took a look at discussions over recent times at UD, you would see that in 38 I am pointing out the nature of a serious necessary being candidate. Something like a flying spaghetti monster is not a serious candidate, as made of components etc. Any serious candidate necessary being would either be impossible or else actual, the latter implying it is a substructure of any possible world. And as non-being has no causal powers were there ever utter nothing such would forever obtain, so that there is a world implies a necessary being root of reality, the issue is candidates. Cf my discussion here earlier today where I draw it out in a bit more detail: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bakers-dozen-13-questions-id-ask-an-aspiring-atheist-politician/#comment-581884 . . . a comment that also responds to you. KFkairosfocus_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST}

SS, I simply note that if your attitude is that the first century eyewitness lifetime record put out at huge sacrifice by martyr-apostles and handed down as historically anchored truth is insufficient to ground basic historicity of Jesus, you have disqualified yourself from serious discussion. I can understand someone who concludes that a certain C1 carpenter and preacher from Galilee got into trouble with the Jerusalem authorities and paid the price of his life. A common enough matter. I could understand if you accepted that his followers went out and preached in his name, convinced he broke the power of death. I can understand taking the problematic view that they suffered some form of collective, hallucinatory delusion, even though that is quite problematic. But, the blanket sweeping away you suggest simply does not wash. Your problem, patently, is not being careful and prudent, it is that the substance of the history is so antithetical to your worldview preferences that you have selectively hyperskeptically dismissed it. This is closely parallel to the attitude shown by those of the side you support who spent weeks here recently trying to dismiss and resist self-evident truth. As some of those truths are literally the foundation of reason, we can safely draw our conclusions as to what we are dealing with. And your attempted turnabout projection simply fails. The bottomline is, that as of the recent exchange I have been forced to the reluctant conclusion that I am dealing with entrenched ideology rather than reasoned discussion. I will simply invite the more open inquirer to consider the 101 here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grnds KF PS: If you wish to object, kindly begin with the discussion of the minimal facts.kairosfocus_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST}

kairosfocus: @32:
...you obviously have decided to dismiss or even perhaps have never soberly considered the relevant bodies of evidence, textual, historical, archaeological etc with a due sense of what provides reasonable warrant.
I have and I just come to the conclusion that, if this evidence were presented for any other topic, it would be declared insufficient. But because it is presented to support biblical claims, believers lower their standards because they need to. @37:
I think you need to ask yourself whether a prioris are putting you in the position where no possible reasonable evidence could overturn them. ... If one is a priori convinced the supernatural does not exist that can invite circularity, where the matter is one of empirical evidence and any reasonable person must know that millions claim to have had supernatural experience...
I think this is a problem you have; I doubt any reasonable evidence could overturn your position. If one is, a priori convinced the supernatural exists, that can invite circularity. Where the matter is one of empirical evidence, any reasonable person must know that claims by millions to have had supernatural experiences are not conclusive because their “experiences” are of radically different supernaturalisms. @38:
... either [God] is impossible as a square circle is impossible, or he is actual.
Please justify this either/or choice. Any deity can be a possibility which is not known or cannot be certainly known. The choice is not as stark as you want it to be.
If so many people are delusional about knowing God as has been suggested or even treated as a given, the matter would raise serious questions about human rationality in general,...
You would not be the first person to question the rationality of most humans; economists do it quite frequently. All humans are capable of reason, but not all humans do so frequently, many are taught from early on to not be reasonable; many find the conclusions of reason intolerable.
...induction cannot rule out rare exceptional cases, including miracles starting with creation. And by definition of being extraordinary miracles will be rare.
This is true, but this still leaves miracles in a class of unverifiable events; if one does not personally witness the event, one cannot reasonably say “it happened”. @40:
I would be inclined to accept their affirmation absent very good reason to reject. And I think any responsible person will agree with that as the opposite attitude utterly corrodes society. ...
A reasonable person should not declare such reports false, but they should not declare them true either. A reasonable person should be honest and say they don’t have sufficient evidence to form an opinion about such claims.
...I make a big distinction between being a careful, prudent thinker and becoming fashionably hyperskeptical.
Unfortunately, it is my experience that the distinction you make is very tiny to non-existent. I have seen you refer to me and others as “hyperskeptical” simply because we were being careful and prudent. sean s.sean samis_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PST}

DS, it is not my sayso in vacuo. Linked, once I have for cause found someone a responsible person of good character and to be truthful, I would be inclined to accept their affirmation absent very good reason to reject. And I think any responsible person will agree with that as the opposite attitude utterly corrodes society. Beyond that I think the burden of intellectual virtues and responsibilities is backways here. I am not trying to convince you in face of any and all objections, I know what I and others experienced, firsthand. My interest is to see how today's skepticism is a virtue mentality is affecting ability to address issues. And you had better believe that the cases of resistance to first principles and the attitude to what has been exposed about abortion, are getting my attention bigtime. Last, I make a big distinction between being a careful, prudent thinker and becoming fashionably hyperskeptical. KFkairosfocus_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST}

KF, I take it that by "reasonable" you mean "not logically impossible". I'm also not 100% clear on what you mean by "accept". However: 1) Should I conclude, based on your testimony, that a genuine levitation probably occurred? 2) If I claimed to have witnessed an incident which was not logically impossible, would you also conclude that it probably happened?daveS_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PST}

PS 1: I should add that given that God as an Eternal self-sufficient being would be a serious candidate necessary being, either he is impossible as a square circle is impossible, or he is actual. That is a serious challenge for any species of atheism that holds that they KNOW God is not, and also for the subtler versions that insinuate that they are in position to make a responsible decision and hold that they have no belief in God's existence. PS 2: If so many people are delusional about knowing God as has been suggested or even treated as a given, the matter would raise serious questions about human rationality in general, as do assertions or assumptions of radical skepticism. PS 3: On the demonic, there is abundant empirical testimony and I even have some close hand experiences, as do many many others. Indeed medical or nursing people in this part of the world often know when what is needed is a good parson or priest, not medication. But at foundation, is that I start from the prophesied fulfilled resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, with 500+ witnesses. If he took the demonic seriously [above and beyond silly tomfoolery], so will I. And also the broader issue of miracles. Indeed, I wonder if objectors understand as Newton did, that induction cannot rule out rare exceptional cases, including miracles starting with creation. And by definition of being extraordinary miracles will be rare.kairosfocus_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST}

DS, I am primarily referring to a series of threads over some weeks now in which fundamental resistance to first principles emerged. Further, to a pattern over years of inappropriate rejection of the basic historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and linked eyewitness lifetime record. As I actually linked on. When it comes to the thread above, there is some overlap but not a main focus. My concern here is that the pattern of objections and well that's not credible reflects a much wider, deeper breakdown of reasonableness. In general, I would be inclined to accept reasonable testimony; e.g. I would doubt a claim to have created a square circle. I think you need to ask yourself whether a prioris are putting you in the position where no possible reasonable evidence could overturn them. Note my Jack in the box remark above. If one is a priori convinced the supernatural does not exist that can invite circularity, where the matter is one of empirical evidence and any reasonable person must know that millions claim to have had supernatural experience, especially of God and of life transformation through the gospel; which has even had some very positive impacts on world history, e.g. William Wilberforce, Gen Booth of the Salvation Army, etc etc. I think it can be shown that if the existence of God is even possible, miracles are a reasonable expectation, though in this case we are not talking of positive supernatural manifestation; save in setting a victim free. KFkairosfocus_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PST}

KF, From the Baker's Dozen thread:
Given the sort of things that have emerged in recent weeks right here at UD, of skeptics being unwilling to acknowledge even self-evident first truths of reason or reckon soberly with eyewitness testimony and record that is fair on face and of reasonable chain of custody/repository, that is even more of a warning sign.
I'm assuming you're referring in part to this thread. Let me ask you: What do you think I should do with your eyewitness account? Should I conclude that a genuine levitation probably occurred? Now let's reverse the roles. If I told you about an incident that I observed, would you also believe it probably occurred just as I described? Even if there was no hard evidence, and even if you strongly suspected beforehand that such incidents simply do not occur in the world?daveS_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PST}

BA and EvS: Pardon, but while interesting I suspect this is a bit increasingly tangential. Perhaps enough has been exchanged so that people can decide for themselves on Shroud issues. If you wish to have a shroud debate, maybe an open thread can be set up. Do, let me know. KFkairosfocus_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PST}

And cite I will,,, page 7 on the following site: A Clean Cloth What Greek Word Usage Tells Us about the Burial Wrappings of Jesus Diana Fulbright Director of Research, Shroud of Turin Center http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n62part7.pdf Apparently the text is not as clear cut as you would like to imply. Moreover, I already cited evidence that the Shroud was sewn from two pieces of cloth that had been separated, thus giving my position of authenticity leeway for 'strips',,, not to mention the separate face cloth that I also already mentioned. Funny, you want to be absolutely inerrant on your preferred 'many strips' interpretation of the Biblical text, (a 'many strips' interpretation which is known to be out of sync with the known burial custom of the Jews in the first century by the way), an a priori interpretation which I find to be very biased, and yet the Shroud itself, i.e. the physical object itself that can be examined up-close, and personal, in detail, is what is screaming for a miraculous explanation. Go figure. It is ironic that this line of debate you are using is all too reminiscent of my many debates with atheists on UD where they ignore the evidence in question and try to focus on some trivial detail that is irrelevant to the main question at hand. Myself, as I do in my debates with atheists, I will ignore the irrelevancy and simply follow the evidence where it leads, (especially considering how well my bases are covered on the Biblical text in question), and rightly hold that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.bornagain77_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PST}

Moreover, the 3-Dimensional/Photographic Negative image on the Shroud was certainly not created by merely placing the shroud ‘on a dead guy’
And no such image as we see in the shroud is consistent with any coherent rendering of John 19:40. A complete human figure simply could not appear on cloths that are wrapped around a person, as is described in that verse. I'm sure you can cite authorities who claim otherwise, but there really is no getting around this.EvilSnack_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PST}

SS, you obviously have decided to dismiss or even perhaps have never soberly considered the relevant bodies of evidence, textual, historical, archaeological etc with a due sense of what provides reasonable warrant. FYI, sources can be cross checked enough to give them some validity. Once that is done, and this is routine, we have every right to learn from such. But then, you are part of a circle that runs to difficulties with self-evident first principles. KFkairosfocus_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PST}

DS, That we can in principle in the abstract be tricked does not vitiate the general reliability of our senses. To pop up this old jack in the box when convenient does not help. In the relevant case, BTW, there were multiple witnesses. KF PS: What people were going through no good person would wish on anyone.kairosfocus_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PST}

Box @21:
Honesty compels me to say that I can fully relate to the “hyperskeptical” on this forum. ... I know it sounds absurd, but I do have problems believing it myself. That hasn’t changed. What is also true that I have been as accurate and honest as possible when I tell the story …
Box’s comment is quite accurate. The problem with accounts of miracles is that unless you were there, all you can do is choose whether to trust the witnesses. I have never witnessed any miracle, and I have been duped by enough magicians to know I can be duped, and that others can be too. So I remain skeptical. That’s why I have refrained from commenting on miracles reported on this thread. I wasn’t there to witness them, and I withhold my unthinking trust of the witnesses. I cannot say there are no miracles; I can say I’ve never been persuaded to believe any reports of them. There’s this thing in the Bible about being wary of False Prophets. sean s.sean samis_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST}

Dr JDD @16:
The historical evidence that verifies the Bible is overwhelming. It is frankly embarrassing how much evidence there is for this book compared to the next best historical documents in terms of quantity and quality of verifiable historical facts.
The evidence purporting to “verify” the Bible tends to be part of the bible itself. Extrabiblical evidence only verifies some historical context that has no particular doctrinal weight. Extrabiblical evidence of miracles are simply absent.
Therefore if you are going to use that line, you essentially have to dismiss or call into question all historic evidence pre-1600 say as questionable and unverifiable.
There can be no valid evidence of the bible’s validity that is post-200 AD. By the year 200, all witnesses to Jesus’s activities were likely dead. By 1000 AD, all anyone could do is repeat stories they heard.
The number of times people have mocked the Bible for mentioning historic figures (such as Herrod, King David, Solomon, the Canaanites – I could go on) they didn’t have evidence for yet later clear strong archeology call evidence completely backed up is almost countless.
The bible was not written in a vacuum. I’m sure some of these characters existed; I’d be surprised if none did. But the existence of Herod, David, etc. does not validate stories of miracles. Take away those miracles and the bible is just an old history. There is no archeological evidence of any reported miracle.
...I suspect you will only listen to the similarly biased “evidence” that strives to support the notion that the Bible is not that accurate.
I will entertain any evidence you can produce, but I will not certify its authenticity, nor its value sight-unseen. Just because you say something is evidence is not enough. There’s this thing in the Bible about being warry of False Prophets.
That is what your father wants for you though.
So says you, but not any god. If God wants me to believe something or do something, I’m in the phone book. sean s.sean samis_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PST}

KF, I don't seriously doubt that you are accurately describing what you perceived. But even the most careful observer can be tricked by his senses, so I can only file your account (as well as Dr Torley's) in the "interesting" folder.
And knowing the price tag for that situation, I don’t think any sensible person will want to demand access at close hand.
I would certainly be interested in witnessing such an event firsthand, and I consider myself a reasonably sensible person. I am curious about the world, and it seems like direct observation is the only way to learn about these occurrences. If I am in error in regarding them as quite incredible, then I want to know.daveS_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PST}

DS, I was there, looking at the reflected light from the floor where a torso was supposed to be lying. That is where the 10 cm space was that didn't ought to be there. I saw hands droop and head loll back, utterly limp. I know what would have happened if that had got out of hand. I saw the obvious pinning down. My issue is that adequate report should move us, and if it does not that is not a good sign. Neither you nor I will ever be in position to access most of history or most observations behind science etc. If you want to call it partial levitation, fine, it is what obviously should not happen by the ordinary common sense course of the world. And knowing the price tag for that situation, I don't think any sensible person will want to demand access at close hand. So, pardon if I responded to the issues that your words suggest. KFkairosfocus_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST}

Andre, My own story is subtler. As a child, I nearly died of asthma. More than once. At a certain point, I was fading and after nursing me through yet another night, my mom went to the garden at sunrise and surrendered me to God. That day, we went early as possible to a medical centre. No one there yet. As mom half carried me out the door, at the foot of the steps with door open and driver looking up was a taxi cab. Asthma, I know just the doctor. In desperation, mom agreed. That was the doctor who saved my life. A miracle of guidance. Recently when my son had a major crisis, there were similar steps of guidance and opened doors, in an almost pointed echo. It was not very long after that taxi ride, that I made a firm Christian commitment. I am a case in point among millions of God's positive, transforming intervention in our lives and communication with us. Subsequently, especially during my student years, I had to gradually consolidate my understanding of what I experienced as a living encounter with God in the course of my life. And BTW, it is the centrality of thinking worldviewishly that I found to be key. Starting with a light-bulb moment when I realised that reason, warrant and belief are inextricably intertwined in a context that forces us back to recognising that infinite regress is absurd and circularity pointless so we face finitude, fallibility and finitely remote first plausibles sustained on comparative difficulties. Yes, a tenable worldview is a reasonable faith, resting on a finitely remote faith-point. Yes, yardstick self evident truths are involved, grand inferences to best explanation are involved. Accepting testimony of our senses and common sense are involved. And more. KFkairosfocus_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PST}

KF,
I note, just for reference: it is generally physically impossible for a dead faint, limp body to support the back etc parallel to the floor and elevated by ~ 10 cm. There was no visible superincumbent weight on hips etc to counter-weight the natural tendency of a body at rest to balance moments about its centre of mass. The moments do not add up, there obviously is no gyroscope inside the human body on a relevant scale, there was no precession, and there were no strings etc. (Indeed, months later I asked the former victim about the experience . . . utterly unaware of what had happened, i.e. indeed dead faint.)
Maybe so. But I'm just saying that the case Dr Torley referred to is more clear-cut. As the body was allegedly hovering 6 inches off a surface for an extended period of time, there is no need to do further analysis of the physics involved. If it happened, it's a genuine levitation. Perhaps your case is as well, but it's just more complicated.
In short, you are trying to dismiss what you have not seen while discussing with an eyewitness who knows what normally would happen, why and what happened entailing invisible means of support.
Pardon, but you don't have access to my thoughts. I have not dismissed your account. However, exchanges between anonymous persons on the internet and no hard evidence can only take us so far. If I described some extraordinary incident that I witnessed, you might not be completely persuaded that it happened without more documentation. I wouldn't be offended; that's your duty as a skeptic.daveS_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PST}

"but the Scriptures say clearly that Jesus’ burial wrappings were not one single piece of fabric."
A Clean Cloth What Greek Word Usage Tells Us about the Burial Wrappings of Jesus Diana Fulbright Director of Research, Shroud of Turin Center http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n62part7.pdf Shroud Of Turin - Sewn From Two Pieces - 2000 Years Old (Matches Masada Cloth) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uST6qt9pfoo The Sudarium of Oviedo (Face Cloth) http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm Jewish Burial Practices Excerpt: Everything continues to be consistent with the biblical account of the crucifixion and known Jewish burial practices. http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-JewishBurial.html
Moreover, the 3-Dimensional/Photographic Negative image on the Shroud was certainly not created by merely placing the shroud 'on a dead guy'bornagain77_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST}

If disbelief in Darwinism really did fatally compromise a person's ability to grasp and apply biological concepts, then Ben Carson would have utterly failed in his attempts to become a neurosurgeon. BTW, the Turin shroud may have been placed on a dead guy, but the Scriptures say clearly that Jesus' burial wrappings were not one single piece of fabric.EvilSnack_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST}

I guess my miracle is not anywhere near what you guys had, although looking back I should have been dead a few times. I was an atheist until the 28th of July 2010. My brother committed suicide after 13 years of battle with addiction. It was early on the 28th when I left home to go to the state mortuary (pathology offices) to do all the necessary paperwork. I was absolutely terrified that morning, nobody other than my wife knew what time I left or where I was going. I remember praying for the first time in my life and I asked an invisible non-existent god to please help me because I did not want to do this alone. When I got to the pathologists offices, there was a car parked next to me, there was a lady inside the car and she was trying to get my attention, I rolled down my window and recognized a familiar face of a friend that I have not seen for many years. She leaned over and said to me; P.S. My Wife did not know this person. "Not many people believe what I do but God told me this morning that you do not want to be alone" - Strike 1 We carried on and, completed all the paperwork, in the back of my mind I was dreading the idea of having to do the identification and I said a silent prayer again to a non-existent god about my fear to do so. I did not want to see my dead brother, all bloated and discolored from the carbon monoxide he killed himself with, did you know with in 24 hours after such poisoning your skin goes green and literally starts melting away. As I was about to go through, the pathologist stopped me and said that an identification was not needed. - Strike 2 After all the arrangements were made I drove back home which is about a 45 minute drive, I remember a feeling of guilt coming over me and shame covered me, but as it covered me there was a force that removed it as it tried to spread, I can't quite explain the feeling of weight and no weight being applied simultaneously. I remember these words in my mind as clear as I do now, "Do not be ashamed everything in this world I created" - Strike 3 I hit the brakes on my car and parked next to the freeway, I called my wife and asked her for her Pastors number, I called Stephen and said to him, to this day I still don't know why I said it; "Stephen I have to give you testimony!!!" I told him of everything that happened, and after I finished he said, "Amazing I've been preparing the preach for the week and it is about the power of prayer." I instantaneously knew that Christ is who He said He was and His truth set me free that day.Andre_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PST}

KF: And, frankly, this is something that I am not particularly wanting to give more spotlight to than strictly necessary as a discussion of hyperskeptical tendencies.
Almost 3 years ago I shared the account of my miraculous escape from death. WJMurray added his own (similar) mind boggling story. Honesty compels me to say that I can fully relate to the "hyperskeptical" on this forum.
Box: I have told this to my wife, my mother and my best friend. These people want to believe me but even for them it is quite a stretch. I’m not even sure that I can believe it myself. What I’m sure of is that I try to be as accurate and honest as possible when I tell the story.
I know it sounds absurd, but I do have problems believing it myself. That hasn't changed. What is also true that I have been as accurate and honest as possible when I tell the story ...Box_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PST}

Here is a fairly recent lecture series on the Shroud:
The Shroud Of Turin - An Enduring Mystery - Dr. Ray Schnieder - 5 part lecture series Dr. Schneider Five Part Series - Part 1: Introduction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsDm1IyVd2w Dr. Schneider Five Part Series - Part 2: Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17d0YTfUbwU Dr. Schneider Five Part Series - Part 3: History https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI-0v-p18IA Dr. Schneider Five Part Series - Part 4: Skeptics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBTuqkYWJ_Q Dr. Schneider Five Part Series - Part 5: Conclusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQg7kiXmsnk The Shroud Of Turin - An Enduring Mystery - Dr. Ray Schnieder - homepage with links to powerpoints for each lecture http://www.shrouduniversity.com/schneider5part.php
bornagain77_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply