My Thought About Justice is Not Justice: Easy for ID; a Deal Killer for Materialism

_{Barry Arrington
February 5, 2018

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

At ENV Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor exposes how materialist metaphysics flounders on logical grounds in its theory of mind:

As an example, let us suppose that a certain pattern of neuronal activation in my cortex were shown to represent my thought about justice. Obviously that pattern is not my thought about justice itself — justice is a concept, not a bunch of neurons. And if that pattern of neuronal activation represented my thought about justice, it must map to my thought of justice, which presupposes my thought about justice and thus cannot explain it.

Succinctly, mental representation of abstract thought presupposes abstract thought, and cannot explain it. It is on abstract thought that materialism, as a theory of mind, flounders. Abstract thought, classically understood as intellect and will, are inherently immaterial. Any representation in the brain of abstract thought (while it may exist) necessarily presupposes abstract thought itself, which must, by its nature, be an immaterial power of the mind.

Comments

@gpuccio
First of all, I cannot understand your repeated concept that things are “capable of serving a purpose by nature of it being well adapted to perform that purpose”..
I’m referring to the appearance of design, as first formalized by William Paley. Something is well adapted to serve a purpose if it cannot be easily varied without significantly impacting its ability to serve that purpose. The rock in Paley’s hypothetical field could be used as a sundial to tell time, despite not being well adapted for that purpose. The knowledge of how to use the rock to tell time is in us. However the watch is well adapted for the purpose of telling time. You cannot modify it without significantly reducing it’s ability to serve that purpose. On the other hand non-material things could be neither because they are, well, supposedly non-material. Specially, they cannot be well adapted to serve any purpose, like the watch, nor can they not well adapted to serve a purpose like the rock. Yet, you still seem to think the non-material aspect of us serves specific purpose, then suddenly some other purpose. It’s unclear why it serves some purposes, but not others and why it’s capable of somethings, but not others. Example?
Second, all your “argument” about space is completely wrong. Of course, the non physical consciousness which is in us is tied to the brain: ....
How can something non-material have any physical location, let alone a location that is “in us”? How can it be “tied” to anything? Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that some quantum spooky at a distance is going on, material things are entangled with other material things, like particles. How can our brains get entangled to something non-material?
..: indeed, it can perceive the outer world only through the brain, in the normal condition of humans in their physical body. As the brain and the body can change their location in space, so consciousness goes on interacting with the body and brain wherever they are, until that link is working
So it’s impossible for this non-material aspect of ourselves to process raw photons ….
Third, of course death is a process which changes completely that condition. The link between consciousness and body and brain is gradually resolved, and consciousness can express itself in different ways. That is what we observe in NDEs, which are about the transition, when the transition itself is still incomplete and therefore reversible.
... until it’s possible? Does it become well adapted to serve the purpose that our brain previously performed? But, how can something non-material change to become well adapted to serve a purpose? Or was it capable of that all along? In either case, because if it’s possible to perform the purpose that our brains play at any point in time, then it was possible to “supposed” to work that way in the first place. Right? That it didn’t work that way in the first place was arbitrary choice, because it wasn’t the only way “sensing things” could have been implemented. “It’s not supposed to” doesn’t explain anything. This is when I mean when I say the best explanation we can possible have is that “Zeus rules” here as well.critical rationalist_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

J-Mac states: "If out of the body existences can be stimulated by an electrode in one part of the brain, who needs an immortal soul?" And again, how is it possible to have accurate perceptions of reality from anywhere other than the material brain if consciousness really is reducible to the material brain as you hold?
"A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
Indeed, how is it possible for people who are blind from birth to be able to see for the first time in their lives, during their NDEs, if consciousness is reducible to brain states as you hold:
Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) - Pim von Lommel - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1997-16-101-147-1.pdf Near death, explained? - Mario Beauregard - Apr 21, 2012 Excerpt: The scientific NDE (Near Death Experience) studies performed over the past decades indicate that heightened mental functions can be experienced independently of the body at a time when brain activity is greatly impaired or seemingly absent (such as during cardiac arrest). Some of these studies demonstrate that blind people can have veridical perceptions during OBEs associated with an NDE. Other investigations show that NDEs often result in deep psychological and spiritual changes. These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies. NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Contrary to what you apparently desperately want to believe to be true, the preceding evidence is simply impossible on your preferred reductive materialistic view of mind. You also claimed that NDEs are rare but they are not 'rare',,,
Facts about NDEs - video clip on the site Excerpt: In 1982 a Gallup poll estimated that 8 million Americans have had a near-death experience and a more recent study, a US News & World Report in March of 1997, found that 15 million have had the experience. http://www.ndelight.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117&Itemid=63
In summation, the evidence that you yourself cite, electrically stimulated OBE's, contrary to what you desperately "WANT" to believe to be true, simply does not support your worldview of reductive materialism, but in fact your own cited evidence instead supports my worldview of Christian Theism. In fact, both Drs. Greyson and Lommel cited stimulated OBE's as supporting evidence for the reality of NDE's, whilst Dr. Egnor himself cites Penfield overall body of work of stimulating various areas of the brain as supporting the immateriality of the mind and/or soul.
What the Craniopagus Twins Teach Us About the Mind and the Brain - Michael Egnor - November 24, 2017 Excerpt:,,, A patient with a split brain remains a discrete individual person, with one self and one mind. It is the perceptual and sensory aspect of the mind that splits with surgical cutting of the corpus callosum. The person remains unitary. A similar phenomenon was noted by Wilder Penfield, who was the pioneering neurosurgeon who started the discipline of epilepsy surgery. He noted that while operating on conscious patients he could stimulate many sensory and motor aspects of brain function, but he couldn’t stimulate or ablate that patient’s sense of self or experience of unitary existence. There was, Penfield noted, as aspect of the mind that he couldn’t reach, that remained beyond his surgical instruments. This has certainly been my experience as a neurosurgeon as well. Neuroscientist Benjamin Libet, who pioneered the scientific study of consciousness and of free will, also found an immaterial power of the mind that appears distinct from and prior to material mental powers. He concluded that free will is real, and that while our actions seem to be motivated by unconscious intentions, we retain the immaterial ability to veto our actions in accordance with moral law. It is worth noting that the conclusion that the human mind has material and immaterial powers is well founded in theology, philosophy, and neuroscience. The evidence for dualism, and specifically for Thomistic dualism, is abundant in neuroscience. We are composites of material powers and immaterial powers. In the traditional way of understanding man, we are composites of matter and spirit, and we bridge the gap between the two realms of nature. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/what-the-craniopagus-twins-teach-us-about-the-mind-and-the-brain/
Since you originally tried to cite Dr. Greyson in support of your worldview, Here is further comment from Dr. Greyson about the validity of NDEs:
Near-Death Experiences: 30 Years of Research – 2014 Excerpt: Improved Mental Functions With an Impaired Brain Bruce Greyson, M.D. and director of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, said NDEs are reliable because the accounts by near-death experiencers (NDErs) of these events remain unchanged over time. He compared a group of NDErs’ accounts about their NDEs made 20 years apart and found that they remained closely identical over time. Greyson believes that NDEs are an indication that the mind is independent of the brain because impaired brain functions would be expected during the clinical situation that the NDErs underwent, but his research found no corresponding impairment of mental functions in NDErs. “In most cases, people’s mental functioning is better in the NDE than [it] is during our normal waking life,” Greyson said during an interview with The Epoch Times. “Their thinking is faster, is clearer, is more logical, they have more control over their chain of thought, their senses are more acute, their memories are more vivid. “If you ask somebody about their near-death experience that happened 15 years ago, they tell it as if it happened yesterday. If you ask them [about] other experiences from their life at the same time, they are very fuzzy memories, if they have any at all. “[…] When you think that these experiences, which are characterized by enhanced thought processes [that] takes place when the brain is not functioning well or sometimes not functioning at all since it is in cardiac arrest or deep anesthesia—times when brain science would tell us that you shouldn’t be able to think or perceive or form memories—it becomes quite clear that we can’t explain this thing on the basis of brain physiology.” http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2014/07/after-life-nde.html
It is beyond strange that anyone would cite OBEs, whether 'stimulated' or not, as evidence against the immateriality of the mind and/or soul. In fact, J-Mac citing of OBEs to support reductive materialism is a shining example of how badly our prior wordviews can blind us to the evidence that is right in front of us.bornagain77_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: If you are really "trying to take my view seriously, as if it were true, in reality, for the purpose of criticism", then why don't you try to answer my main argument? "By the way, you have never explained how, in your brilliant opinion, complex functional information (yes, the prescriptive type, what you call “non explicatory knowledge”) can arise without any intervention of beings capable of generating descriptive information (what you call “explicatory knowledge”)."gpuccio_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: First of all, I cannot understand your repeated concept that things are "capable of serving a purpose by nature of it being well adapted to perform that purpose". In particualr, the words "well adapted" seem to mean nothing specific, and generate only confusion. In my world, an object is capable of serving a purpose if we can use it to implement that purpose, that's all. I don't understand what you are assuming when you speak of "adaptation". Second, all your "argument" about space is completely wrong. Of course, the non physical cosnciousness which is in us is tied to the brain: indeed, it can perceive the outer world only through the brain, in the normal condition of humans in their physical body. As the brain and the body can change their location in space, so consciousness goes on interacting with the body and brain wherever they are, until that link is working. Third, of course death is a process which changes completely that condition. The link between consciousness and body and brain is gradually resolved, and consciousness can express itself in different ways. That is what we observe in NDEs, which are about the transition, when the transition itself is still incomplete and therefore reversible. I don't "wonder why this sort of thing isn’t taken seriously?". It's very clear to me why you don't take these things seriously, and have to create bizarre and arrogant "arguments" to "demonstrate" that others should share your bad reasoning.gpuccio_{February 9, 2018
February
02
Feb
9
09
2018
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

Electrodes trigger out-of-body experience Stimulating brain region elicits illusion often attributed to the paranormal. Helen Pearson Stimulation of the brain can lead to out-of-body sensations. Stimulation of the brain can lead to out-of-body sensations. Activity in one region of the brain could explain out-of-body experiences. Researchers in Switzerland have triggered the phenomenon using electrodes1. People describe out-of-body experiences as feeling that their consciousness becomes detached from their body, often floating above it. Because these lucid states are popularly linked to the paranormal, "a lot of people are reluctant to talk about them", says neurologist Olaf Blanke of Geneva University Hospital in Switzerland. Blanke found that electrically stimulating one brain region — the right angular gyrus — repeatedly triggers out-of-body experiences. Blanke and his team were using electrodes to excite the brain of a woman being treated for epilepsy. The right angular gyrus integrates visual information — the sight of your body — and information that creates the mind's representation of your body. This is based on balance and feedback from your limbs about their position in space. "It makes perfect sense," agrees Peter Brugger of University Hospital, Zurich, in Switzerland, who studies the phenomenon. "We have representations of our entire body that can be dissociated from our real body," he says. But this is an isolated case, he points out. With gentle stimulation, the woman, who could speak during the operation, felt she was falling or growing lighter. As the intensity increased she told them: "I see myself lying in bed, from above." When asked to look at her raised arm, she thought it was coming to punch her. This observation suggests that 'alien hand syndrome' — when people feel that a limb is foreign — or 'phantom' limbs that people can feel after amputations could be related to out-of-body experiences, says Blanke. Weird science Out-of-body experiences are incredibly common, says clinical neurologist John Marshall of the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, UK. Some are part of near-death experiences. Some believe that the events have religious or spiritual causes, or that a person really leaves their physical body behind. They may, for example, interpret them as evidence that the physical and spiritual body can separate again after death. The new experiments cannot disprove such ideas, says Marshall: "It doesn't show that people with paranormal beliefs are wrong" - it simply demonstrates one way that the experience can be stimulated. Nevertheless, "I think it would give great comfort to patients" who, he says, frequently question their own sanity. Thrill-seekers will be hard-pushed to artificially create their own out-of-body experiences, adds Brugger. "You can't stimulate that precisely without opening up the skull," he says. http://www.nature.com/news/1998/020916/full/news020916-8.html If out of the body existences can be stimulated by an electrode in one part of the brain, who needs an immortal soul? This would explain why only a small percentage of people who were clinically dead had an out of body experiences... not everyone clinically dead gets this part of the brain stimulated or affected by some processes related to a dying brain.... Let's not forget that God didn't tell Adam and Eve at least on two occasions the their souls will continue to live on after their bodies die... So all the pieces of the puzzle fall in place unless BA77 and other supports of the immortal soul finally decide why God didn't tell them ALL the details about their death and afterlife...J-Mac_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

@gpuccio From a paper that BA77 appealed to.....
Another important feature that challenges the materialistic model of consciousness and the brain is being “out of the body” and accurately perceiving things that could not be perceived normally. Among several hundred near-death experiences I have studied, 48% reported accurate “out-of-body” vision.
Here BA77 is appealing to the claim that people are supposedly able to accurately perceive things that could not be perceived though their nervous system. Are you saying this must be false because the non-material aspect of us can only interact with our brains? And since any input not from our brains wouldn't be pre-processed by our nervous systems, then our non material aspect of ourselves couldn't make heads or tails of it? Since we do not have eyes floating behind us in tow via nerves that lead to our brains, wouldn't that mean that non-material part was interacting with something other than our brains, such as raw unprocessed photons that are behind out bodies? IOW, if we trying to take your view seriously, for the purpose of criticism, you should think this is impossible because "it's not supposed to work that way", right? Let me guess, it's not supposed to work this way, except when we're near death? Then it can suddenly access inputs unprocessed by our nervous system? But then why can't we perceive other things when we're near death, like a quasar across the galaxy or rovers on mars or the input of some other person's brain? What prevents it from happening only when we're near death? Let me guess again, because it's not supposed to work that way? And you wonder why this sort of thing isn't taken seriously?critical rationalist_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

You go on making unwarranted assumtoion on what some non physical conscious agent should be able to do.
Again, my point is, if something isn't capable of serving a purpose by nature of it being well adapted to perform that purpose, (which non-material things could never be because there is nothing about them that can be well adapted) then what makes them able to perform some purposes, but not others? Namely, I'm only trying to take your view seriously, as if it were true, in reality, for the purpose of criticism. Example? Right, now, I'm sitting on a stool in a coffee shop. Before then, I was sitting at a desk across town. If there is some part of me that is immaterial, then it must be able to interact with the matter of my brain in both of those two physical locations, right? And if I flew to the other side of the world, the supposed non-material aspect would be able to interact with my brain, there as well, right? And if I somehow went though a worm hole and ended up on the other side of the galaxy, it would be able to interact with my brain there as well, correct? And, what about the previous person who was sitting where I am now? There supposed non-material aspect must have been able to interact with their brain in the same location that mine is now, right? And when I get get up to leave in about an hour from now, there will be photons traveling though the space where my brain was. If that non-material aspect of myself could interact with the matter of my brain that was there, then it's unclear why it couldn't also interact with other matter that will take it's place in the future, including those photons. Right? So, why not the photons in a sphere around me? Why not all photons, etc? Being non-material, it has no physical location, because to have a location it must be material. Right? So, if this non-matieral aspect of myself can interact with the matter of my brain wherever it is anywhere in the universe, then why couldn't it interact with other matter anywhere in the universe, including other brains or even photons? To rephrase the question, why doesn't it interact with all matter in the universe? Being non-material, the explanation cannot be that it's well adapted to the purpose of interacting with only my brain. Why? Because that would require it to have some material aspect to be well adapted, in that it's located in my skull connected only to my brain, or that it's well adapted in that it transmits on a specific frequency, etc. But none of those things can be possible because, being non-material, it cannot have a location or be find tuned, etc. Again, to my point, the best explanation we could possibility have as to why my non-material soul doesn't interact with all matter is that "it's not supposed to", which is the equivalent to "Zeus rules" here.critical rationalist_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Of related note: Dr. Pim van Lommel also cited electrically stimulated Out of Body Experiences in his article entitled "Medical Evidence for NDEs"
A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs Pim van Lommel Excerpt: The influence of external localized magnetic and electric fields on these constant changing electric and/or magnetic fields during normal function of the brain should now be mentioned. Neurophysiological research is being performed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), in the course of which a localized magnetic field (photons) is produced. TMS can excite or inhibit different parts of the brain, depending of the amount of energy given, allowing functional mapping of cortical regions, and creation of transient functional lesions. It allows assessing the function in focal brain regions on a millisecond scale, and it can study the contribution of cortical networks to specific cognitive functions. TMS is a non-invasive research tool to study aspects of human brain physiology including motor function, vision, language, and the pathophysiology of brain disorders as well as mood disorders like depression, and it even may be useful for therapy. In studies TMS can interfere with visual and motion perception, it gives an interruption of cortical processing with an interval of 80-100 milliseconds. Intracortical inhibition and facilitation are obtained by paired-pulse studies with TMS, and reflect the activity of interneurons in the cortex. Also TMS can alter the functioning of the brain beyond the time of stimulation, but it does not appear to leave any lasting effect. (14). Interrupting the electrical fields of local neuronal networks in parts of the cortex also disturbs the normal function of the brain, because by localized electrical stimulation of the temporal and parietal lobe during surgery for epilepsy the neurosurgeon and Nobel prize winner W. Penfield could sometimes induce flashes of recollection of the past (never a complete life review), experiences of light, sound or music, and rarely a kind of out-of-body experience. These experiences did not produce any transformation.(15-16) After many years of research he finally reached the conclusion that it is not possible to localize memories inside the brain. Olaf Blanke also recently described in Nature a patient with induced OBE by inhibition of cortical activity caused by more intense external electrical stimulation of the gyrus angularis in a patient with epilepsy (17). The effect of the external magnetic or electrical stimulation is dependent of the amount of energy given. There may be no clinical effect or sometimes stimulation is seen when only a small amount of energy is given, for instance during stimulation of the motoric cortex. But during “stimulation” with higher energy inhibition of local cortical functions occurs by extinction of the electrical and magnetic fields resulting in inhibition of local neuronal networks (personal communication Blanke). Also in the patient described by Blanke in Nature stimulation with higher electric energy was given, resulting in inhibition of the function of the local neuronal networks in the gyrus angularis. And when for instance the occipital visual cortex is stimulated by TMS, this results not in a better sight, but instead it causes temporary blindness by inhibition of this part of the cortex. We have to conclude that localized artificial stimulation with real photons (electrical or magnetic energy) disturb and also inhibit the constant changing electrical and magnetic fields of our neuronal networks, and so influence and inhibit the normal function of our brain. In trying to understand this concept of mutual interaction between the “invisible and not measurable” consciousness, with its enormous amount of information, and our visible, material body it seems wise to compare it with modern worldwide communication. http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm
Like Dr. Greyson, Dr. Lommel is well respected in his research:
PIM VAN LOMMEL, MD Cardiologist/Author VIDEO: Pim van Lommel: The Mystery of Perception During Near Death Experiences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avyUsPgIuQ0 In our prospective study of 344 patients who survived cardiac arrest we had to come to the surprising conclusion that all the reported elements of a Near-Death Experience (NDE) like an out-of-body perception, meeting with deceased relatives or a life review were experienced during a transient functional loss of the cortex and of the brainstem, with a flat line EEG. During their cardiac arrest people can have veridical perceptions from a position outside and above their lifeless body. NDE-ers have the feeling that they have apparently taken off their body like an old coat and to their surprise they appear to have retained their own identity with the possibility of perception, emotions, and a very clear consciousness. This out-of-body experience (OBE) is scientifically important because doctors, nurses, and relatives can verify the reported perceptions, and they can also corroborate the precise moment the NDE with OBE occurred during the period of CPR. This proves that an OBE cannot be a hallucination, because this means experiencing a perception that has no basis in “reality”, like in psychosis, neither it can be a delusion, which is an incorrect assessment of a correct perception, nor an illusion, which means a misleading image. Moreover, one needs a functioning brain for experiencing hallucinations, delusions or illusions. Additionally, even people blind from birth have reported veridical perceptions during NDE and OBE. Based on several NDE-studies it seems inevitable to conclude that veridical perception is possible independently of brain function. In my lecture I will give several examples of veridical perceptions during NDE, and discuss the differences between seeing with the eyes during waking consciousness (who is seeing? what is seeing?) and perceiving during the period of a non-functioning brain (‘apparent unconsciousness during clinical death’).
bornagain77_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Of related note to dogmatic worldviews that are impervious to contrary empirical evidence that falsifies them, is this recent article on ENV:
Heretic, Intelligent Design, and the Materialism of the Gaps Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt - February 8, 2018 Excerpt: James Tour is a leading origin-of-life researcher with over 630 research publications and over 120 patents. He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015, listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters in 2014, and named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine. Here is how he recently described the state of the field: "We have no idea how the molecules that compose living systems could have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biology’s functions….Those that say, “Oh this is well worked out,” they know nothing — nothing — about chemical synthesis — nothing….From a synthetic chemical perspective, neither I nor any of my colleagues can fathom a prebiotic molecular route to construction of a complex system. We cannot even figure out the prebiotic routes to the basic building blocks of life: carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. Chemists are collectively bewildered. Hence I say that no chemist understands prebiotic synthesis of the requisite building blocks, let alone assembly into a complex system. That’s how clueless we are. I have asked all of my colleagues — National Academy members, Nobel Prize winners — I sit with them in offices. Nobody understands this. So if your professors say it’s all worked out, if your teachers say it’s all worked out, they don’t know what they’re talking about." Despite all this, Stanley Miller’s (1953) experiment is still presented in textbooks as if it all but sealed the deal for a naturalistic origin of life. NASA is still searching for marks of life on nearby planets, fueled by the belief that life should spring up relatively easily given the right conditions. And the uninformed public continues to be told that life is nothing more than complex matter. There seems to be only one explanation for this stubborn refusal to register all of the contrary evidence. We are dealing with a conviction deeply rooted in a worldview. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/heretic-intelligent-design-materialism-of-gaps/
bornagain77_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

J-Mac cites out of body experiences as proof against the validity of NDE's??? Really??? Just how is it possible for a material brain to have accurate perceptions about reality from anywhere other than the material brain itself unless conscious perception is not strictly limited to a material brain? Moreover, J-Mac cites Dr. Bruce Greyson's research as proof against NDE's??? Really??? Funny that Dr. Bruce Greyson, a well respected researcher at the University of Virginia, himself finds his research to very much support the validity of NDE's or more particularly to support the validity of Consciousness Independent of the Brain
Dr Bruce Greyson Consciousness Independent of the Brain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aWM95RuMqU transcription of preceding talk: "Some of the best evidence of consciousness functioning independently of the brain comes from near-death experiences," - Bruce Greyson http://sfm.scienceformonks.org/SciencePrograms/MonasticGraduates/Conference/CosmologyAndConsciousnessI/Resources/Text_Is_Consciousness_Produced.pdf Interview: Bruce Greyson on Researching Near-Death Experiences at the University of Virginia - May 25, 2015 Excerpt: Dr. Greyson once told the University of Virginia magazine: “Our mind-brain identity model works fine for everyday walking and talking, but when you’re looking at times when the brain is not functioning and the mind seems to function quite well, you get into that extreme area where we need to look at some other models.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/interview-bruce-greyson-on-researching-near-death-experiences-at-the-university-of-virginia_1368200.html
J-Mac, before this thread, and your recent responses, I thought you might be somewhat reasonable, but I was mistaken. You are so wedded to the prior commitment of how you "WANT" the world to be that you can no longer see how the world actually is.bornagain77_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: You seem to love repeating the same things over and over. I don't. You go on making unwarranted assumtoion on what some non physical conscious agent should be able to do. You seem to attribute by default omnicscience and omnipotence to any possible non physical entity. I cannot understand why, but I doubt that you will stop doing that. Again, when we are playng at some very good PC game, tyhe screen and keyboard are our interface. As humans, we are playing at some very complex game. You may ask why, but that is of course a philosophical problem. The simple truth is that we are at it. Our consciousness interacts with the outer world by our body, and in our body the interface between matter and conscious representations os obviously mainly in the brain. This is an observable fact. Inputs that reach the brain are in some way processed. That is another fact. Our conscious representations are mainly representation of those processed inputs. That is another fact. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the interface is at the brain. It is a fact. And there can be no doubt that an interface at the brain allows us to represent not only inputs, but processed inputs. So, if the purpose if to allow our consciousness to interact with the outer world thoruigh our physical body, it is absolutely logical, and not arbitrary, to design the interface at the brain. OK, now repeat again your silly ideas about possible infinite onterfaces with all existing photons, or whatever you like. Until you deal only with your imaginations and rationalizations, I doubt you can say anything really interesting. And you knwo, one of the main points in a lot of philosophies is that human consciousness, while being possibly beyond physycal limitations in the ultimate sense, is certainly strongly limited in the course of human life in a physical body. Maybe you are so intelligent that you have, alone, understood that all those thinking that way are fools. Good luck with that. By the way, you have never explained how, in your brilliant opinion, complex functional information (yes, the prescriptive type, what you call "non explicatory knowledge") can arise without any intervention of beings capable of generating descriptive information (what you call "explicatory knowledge").gpuccio_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

If the issue of an immaterial/immortal soul is not an ID issue, maybe Dr. Egnor should focus on something else in his articles other then referring to mind/thought(abstract mainly) /consciousness/soul...as if they were one or had the same source... To me, he clearly makes that connections... BTW: Why does an independent being (soul) need the brain for some thoughts and not for other, such as abstract thoughts? Is there a plan to only think in abstract terms after death?J-Mac_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

CR, BA77 is a proponent of quantum consciousness...as I am because there is some quite convincing evidence that consciousness is quantum... However, because of his preconceived ideas, he automatically assumed that: quantum consciousness = soul Unfortunately, if BA77 and many others here as well as Dr. Egnor want to remain Christians, they need to ignore the bible's accounts that are more than problematic, involving the issue of the immortal soul and the afterlife, as I have pointed it out here... If there is afterlife, how come scientists were able to simulated it by experiments? The Trigger of Brain Stimulation: Dr. Bruce Greyson's Near-Death Experience Research Doctors say they have triggered out-of-body experiences (OBEs) in a female patient by stimulating her brain. They believe their work may help to explain mysterious incidents when people report experiences of "leaving" their body and watching it from above. The doctors did not set out to achieve the effect - they were actually treating the women for epilepsy. Neurologist Professor Dr. Olaf Blanke and colleagues at University Hospitals of Geneva and Lausanne in Switzerland were using electrodes to stimulate the brain. They found that stimulating one spot - the angular gyrus in the right cortex - repeatedly caused out-of-body experiences (OBEs). https://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers/brain-stimulation.htmlJ-Mac_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

It looks like J Mac is happy to erect straw man after straw man. Good luck with thatET_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

"19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.” And who disputed that? ,,, The whole resurrection thing by Christ to reunite a spiritually dead humanity with God depends on such a 'barrier of death' that only Christ could cross. In fact, My handle 'bornagain' reflects that whole line of thinking:
John 3:1-16 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Luke 23:39-43 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Matthew 27:51-53 At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…
bornagain77_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

It looks like some have decided to resort do dismissals and distractions... What else can they do? But, here is even more interesting thing: After Adam and Eve sinned, God didn't tell them they have immortal souls and that they are not going to die either? Can you believe this? Genesis 3:19 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return." I think this is some kind of a conspiracy... but on whose part?J-Mac_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

To use another example, chances are, you're connected to the internet wirelessly, as opposed to using an ethernet cable that connects your computers to a router. But, still, the wifi base station is located somewhere, transmits on a specific frequency at a specific power, uses protocols to determine what data you should receive, etc. Radio waives exist in physical space, but they exist in a radius, not along some unbroken chain of atoms. As designers, we've achieved the same functionality without requiring hard wired connections. If we can achieve this, given our limited knowledge, then it's possible the ID's designer could have designed us to receive and send signals wirelessly as well. Right? Bluetooth low power systems can be developed using very low energy, and that's still what we can do with limited knowledge. But, given that there is some supposed part of us that isn't anywhere in physical space, has no surface area, doesn't require a power source, etc. then there is no necessary radius in which it must operate, or limit to what it could connect to. It doesn't even need a wireless network at all. If it can bridge the gap at our brain, it's unclear why something with no location couldn't bridge the gap in two places, five places or everywhere. That it does not bridge the gap everywhere is an arbitrary choice because there is no physical constraint of requiring a path to somewhere when there is no somewhere at which it exists in a physical sense. Again, no better explanation can be had other than "that's just what the designer must have wanted." And we're supposedly the ones without any imagination?critical rationalist_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

If it wanted us to see, our "non" material soul could have interfaced with the photons around us, rather than our brains, etc. A complex path that consist of a complex material nervous system isn't a "necessary" implementation of sight because, being non-material, it has no single physical location to which all matter must converge to bridge the non-materal to material gap. It is in the sense that the choice to implement sight in this particular way is arbitrary. It's unclear why a non-material thing that has no physical location must somehow connect something in a specific physical location because, well, it has no physical location. You don't need to have signals converge to a particular point to interface with something that isn't anywhere in particular. Nothing prevents it from doing so, other than by the designer's fiat, which is equivalent to saying no better explanation can be had other than ""Zeus rules."critical rationalist_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

CR: IOW, if you’re assuming there is some non-material aspect of us that is not bound to the laws of physics, then the best explanation we could possibly have for why these things do not happen is that “Zeus rules” here. Wouldn’t you agree?
Your reply?
I have very simply said at #63 thatthere is nothing arbitrary in the choice of the brain for the interface from a design point of view, because that’s exactly the way it must be to allow the design to work. That’s the simple truth. If you design a tool for someone to use, you put the interface where it should be for the tool to be used.
This not disagreeing with me. “that’s exactly the way it must be to allow the design to work.” is no different than “Zeus rules” here because the designer by rule, wanted to to “work” that way. Not because that was the only implementation that could achieve the same goal.critical rationalist_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: You go on repeating your only argument. I have discussed it many times, and unfortunately I find it completely silly. But of course you are entitled to believeing silly things. You had stated at #62: "Again, the point at which this gap is bridged would be an arbitrary choice by the designer. Brains would be an arbitrary choice." I have very simply said at #63 thatthere is nothing arbitrary in the choice of the brain for the interface from a design point of view, because that's exactly the way it must be to allow the design to work. That's the simple truth. If you design a tool for someone to use, you put the interface where it should be for the tool to be used. Having no arguments about that, you reiterate that in your very personal and very imaginative bad philosophy, of which you seem to be very proud, there is no need for the tool. Of course you are wrong, but you can certainly go on believing that. But that does not mean that the place where the interface has been designed is arbitrary.gpuccio_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

JMac @ 108: Maybe because God decided that the book of Genesis and the whole bible had to be understandable to all of humanity throughout recorded history, and not just for your highly individualistic western, dare I say, narcissistic expectation that he explain everything perfectly for you and to you in your cultural moment. Humility is a useful tool toward the acquisition of wisdom, but impossible through your eyes of pride.AnimatedDust_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Why arbitrary? The whole purpose of the central nervous system is to process outer stimuli. It’s absolutely logical that the interface must be at the end of the processing task.
Why does a non-material soul need to receive pre-processed stimuli? How can somehow non-material, by definition, be missing something necessary for it to perform some task if that non-material aspect is supposedly not well adapted to serve that task in the first place? What could possibly be "added" or better adapted to give it that ability? If it can somehow bridge the gap to interface with our brain, what prevents it from directly connecting to the nerves in our skin all over our body? Why can't it interface with all of the photons in a sphere that surrounds me and turn those into 360 degree vision, as opposed to just the electrical impulses emitted from my eyes? And since we don't actually touch anything, due to the way physics works, why can't it interface with those changing field levels, rather than the nerves in our skin, etc. It's unclear what makes our soul bridge the gap only with the material aspects of our brain, as opposed to some other physical aspect of our body or even physical aspects around us. Given that it supposedly has no physical location at all and is not bound to the laws of physicsl, why doesn't it interface with all the photons around me, or all the photons in the universe? And why just my brain? Again, since it has no physical location, what prevents it from connecting to all the brains of people in my vicinity, all the brains in my city, the brains in my state, in my entire country or every brains in the universe? If we exist in a bubble of explicably that exists in a sea of inexplicability, the best explanation we can have for anything in that sea is that "Zeus rules" there. But it doesn't end there. Why? Because our bubble of explicably supposedly depends on this sea in a myriad of ways. So, the best explanation we could possibility have for anything inside this bubble is "Zeus rues" here, as well. As such, things inside this bubble only appear explicable if you carefully avoid specific questions, such as the one's I've just asked. IOW, if you're assuming there is some non-material aspect of us that is not bound to the laws of physics, then the best explanation we could possibly have for why these things do not happen is that "Zeus rules" here. Wouldn't you agree?critical rationalist_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Might I suggest Michelangelo in this painting, as well as the vast majority of other Christians during the ages, have had a very different interpretation of the fall than you? https://artmodel.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/michelangelo_expulsion.jpg Moreover, does anyone else find it interesting that the fall of man entailed eating from the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil',,,
Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
,,, and that one of the top arguments against God, if not the top argument, is the 'argument from evil'
Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled a video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism…. What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true…. The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/film-night-with-philip-cunningham-atheists-reasons-for-not-believing-in-god-are-not-scientific-and-more/
I find it very curious that one of the top arguments against God, if not the top argument, i.e. the argument from evil, entails the presupposition that man is able to accurately differentiate what is morally good and what is morally evil better than God can, and that the 'original sin' entailed just that. Even Darwin himself relied heavily on the 'argument from evil' in his book Origin of Species., i.e. 'God would not have done it that way'
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
And although atheists may find the argument from evil compelling, the fact of the matter is that the argument from evil is pathetically shallow and refutes itself. Simply put, If Good and Evil exist then God must necessarily exist.
Where Do Good and Evil Come From? - Peter Kreeft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity “The strength of materialism is that it obviates the problem of evil altogether. God need not be reconciled with evil, because neither exists. Therefore the problem of evil is no problem at all.,,, And of course since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil-the very thing the materialist seems to deny. The argument (from Theodicy) that led to materialism is exhausted just when it is needed most. In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,, The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science." Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159
bornagain77_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Per J-Mac @106: > Why God didn’t tell Adam and Eve that they were > actually not going to die (because they had an > immortal soul), if they had disobeyed and eaten > the forbidden apple? You persist in asking a lot of questions that have little if any bearing on ID. They're good questions, if honest, but they are more appropriately addressed in a forum about spiritual topics. I'll just respond to this one to illustrate your own assumptions. According to the Christian Bible, God *did* tell Adam that he would actually die if he ate the forbidden fruit. (For one who insists that God did not tell Adam some things, it's odd that you specify his eating an apple.) It was the serpent who contradicted God's instructions, telling Eve, "you will not certainly die." I think it's fair to understand "certainly" in that context as equivalent to your word "actually". In your place, I'd be concerned that I was taking the side of that serpent. God's instruction was clear, that Adam would actually die on the day he ate that fruit. Why Adam did not actually die on that day has nothing to do with an alleged immortal soul. It is because God did something else to rescue Adam from the fate he would otherwise have experienced. Adam may or may not have an immortal soul. That question and others are better discussed in a different forum. (I'll be happy to talk more about it there if you want to specify a location.) None of your questions rebut the concept of ID, nor do they counter Dr Egnor's original (quoted) reasoning about an immaterial aspect of the human mind. Apologies to the others in this thread for continuing a religious/spiritual argument. I'll stop now.DennisM_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Straw man- How do you know what God said? All you know is what you have taken from the Bible- an interpreted translation of the original. Man's rendering of God's Words. Do you really think it contains every Word God spoke to them? Why would I say that you are the problem? Your straw men.ET_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

ET @107 The body dies. Why didn't God say that then? "The day you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, your body will die, but your soul will be sent to hell to be tormented forever..." You would expect that from humans...Wouldn't you expect that from God? Look J Mac, you are the problem and not Egnor, BA77 or anyone else Why would you say that? Are you angry? If yes, why?J-Mac_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

J Mac:
Why God didn’t tell Adam and Eve that they were actually not going to die (because they had an immortal soul), if they had disobeyed and eaten the forbidden apple?
The body dies. Look J Mac, you are the problem and not Egnor, BA77 or anyone elseET_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

It seems obvious to me that for all those with their philosophical bias toward the immortal soul, like BA77, Dr. Egnor and many others, is to answer the question: Why God didn’t tell Adam and Eve that they were actually not going to die (because they had an immortal soul), if they had disobeyed and eaten the forbidden apple? In Gen 2:16 and 17 we read; “16 God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” I would think had they known that they had the immortal souls that would be sent to hell after death to be tormented forever maybe they would have reconsidered… But did they know???!! Since there is no mentioning of it at all…So how could they have known? The question still remains: Did God not tell ALL the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin? Or many in the world today, including BA77, Dr. Egnor, are simply using their philosophical bias to support their preconceived ideas? The answer is simple and that is all it boils down to on this OP, but not very convenient for many… BTW: Please do not overwhelm this issue with countless and irrelevant videos, quotes and distractions such as the Shroud even if you believe they are semi-related. I don't read them or watch them...few times is enough to get the point that they are totally irrelevant...J-Mac_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Whereas, the evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud, which supposedly dated the Shroud to the medieval period, has now been overturned:
Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 Test Proven False – - Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford - video (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years. http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/shroud/shroudold.htm Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008) Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. - Robert Villarreal - Los Alamos National Laboratory http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/ Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery' - 28 Mar 2013 Excerpt: Experiments conducted by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy have dated the shroud to ancient times, a few centuries before and after the life of Christ.,,, The analysis is published in a new book, "Il Mistero della Sindone" or The Mystery of the Shroud, by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University,,, Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud,,, The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.,,, Scientists have never been able to explain how the image of a man's body, complete with nail wounds to his wrists and feet, pinpricks from thorns around his forehead and a spear wound to his chest, could have formed on the cloth. Mr Fanti said the imprint was caused by a blast of “exceptional radiation”, although he stopped short of describing it as a miracle. He said his tests backed up earlier results which claimed to have found on the shroud traces of dust and pollen which could only have come from the Holy Land.,,, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html
Thus, take from it what you will, but the Shroud of Turin certainly is not so easily dismissed as you seem to imply in your comment.
Gödel, Infinity, and Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Jw5Y686jY Excerpt: the fact that Jesus Christ dealt with both general relativity and quantum mechanics in His resurrection from the dead is made evident by the Shroud of Turin.,,, Particle Radiation from the Body - July 2012 - M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf Astonishing discovery at Christ's tomb supports Turin Shroud - NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. 'However, Enea scientists warn, "it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

J-Mac, I also noticed this comment you made: "Once you wrote empirical evidence I knew the “empirical evidence” for the Shroud of Turin was going to be mentioned somewhere…" And, since we are talking about life after death, why should I not mention the Shroud? Like the 'quantum' evidence for the soul, the empirical evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has only gotten far stronger as time has passed, not weaker:
Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://youtu.be/F-TL4QOCiis Professor Fanti displays a 3D “distance information” image of the Shroud of Turin. - picture https://i0.wp.com/www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Fanti-3D.jpg Five reasons why the Shroud of Turin could be authentic April 17, 2014 Excerpt: How was the image formed on the cloth? The answer to this question can be found in a 2012 study by world-renowned Shroud researcher Professor Giulio Fanti of Padua University in Italy. His study strongly suggested that the force which caused the man’s image to be imprinted on the cloth was radiation released in the form of an electrical discharge. In layman’s terms, a burst of light and energy. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/17/five-reasons-why-the-shroud-of-turin-could-be-authentic-113215 New Evidence Bolsters Claim That Turin Shroud Was Used To Bury Christ - July 17, 2017 Excerpt: A new study of the Shroud of Turin,,, found a high level of creatinine and ferritin in the blood particles present in the linen fabric, indicating that the person wrapped in it was a victim of torture.,,, “Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture,” Fanti said. “Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.”,,, http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-evidence-bolsters-claim-that-turin-shroud-was-used-to-bury-christ/ Detailed Forensic Evidence of The Shroud - video Excerpt: "it is definitely an anatomically and forensically correct depiction of a victim of a Roman crucifixion." http://www.shroud-enigma.com/wall_1/autopsy/turin-shroud-forensic-pathology.html Below is a summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the ancient burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. by J. Michael Fischer, adapted from the original article by John C. Iannone http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin?highlight=shroud New Study: The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Covered the Same Person Researcher finds complete correspondence in the points where blood flow started - April 11, 2016 http://aleteia.org/2016/04/11/new-study-the-shroud-of-turin-and-the-sudarium-of-oviedo-covered-the-same-person/
bornagain77_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next