Stephen Hawking says intelligent design of the universe is highly probable? Updated, yes a hoax

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 12, 2015

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, News}

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

[Someone kindly tweeted: WDNR is satirical entertainment website & not a source of news –worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/ Back to work.]

And it isn’t even April 1? Ran March 8 at World News Daily:

The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe.

Presenting himself before students at the University of Cambridge, the world-famous scientist declared that his years of research on the creation of the cosmos have led him to isolate a strange scientific factor which he says is in many ways contrary to the universal laws of physics.

Personal reasons seem to play a role.

Can’t find evidence it’s a hoax as yet. Watching. Breaking.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

wallstreeter, I have looked at the results of the AWARE study. In my post 42 you can read the sum total of the category 5 recollections from this study, and my reasons for finding them completely unconvincing, much as I might wish otherwise. I therefore find Piotr's so-called "failure" to address the AWARE study entirely reasonable, and I have no reason to "call him out on it". Also be aware (heh) that the subjective timelines that people experience can be highly distorted as compared with time measured with a clock. So your assertion that a veridical nde occurred at a time when there was no brain function is not supported.DNA_Jock_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

BA said ""wallstreeter, the over the top bias has been a mystery to me too for a long while. I keep asking myself, ‘What is the payoff for these guys for such a lopsided bias towards atheism’? ‘Diary of a Madman’ indeed!"" BA I have a friend that's a nihilist and whenever we talk about these issues he tells me that he understand s why we Christians are so passionate about them, but he can't for the life of him understand why atheists argue them so patssiinately . He says that they are being dishonest with themselves , and that if atheism is true then why are they wasting precious time arguing it. Instead they should do what he has been doing all his life and that is amass as much material wealth and get as much physical pleasure as they can out of life cause in their meaningless worldview, there is no purpose to this life . As a nihilist he understands this which is why he always tells me that the only honest atheist is a nihilist .wallstreeter43_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Humbled said ""As amusing as their lack of logic and their attempts at trying to reconcile their cherished theory with science may be, their actions, philosophies and behaviour is a rather serious issue. They are responsible for mass human slaughter in the past and their anti-human philosophies are responsible for the slaughter of billions more today, especially when one includes abortion and the bumping off of the sick and elderly in to the equation. They are ill and need to be recognised as such. One only needs to read their anti-human writing’s, actions and philosophies to recognise as much. Look at most societies today since atheism has been allowed to spread. Look at the greed, corruption, immorality and mass slaughter that exists in our societies presently. Look at how these zealots have hijacked and corrupted science. Laugh and ridicule them by all means (many of us do so often ) but don’t lose sight of how dangerous and corrosive their philosophies and actions are / have been."" By all means humbled I agree that it is a very serious issue which is why when we get them on a particular issue such as BA explaining them the difference between a person with anesthesia awareness and an nde are worlds apart we keep hammering and never let go of the hammer . Not be uses we are sadistic , but because there are lurkers and seekers watching this discussion very carefully . The rest of us like u , me ,BA and others already know how ridiculous their way if assessment evidence is but seekers and newbies don't . The thing that strikes me most is that they don't believe that they are being irrational in their hyper skepticism , but it's the same way when unsee most atheist sites call themselves free thinkers or brites . Notice that the only ones who are calling them free thinkers or brites are each other. This tells me that there is a defect somewhere in how they process info.. It's like the scientific American article on the study that was done in atheists .in the study it showed them arguing teleologically, then they reject that they are . There is a mental issue somewhere but medical science still hasn't studied the issue much yet.wallstreeter43_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

wallstreeter, the over the top bias has been a mystery to me too for a long while. I keep asking myself, 'What is the payoff for these guys for such a lopsided bias towards atheism'? 'Diary of a Madman' indeed!bornagain77_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Sparc Said ""Is impression correct that BA77 didn’t address the points Piotr made at 106 but rather ducked away. chorus: diggy diggy hole"" Look at the atheist mentality here. Notice that Sparc said nothing about the way Piotr completely dodged every part of the aware study example we brought yet focused on a plotting teeth evidences and not on the many errors worlee made in his comparison between aphis anasthesia explanation and true Nde's . Ask yourself nde job is this a fair assessment of the discussion. A truly honest deist would have also called out the atheist for dodging all the evidences that were against his view . Piotr made no attempt whatsoever in explaining how the aware study patient could have had this nde with his brain. DNA jock is this a correct assessment ? If so the. Why didn't u call Piotr out on it L Is it because you sympathize with his beliefs ? If so then are u truly a deist ?this isn't also for Sparc because we both know that he is a dogmatic religious atheistwallstreeter43_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

BA, this is what I don't understand about atheists like Piotr , it's almost as if they want atheism to be correct , and no one in their right mind, if they really thought of it would want atheism to be correct . The kind of thinking that Piotr uses is the very definitiin of insanity. And speaking of dodging Piotr, you completely dodged the awarr study which is the most current up to date evidence on Nde's and instead decided to focus on non issue speculation of such silly questions as "why does the mind need the body to see if the mind can see without eyes "" Piotr you know that this has nothing to so with disproving the example from the aware study and you know it. This is why I was shocked at fud ing out that DNA jock is a deist, be use he asus he employed the same type of thinking that Piotr used , and for a deist it simply isn't warranted . And as BS said doctor weorlie misrepresented Pam's case big time and ignored all the parts that didn't fit in with his extreme atheistic worldview . There are many examples in the nde literature of patients having veridical Nde's in which they traveled miles away from their body and brought back into that they couldn't have possibly known with their eyes in the situation they were in. Now this questiin is addressed more to DNA jock then to Piotr because it's obvious that Piotr is a religiously motivated atheist who doesn't care aboit the evidence and he will spin it into his atheistic worldview. DNA jock if you really are a deist then I implore you to take a look at that example from the aware study and tell me how you can attribute his veridical nde to any natural brain explanation factors . Be honest and be moderate . This is all we ask.. A true deist would look at the evidence without leaning either way and then make an opinion based on.whatbthe evidence is telling u. Are u an honest deist ? I'm hoping you are :)wallstreeter43_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Well sparc, if you are interested, here is the whole book: The Passage https://books.google.com/books?id=GtpA4jVL-jMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Myself, I found Piotr's criticism of the book to be, as usual, dogmatically biased towards atheism. Moreover, I was not hanging much on that cite since, as I noted. I found it in one google click! But hey, if such superficial refutation of such a superficial cite trips your trigger go for it. Just curious, why are you not equally concerned with Woerlee's blatant dishonesty towards Pam Reynolds's NDE since that has been much more deeply discussed and documented on this thread? Or are you merely concerned with scoring cheap rhetorical points for atheism and you really could care less for the truth of the matter? as is usual for atheists?bornagain77_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Is impression correct that BA77 didn't address the points Piotr made at 106 but rather ducked away. chorus: diggy diggy holesparc_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

DNA jock and I notice that you completely ignored the aware study where it was shown that the man had a veridical nde 2.5 minutes into the stage where there is a non functional brain. Ty for disclosing ur worldview . My uncle is also a deist . Very sharp guy that speaks 8 languages :) I'm curious as to what type of deist are you ? A spiritual one or non spiritual one ? I would think that as a deist you would be very excited about the aware study? Remote viewing study was done by the government so u can't say that utts was in on it . I remember reading an article where she was brought into a committee where she explained the evidences very rationally and held her own despite the panel filled with almost all skeptics . DNA , now you can wiggle on the Pam Reynolds case but it's almost impossible on the case of the awarr study as very strict protocols were put into place . Doctor parnia is very banal when it comes to protocols and already had to stop the study once and restart it again because news of the study leaked to the hospital staff. After the aware study , the only objection by skeptics is that they start nitpicking . For example one skeptic neuro doctor (not gonna name names ) complained that they didn't interview the patient on the spot . This is ridiculous and unethical because the guy was just brought back to life . Give him Time to re over out of courtesy . The reason why you surprised me when you said your a deist is that usually deists would jump at the Veridcal nde in the aware study , but you acted just like an atheist , which confused me . Also to belive that Pam's brain generated her nde is stretching it a bit because her eyes were taped shut and she simply didn't have access to the drill .now other scientists have been able to recreate obe like states but obe but none have been able to recreate the veridical experimence , in other words the part of the nde that is verified as really happening by outside witnesses . Man as a deist my uncle would have been able to look at this from a totally unbiased point of view . Forget atheist , forget religion. Ask yourself if a purely brain based explanation makes sense of where the current evidence is leading us . If you do you will see that brain based explanations are getting weaker and weaker as each year passes .ths is exactly what alex tsakiris is saying as well and he is anti religion , but he's also anti pseudo skepticism , in other words skepticism that is way to extreme and borders on the ridiculous . I think you should look at the many interviews done on skeptiko.wallstreeter43_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

DNA, as to: "Deist, thank you for asking." Your worldview is an incorrect view of reality:
The Galileo Affair and the resurrection of Jesus as the true "Center of the Universe" Excerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15] Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
bornagain77_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Wallstreeter, I note that you have nothing to say about the rest of my post 115; only my comment on remote reviewing generated any response. While ganzfeld, specifically autoganzfeld, represents the best in psi research, that isn`t saying much. I reckon that the jury is still out. Here’s why. 1) The quotes from Utts that you used refer to her meta-analysis, which included earlier ganzfeld studies with known methodological flaws. That’s a no-no (which also applies to Storm et al, see below) 2) Her relationship with May makes her a not entirely independent reviewer. That you call her one is misleading. 3) The SAIC dataset, which represents the core of her analysis, is deeply problematic since there was only a single judge, who just happened to be the director of the research program. Someone who definitely had a vested interest in seeing positive results. Finally, and most relevant to the autoganzfeld data, ALL meta-analyses suffer from the risk that failures to replicate may not be reported. This issue is HUGE, and I am very familiar with it because of its effect on clinical research, where the issue is well-known and much discussed (drug companies avoid publishing negative results). The worrying thing about psi research is that the effect sizes always shrink as the protocols get more rigorous. This, and the unfortunate history of self-delusion and fraud that the field suffers from, make skepticism appropriate. The same thing applies to the meta-analyses on which the psi community relies: Storm et al (2010) report a statistical significance of 2.13 x 10^-8 (one in 47 million! Enough to make almost anyone a believer!). Rouder, Morey and Province took Storm et al’s dataset and , applying Bayesian analysis, showed that they could achieve significance at the 1 in 6 billion level (no non-believers on earth!). Unfortunately, when Rouder et al audited the dataset, removing the studies with inadequate randomization and including unsuccessful studies that Storm had omitted, the significance dropped over a million-fold to a rather paltry 1 in 330. You only need a couple of unpublished failures-to-replicate (highly likely here) and the significance disappears altogether. So until an appropriately sized, multi-center research program reports positive results for their full dataset, the most parsimonious explanation remains “statistical artefact”. P.S. Not that it has any effect on the data analysis, but I did laugh at your use of the Daily Mail as a source. You do know that that tabloid is the closest thing the UK has to the National Enquirer, right? You would make a much better case if you cited real articles on the subject, like Honorton & Hyman’s Joint Communique. Then again, maybe you think that National Enquirer is a reputable source… Yikes. P.P.S. Deist, thank you for asking.DNA_Jock_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

wallstreeter43 says "Atheists are funny ;) " As amusing as their lack of logic and their attempts at trying to reconcile their cherished theory with science may be, their actions, philosophies and behaviour is a rather serious issue. They are responsible for mass human slaughter in the past and their anti-human philosophies are responsible for the slaughter of billions more today, especially when one includes abortion and the bumping off of the sick and elderly in to the equation. They are ill and need to be recognised as such. One only needs to read their anti-human writing's, actions and philosophies to recognise as much. Look at most societies today since atheism has been allowed to spread. Look at the greed, corruption, immorality and mass slaughter that exists in our societies presently. Look at how these zealots have hijacked and corrupted science. Laugh and ridicule them by all means (many of us do so often ;) ) but don't lose sight of how dangerous and corrosive their philosophies and actions are / have been.humbled_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

wallstreeter, So lets see if we can get all this atheistic illusion business straight. According to atheists, consciousness is an illusion of the brain, free will is also an illusion of the brain, and even my own sense of self, the most sure thing I can know about reality, is also an illusion of the brain. Or like Dr. Pearcey recently put it:
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
And here are a few references backing up Dr. Pearcey's contention that the atheistic worldview defeats itself from within:
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 2014 Excerpt: Well and good. But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 There is only one sort of stuff, namely, matter-the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology-and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain. Daniel Dennett How does the brain go beyond processing information to become subjectively aware of information? The answer is: It doesn’t. The brain has arrived at a conclusion that is not correct. When we introspect and seem to find that ghostly thing — awareness, consciousness, the way green looks or pain feels — our cognitive machinery is accessing internal models and those models are providing information that is wrong. Michael S. A. Graziano Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
So in effect under atheism, 'I' am not really a real person having the subjective experience that 'I' freely choose to eat vanilla ice cream instead of choosing to eat chocolate ice cream. No, under materialism, 'I' merely am an illusion of a person having an illusory subjective experience of free choice. In other words, the illusory person that I think is 'me', (man atheism can be confusing), is under the illusion that his illusory self freely choose to eat vanilla ice cream rather than chocolate. You got all that??? If 'you' did get it then please try to explain it to 'me'. And please try to pretend that 'I' really exist when 'you' try to explain it to 'me'. :) Thus, it is no wonder that atheists think Near Death Experiences are illusory, they think that they themselves are illusory. In effect, when an atheist says that NDEs are illusory he is merely extending his illusion and saying that it is merely an illusion of a person having an illusion of an NDE! :) But then again, under materialism, the atheist had no choice to say anything else than what he said. He merely is under the illusion that he could have freely chosen to say otherwise and say that NDEs are not an illusion. :) ,,, Decartes must be up in heaven splitting his sides with laughter seeing the philosophical quagmire that atheists have imprisoned themselves in!
Cogito ergo sum "I think, therefore I am", or "I am thinking, therefore I exist" - René Descartes. David Chalmers on Consciousness (Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
On the other hand, Theists hold that there is really only one real illusion to be dealt with in all this materialistic mess. and that illusion to be dealt with is none other than the atheist's own illusion that material reality is the only reality that exists. As referenced previously in post 119, Leggett's inequality, in over the top fashion (120 standard deviations), falsified materialism as to being the true 'ultimate' reality. (In fact, materialism is often called 'illusory' and 'naive' in Quantum mechanics) Here are many more references, from quantum mechanics, falsifying materialism as being true and validating Theism as to being true:
A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
As to the atheist's poverty of evidence in ever rationally explaining consciousness, here are a few quotes:
Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science’s “Hardest Problem” Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ David Barash – Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor
Here are a few more quotes on the empirical poverty within materialism to ever explain consciousness coherently:
There is simply no direct evidence that anything material is capable of generating consciousness. As Rutgers University philosopher Jerry Fodor says, "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness. Regardless of our knowledge of the structure of the brain, no one has any idea how the brain could possibly generate conscious experience." As Nobel neurophysiologist Roger Sperry wrote, "Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." From modern physics, Nobel prize-winner Eugene Wigner agreed: "We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind." Contemporary physicist Nick Herbert states, "Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot." Physician and author Larry Dossey wrote: "No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." http://www.merkawah.nl/public_html/images/stories/ccvsgwrepr.pdf
Verse and Music:
John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" I AM - MARK SCHULTZ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hILaSh78yHQ
bornagain77_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

""The experience(s) she reported (especially immediately after the procedure rather than three years later) fit well within the realm that others experience when they are under insufficient anesthesia."" Actually it doesn't at all and doctor spitzer even talked about it. You can make assertiins all you want franklin but I can bring you the experys testimony . These are nde researchers not some 2 but atheistic hyper skeptic anasthesiologist that no one takes seriously . BA77 Moreover, there is a huge problem with you trying to say her experience was merely an illusion of the mind: It was an illusion of a body and mind experiencing insufficient anesthesia during a surgical procedure."" Your making an assertion that you can't possibly back up lol. She saw her operation from above her body and saw her leg area being operated on and she described everything perfectly . She could not have seen what she saw and then have it verified by the hospital staff. Her eyes were taped shut dude she didn't form any visions . She saw what was happening and described it perfectly . She also didn't have access to the saw that they used on her head . Franklin if your comfortable being a religious dogmatic atheist that's ok. Whatever floats your boat dude , but no normal person will be able to look at her nde and say it was an illusion caused. Y her mind. If it was then the doctor and nursing staff were having the same hallucination lol Atheists are funny ;)wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Franklin said ""Now how about you explaining how pamela reynolds NDE starts (granted her experience begins with an alleged OBE) while she is at normal body temperature and normal heartbeat and under general anesthesia. How does her case study not fit the anesthesia awareness/insufficient anesthesia conclusion? You can start by working through her timeline of events and her medical procedure timeline. anesthesia awareness does occur 20-40,000 each year and Pam Reynolds case fits all the diagnostic criteria."" Franklin you skirted around the facts again. As doctor Jeffrey long said and I will have to repeat myself twice on, the nde experience and the anesthesia expletive are 2 different experiences , and you claim of her having alleged one is you poisoning the well yet again. She could not have seen what she saw from the vantage point that she had anesthesia awareness or not , and I also pointed out to you the 26 cases that doctor long studied which you conveniently ignored which pushes the odds to a ridiculous point . She could nit have seen her leg from the vantage point she was at . The anesthesia awareness theory is ridiculous .. All of these assertion from ur end have been made mute by the ward study patient who was timed at having his nde during a period of non brain function, even past the deep brain surge . Another thing that by u don't know is that general anesthesia destroys the theory of the deep brain surge . Because none of the human patients or rays had a deep brain electrical surge when given anesthesia . I'm well aware of the Pam Reynolds case , but your side was completely decimated by the aware study Veridcal nde example.wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

BA&&
Pam Reynolds case certainly does not fit ‘all the diagnostic criteria’,
Of course it does, BA77, follow the evidence where it leads....unless you let your confirmation bias trip you up... BA77
nor does her near death experience remotely resemble the negative experience that is commonly reported during anesthesia awareness.
The experience(s) she reported (especially immediately after the procedure rather than three years later) fit well within the realm that others experience when they are under insufficient anesthesia. BA77
Moreover, there is a huge problem with you trying to say her experience was merely an illusion of the mind:
It was an illusion of a body and mind experiencing insufficient anesthesia during a surgical procedure.franklin_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Boy these atheists never do stop lying do they wallstreeter? Pam Reynolds case certainly does not fit 'all the diagnostic criteria', nor does her near death experience remotely resemble the negative experience that is commonly reported during anesthesia awareness. Moreover, there is a huge problem with you trying to say her experience was merely an illusion of the mind:
Dr Jeffrey Long's Near Death Experience Research a Game Changer for Science - video snippet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO_YHdD9evI Dr. Jeffrey Long Responds to “NDEs are an Illusion” - interview http://www.skeptiko.com/118-jeffrey-long-responds-to-parnia/
Moreover,,,
‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real,’ researcher says – Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: “If you use this questionnaire … if the memory is real, it’s richer, and if the memory is recent, it’s richer,” he said. The coma scientists weren’t expecting what the tests revealed. “To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors,” Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. “The difference was so vast,” he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich “as though it was yesterday,” Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/
Other than the fact that the experiences are 'even more real than real', then the atheists may have had a case to say the experiences were merely illusions. :) But facts that directly contradict them never bothered atheists before, why should facts start to bother them now ? But we do have scientific evidence of something being an illusion. That something that is scientifically proven to be an illusion is none other than the entire materialistic worldview that undergirds atheistic thought:
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
bornagain77_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

WS43
Maybe good ole franklin could explain to us how Pamela saw what she saw with her eyes taped shut .
I know you think it is impossible to form visions with your eyes closed but give it a try sometime you might be surprised at the results. How many of us, who have set in a dentist chair upon hearing the sound of the dentist drill (with our eyes closed) form an image in our mind of the dentist pneumatic drill? Now how about you explaining how pamela reynolds NDE starts (granted her experience begins with an alleged OBE) while she is at normal body temperature and normal heartbeat and under general anesthesia. How does her case study not fit the anesthesia awareness/insufficient anesthesia conclusion? You can start by working through her timeline of events and her medical procedure timeline. anesthesia awareness does occur 20-40,000 each year and Pam Reynolds case fits all the diagnostic criteria.franklin_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

DNA jock, nice video how about posting something legit about remote viewing like when the government spent 20 million dollars to study it and 2 independent scientists were given the task of sifting through the evidence . Lets see what me of these scientists had to say about remote viewing shall we ? http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/skeptic-agrees-that-remote-viewing-is.html Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do."" DNA jock now who does the skeptic remind u of here ?wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Quest exactly, when he came to a different conclusion , Whether it was from science or from the bible these new atbeists were going to ridicule him as he didn't believe as they dogmatically believed anymore. DNA jock fair enough, you didn't state your worldview , how about stating it now .?wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Wallstreeter, you repeatedly ascribe to me positions that I do not hold, and have never given you any reason to believe that I hold. This is a further demonstration of your cognitive biases. You should really try to stop doing that. It’s an embarrassment -- please stop it.
wallstreeter@66: Dna jock said
Like News, I wouldn’t expect someone to come back from an NDE with next week`s lotto numbers, but I agree with CHartsil that it would be rather good evidence in their favor. There’s no inconsistency there. Your condescension is as misplaced as it is impressive. Personally, I would settle for an accurate description of the placard on the shelf. Unfortunately, out of the 330 cardiac arrest patients in AWARE who survived their hospital stay, only two had category 5 (auditory/visual awareness) memories and neither of these was in a room with placards. The point remains: until someone comes back with information that they could not possibly have arrived at through other means, there isn`t any evidence for a ‘spiritual’ explanation of NDEs, much as we all might wish it otherwise.
Just as I suspected DNA you play the same push the goalposts back that Chartsil used. I’m noticing the same delusional hyper skepticism being used here so maybe it’s not something atheists do on purpose but it’s definately not normal.
You are claiming that I am an atheist despite that fact that I wrote to ba77@48: “I’ll forgive you for your erroneous assumption that I am an atheist. That hasn’t come up on this thread.” What’s your excuse? Please stop it.
The man was in no condition to get this information as the study shows
I don`t know what ‘information’ you are referring to. If (1) the placard, I clearly state (in the passage you quote) that neither category 5 event occurred in a room with placards, if (2) the resuscitation procedures, these are too generic (see post 42) and easily the result of memory synthesis.
but of course you take the stance that either he was cheating or the hospital staff was cheating or lying
No, I do not. Having synthesized memories is not lying or cheating. Please stop.
And as I pointed out to Chartsil , I’m going to have to point out to you and that is psychic phenomenon is a different area than Nde’s and this area of research is completely different and psychics and remote viewers can have these experiences without an nde and in fact psychic studies are being done without Nde’s , so yoir assertion that psychic information can only be done through Nde’s is not only ridiculous but it shows that your hyper skepticism is in fact abnormal.
Where on earth to you get my “assertion that psychic information can only be done through nde’s”? Please stop it. On the other hand, if you know someone who can do remote viewing, they could make you both a LOT of money.
This is bordering on some type of mental problem.
Nice. Reminds me again of “I’m sorry Ma`am. I thought the car must be stolen.”
My bringing up Nde’s and the aware study wasn’t to try to convince people like u and Chartsil who have already made up your minds and mold the evidence to fit your predisposed worldview . It is for the open minded atheist ,agnostics and fence sitters.
I’m still not an atheist. Please stop.
One such atheist I have already direct to this thread who is lurking and he even agrees that your degree of hyper skepticism is crazy. Ladies and gentlemen is like to thank DNA jock and Chartsil for their unbelievably ridiculous assertion . Thanks guys . You have helped my atheist friend more then you can imagine
Stupidity is not restricted to theists, I guess. ? wallstreeter@101:
Chartsil and do jock both looked foolish in claiming that a vertical nde without a functioning brain wasn’t good enough, especially since the person got info that they simply didn’t have access to.
My statement was “until someone comes back with information that they could not possibly have arrived at through other means, there isn`t any evidence for a ‘spiritual’ explanation of NDEs, much as we all might wish it otherwise.” A true veridical nde would meet my criterion, given IANDS`s definition “Veridical perception occurs when NDErs apparently accurately perceive earthly events from a vantage point outside their physical bodies - events that are imperceptible from the vantage point of their physical bodies. ”, so long as the details went beyond the generic. Stop it.
The problem here is that the atheists here have ignored the latest research on node’s from the aware study and instead are attacking the Pam Reynolds case and ignoring the evidence for her having a vertical nde.
Still not an atheist, and I have (up until now) only discussed the AWARE study, and not the Reynolds case. Please Stop it. Regarding remote viewing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQDNA_Jock_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

It was pretty much the same disbelief few years back when Anthony Flew publicly announced that DNA had to have been designed... When it became apparent that Flew wasn't going to change his mind, the Darwinian propaganda machine begun its smearing campaign...Quest_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Plus Franklin forgot one little tidbit about the Pamela Reynolds nde . Maybe good ole franklin could explain to us how Pamela saw what she saw with her eyes taped shut . But then again we knew that franklin would leave this little bit of info out . Is ask Chartsil to explain this but I'm afraid if I did it might make him retreat back into his laboratory and stay there :( How would he be able to get up to date on current nde research so he could ignorantly deny it ;) Wouldn't be more prudent if the atheists leave Nde's alone ? Wouldn't it be easier to stay ignorant and an atheist at the same time ? Just saying :(wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Piotr, your assuming that you would know the mind of the creator and that his thoughts are like our thoughts. All very interesting questions but how about u explain these experiences with the brain as the explanation. Or if you admit that the evidence is strongly against the grain being the mind we can then engage in imaginative conversation and speculation on why the creator designed us this way or that way. At least your other trying to wiggle out of it like chartsil trying to land next week's win in lotto numbers . Chartsil you sly little lab atheist on trying to get rich off of someone's nde ;)wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

Wallstreeter43, Why do we have eyes, ears, and other sensory organs, eh? Wouldn't it be more economical to see, hear, smell and taste directly with our minds? We could have unlimited microscopic, telescopic, radiotelescopic, polariscopic, X-ray-scopic and supercalifragilistiscopic vision absolutely free. Everyone who believes in psychokinesis, raise my hand.Piotr_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Mapou said ""This is an excellent and perfectly legitimate question to throw at Christians, mostly the fundamentalist and the Catholics. They have no answer. And I say this as a Christian."" Mapou it's an interesting question but I'm still trying to understand what pertinence this has over whether these types of Nde's are caused. Y the brain or not . I certainly would love to discuss this some more and I'm sure there are many theories . We can look into remote viewing which shows that the human soul or consciousness can see things in this world that are thousands of miles away and even more as Ingo swann did many times which is why he was recruited by the CIA . I remember watching a former college of swann talking about one of the tests they (the CIA ) put him through a series of tests to see if his ability was on the level . One of these tests involved them asking him to describe the shape of one particular part of a nuclear reactor (if my memory recalls correctly ) that no one knew about but the people who designed the reactor (and they weren't there ), and he described this part even though it was way underground . The video is on the skeptiko forum , I'll try to find it again one of these days .fascinating stuff .wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

Piotr says Wallstreeter43, Pray, tell us why there are blind people in the first place if the mind needs no eyes to see"" Good question piotr . The honest answet is we don't fully know all the answer and we are just starting to peer into the spiritual realm, but again this is a very silly question only in regards to it doesn't diminish or refute what's happening at all. And again Piotr please tell us how this disproves veridical Nde's ? You can't ? Of course you can't. Your just trying to find a way to distract yourself from answering how these experiences can be correlated to the brain. And we don't even need the Pamela Reynolds cause the aware study cause was officially timed as happening during the time with no brain function and everything he experienced was verified as 100% accurate by doctor parnia! the medical staff and other researchers and peer reviewed . Plus he had a sheet over his groin which even restricted visual access to me of the nurses . Using anasthesia awareness is just the last desperate attempt from a desperate atheist to allow himself to follow the evidence to wherever it may lead him. If only most atheists were as honest as doctor Antony flew . We would defnately have a lot less atheists in this world and more intellectually homestead and satisfied firmer atheists ;) Big hug for my new best friend franklin Come here big boy ::::::hug::::;wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Franklin lets answer this questions and show you how ridiculous yoir claims about anasthesia awareness is shall we ? http://www.skeptiko.com/jeffrey_long_takes_on_critics_of_evidence_of_the_afterlife/ Since you are my brother franklin , I'll let u in on a. Little secret . Professor wourlie was debunked on this a lomg time ago and he was down so by a physician and top nde researcher Jeffrey long . Franklin were you hoping no one would see what you failed to disclose about the differences between anasthesia and Nde's ? Man ur my buddy and it's job to educate my buddy ;) For one thing the odds are closer to 1 in 10000 then in in 1000 or 2000, but then again we knew u would pick the number with grafter odds lol. Another thing is that there are profound differences between anesthetic awareness and an nde . The problem is that instead of studying both sides you only look up ur side , which shows your intellectual dishonesty and makes it much easier for me to refute you :) Jeffrey long first makes the odds even worse as he has studied a group of 26 nde cases , all under general anasthesia , so lets even give u the erroneous odds of 1 in 1000 . What are the odds that every me of these 26 patients that were under general anesthetics that had an nde were physically conscious . Once you get to this realization you start to understand how ridiculous and ignorant u look ;) """If you say, as you do, that you studied 26 cases of near-death experiences under general anesthesia, then he comes back and says yeah, but every once in a while – I think it’s like 1 in 10,000 – people have regained some consciousness during anesthesia. Then you say that’s not only extremely likely, but if it did happen, then the symptoms would make it unlikely that they would have this lucid experience. Then he comes back and says yeah, but there are some cases where people did have a lucid experience. So it just goes on and on like this. Then you step back and say what are really the odds of this 1 out of 10,000 thing happening in every single case? And on top of that, that this even rarer occurrence of them not experiencing the normal symptoms and on top of that, that their experiences would match up with all the people that had a different set of medical conditions? As you would normally look at this in science, at some point don’t the odds become enormously outrageous to where you wouldn’t even go there?" ""Dr. Jeffrey Long: That’s a really good point. I agree with everything you said, Alex, and there’s even more. In fact, if you look at the book, Evidence of the Afterlife, on pages 103 to 104, I talk directly about this so-called anesthetic-awareness that Dr. Woerlee discusses. As an overview, let me say that these anesthetic-awareness experiences are so very, very rare that I hope this never dissuades anybody from having medically appropriate general anesthesia. Please don’t let any of the discussion here be an issue in preventing appropriate medical care. As I say in the book, and this is a direct quote, “Rather than the type of coherent NDEs you read here, anesthetic-awareness results in a totally different experience.” And I provide a number of references on that, by the way, for interested listeners. I go on to say, “Those who experience anesthetic-awareness often report very unpleasant, painful and frightening experiences. Unlike NDEs which are predominately visual experiences, this partial awakening during anesthesia more often involves brief and fragmented experiences that may involve hearing but usually not vision.” Again, I emphasize that anesthetic-awareness is very rare under anesthesia. By the way, I’m not aware of any near-death experiences that occurred under general anesthesia on the NDERF website that described the typical content of anesthetic-awareness experiences. Dr. Woerlee brings up a few anecdotal discussions about anesthetic-awareness but I have a number of references. These are the scholarly people that have actually studied a number of anesthetic-awareness experiences and published them in peer-reviewed journals in the past. That’s my source of that. As all of your listeners can easily see, you just don’t have near-death experiences that are predominately hearing but no vision. You don’t essentially ever have near-death experiences that involve brief, fragmented experiences that are painful or frightening. In fact, none of the general anesthesia near-death experiences that I reviewed had any of those components of them. Really, there’s no doubt about that. These are completely different experiences. That being anesthetic-awareness and near-death experiences. I don’t think Dr. Woerlee quite got that point how clear that was; how crystal clear the distinction between those two types of experiences is."" So as you can see franklin the anesthesia awareness theory doesn't hold water to anyone that has actually studied the literature , cause unlike Woerlee who is an anesthetic guy doctor long is a physician and a serious nde researcher with much more experience in this field . See franklin as your friend I helped u solve your problem. You can remain an intellectually satisfied atheist still..... As lomg as you bury ur head in the same and ignore the evidences , but then again is t that what you guys do best ?wallstreeter43_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

Wallstreeter43, Pray, tell us why there are blind people in the first place if the mind needs no eyes to see.Piotr_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

#79 BA77, That passage is not a patient's report (which should be clear at a glance: who would speak like that when spontaneously recounting a personal experience?). It comes from Dr. Bobby L. Scurlock's book The Passage: From Death to Life (2002, Universal Publishers, pp. 38-39). Universal Publishers is an Internet-based self-publishing (print-on-demand) company. They claim to specialise in academic non-fiction, but don't seem to be too fussy about quality control. I have said it before, but it will bear repeating: note that if someone styles oneself "Dr." on the cover of the book, on the title page and in the running header of every second page, it's a sure sign you are dealing with a quack flashing his doubtful credentials. At least, however, "Doc" Bobby narrates the tale of John Star in the third person. The website you linked copied the story verbatim, but changed it into a first-person narrative. It's about as credible as Stephen Hawking's conversion and his non-existent brother's NDE.Piotr_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply