How can you possibly believe in a benevolent God

[partialderivative]

Once more, acts of 'god' have left communities blown apart.

Does any one really feel these vilages deserved it?

God's a bit of a cunt at times.

I read somewhere that for the sun and moon to be in the position they're in by chance is equal to a man looking for one coloured grain of sand in all the deserts and beaches of the world.

As someone said earlier the position that they are in has changed and will continue to change. Your take on physics calls to mind this quote from Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy;

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”^

There is very little evidence of early humans’ intellect and culture to support how or why the mind developed. It is very difficult to objectively test the hypotheses about how early humans developed religion. It is convenient and may even be plausible but unfortunately the biological evolution of the brain only weakly supports a lot of evolutionary psychological theories. Believing in these so called explanations is just that, belief and assumption.

Evidence remains evidence, the theories it supports or does not will change if new evidence is discovered that does not support that hypothesis. That's assuming there are not conflicting hypotheses using the same evidence. Not common in evolutionary biology but rife in other sciences.

The evidence itself does not change - just our understanding of what it means. which is why the little gem "I'll believe in god if you provide evidence" is bullshit. Evidence in this matter will only ever be interpreted subjectively.

Look up Eben Alexander. A neurologist I think, who had a near death experience. My mother had a near death experience, she saw a tunnel of light. She's an atheist, was an atheist then too. She equates it to heavy medication, and won't open her mind to any other explanations.

All experiences are subjectively interpreted. We categorise what we don't know or understand to fit into our paradigms. It's natural that near death experiences will be interpreted differently depending on religious or cultural background. Just like any experience.

The difference between near death experience and hallucination is that the former is coherent, the later is not. A dying brain that produces coherent experiences is quite something. No matter what you believe. It's the classic, the more we learn the less we know.

"My mother had a near death experience, she saw a tunnel of light. She's an atheist, was an atheist then too. She equates it to heavy medication, and won't open her mind to any other explanations"

What do you mean by "open her mind"? Do you mean she continues to to apply natural, rather than supernatural explanations to natural events?

"Evidence remains evidence, the theories it supports or does not will change if new evidence is discovered that does not support that hypothesis. That's assuming there are not conflicting hypotheses using the same evidence. Not common in evolutionary biology but rife in other sciences."

Of course there are. Thwt's why hypotheses are

Sorry- that's why hypotheses are put out for peer review. And that's why science changes when new evidence emerges.

Hakluyt she applies one (her own) explanation to the unexplained. If no doctor knows then she's pretty arrogant to assume she does. Same as most religious people telling others they're going to hell. It's just their opinion from which they cannot be swayed from.

So far nothing that has been properly investigated has been shown to have a supernatural cause. All the experiments done so far have shown that near death experiences have neurological causes. Why on earth should your mother say "oh well, on this occasion this one thing might have been supernatural" when nothing else ever has been?

God is a fictional character, invented before science was able to explain most of what previously could only be explained by the supernatural.

Science has now provided the real reasons and causes behind most of what was credited to 'god', and for the rest, scientists are working on it.

In 200 or so years time it's highly unlikely that religion will play anywhere near as big a part in society as it does now, as by then scientific developments will be such that it will be absolutely ridiculous and laughable to credit this amazing planet we are lucky enough to inhabit to one 'sky god', who can read billions of minds at the same time, who can punish us for 'thought crimes' and continue doing so even when we are dead.

I'm so relieved that so many people are at that stage now, that they understand that there is no supernatural being that is in control of our lives and the planet. The universe doesn't care about us, and when we all realise this, and forget childish and arrogant notions of 'sky gods' taking care of us and looking out for us, when we recognise that actually we have to save this planet, and ourselves, because no other bugger will, especially not some imaginary deity, the sooner this planet will have a chance of surviving.

And whoever said Father Christmas is definitely not real so cannot be compared to God, how the hell you do you know he's not real? How hypocritical. Father Christmas, goblins, fairies, god, they all have one in thing common, we cannot prove that they don't exist, but due to NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE WHATSOEVER it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they do.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.

All the experiments done so far have shown that near death experiences have neurological causes no they haven't. Some have presented plausible neurological explanations, but the main problem is that for some near death experienes refute these explanations and would require the brain to survive death or that the person pronounced dead, wasn't really dead! I'm not saying there's a supernatural cause, I can't because I don't know what the cause is.

Spartacus, "Prove God doesn't exist" is a stalemate move used by many Christians when asked to prove evidence that god exists.

provide evidence

"but the main problem is that for some near death experienes refute these explanations and would require the brain to survive death or that the person pronounced dead, wasn't really dead!" Really? Can you link?

Exactly, Chiggers, I usually refer them to the the 'Russell's Teapot' analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

Russell said that if he claims that a teapot orbits the sun somewhere in space between the earth and mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.

"Prove the celestial teapot doesn't exist" same thing.

That's assuming there are not conflicting hypotheses using the same evidence. Not common in evolutionary biology but rife in other sciences.

None of that alters the evidence. It just means more evidence is needed to see if any hypotheses are supportable, and if so which. Maybe mone of the hypotheses are even provable. That doesn't change for a moment any of the evidence.

which is why the little gem "I'll believe in god if you provide evidence" is bullshit. Evidence in this matter will only ever be interpreted subjectively.

I tend to agree, which is also why I take issue with statements like 'flowers are evidence that God exists'.

That said, there's a wide gap between 'I'll believe in God if you show me evidence' and 'I have seen no evidence that persuades me that any gods may exist, and plenty of evidence that persuades me individual religions are based on shaky foundations'.

That's why I say I don't believe in any gods. For me to say 'I believe there are no gods' would require proof of a negative.

No Hakluyt there is no google link, this is very complex. You can however look for yourself at some of the more famous near death experiences like Pam Reynolds, or Eben Alexanders own interpretation from his neurological background. Or read the works by Dr. Pim Van Lommel or Dr. Peter Fenwick.

Its interesting that you assume that any alternative to neurological causes must be supernatural ones. The supernatural is just a word for things we dont yet understand. What is supernatural today may not be tomorrow. THAT`s the issue I have with my mothers close minded view.

"The supernatural is just a word for things we don`t yet understand."

No it isn't. The supernatural is a word for things that have no natural explanation. Things we don't yet understand are called "things we don't yet understand"

Just did a quick read about Eben Alexanders. Wow.

Wonder of Pam Reynolds is any more credible......

Re the Eben Alexander 'story', this is from Wikipedia. Even before I read his portrayal of what happened, it really didn't surprise me that there was a huge dollop of sketchiness to his version of events.

"In a wide-ranging investigation of Alexander's story and medical background, Esquire magazine reported (August 2013 issue) that before the publication of Proof of Heaven, Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits, including at least two involving the alteration of medical records to cover up a medical error.[11][12] The magazine also found what it claimed were discrepancies with regard to Alexander's version of events in the book. Among the discrepancies, according to an account of the Esquire article in Forbes, was that "Alexander writes that he slipped into the coma as a result of severe bacterial meningitis and had no higher brain activity, while a doctor who cared for him says the coma was medically induced and the patient was conscious, though hallucinating.

Alexander's book has been criticized by scientists, including Sam Harris who described Alexander's NDE account (chronicled in Newsweek, October 2012) as "alarmingly unscientific," and that "everything – absolutely everything – in Alexander's account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was 'shut down,' 'inactivated,' 'completely shut down,' 'totally offline,' and 'stunned to complete inactivity.' The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate – it suggests that he doesn't know anything about the relevant brain science."[14] "Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline."[15] Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks agreed with Harris, saying that "to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific – it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one."

Yet again, science disproves the credit given to the 'supernatural'.

It's good to be open minded, but not to be so open minded that your brain falls out....

...which is why it's generally better to look at actual studies, even if they're studies of reported experience, rather than individual anecdote, no matter how qualified the raconteur.

I have watched Eben Alexander's NDE on YouTube. It made me a bit . The constant cognitive processes that go on in the brain, require the brain to be functioning in order for them to happen. If the brain ceases to function, then I think it's safe to assume that we won't be bale to use any of our 5 senses.

So why is Eben Alexander still a Harvard Medical School Professor

"Even in cases where the brain is alleged to have shut down, its activity must return if the subject is to survive and describe the experience. In such cases, there is generally no way to establish that the NDE occurred while the brain was offline." - "The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one." An unfalsifiable claim. Not very scientific, in fact not scientific at all.

I'm confused. How can Alexander be able to better diagnose the status of his brain function when he was not fully conscious better than his caregivers at the time? Or at all?

Tomato - the striking difference between what you've quoted and Alexander's stance, to me, is that the quote talks about the most likely hypothesis, rather than the only possibility.

Does this example do much to undermine the idea that it's possible that, at times of near death, peole may see what they want or expect to see?

It'd be pretty cool if our brain survived a prolonged lack of oxygen, and if there was a benevolent deity looking over us, and if werewolves were real, and dragons, and the Loch Ness and I'm really not being facetious but illustrating that the reason I don't/can no longer believe is the same reason I can't believe in other things. It's not that I am particularly disregarding evidence about xyz, because if I behave as if anecdote is evidence I have to believe EVERYTHING people have claimed to be real and I think no one here is that naive.

I can't understand how people get so crazy over this...we can't prove if God exists or not, so e people believe in God, some don't, we can't say for sure if supernatural experiences are real or not, so why be so ready to pass judgement?

I believe in God (but not religious) and have a very strong faith. Its a personal belief that greatly enriches my life. Everyone else is free to believe what ever they like and I have no need to judge them for it. I think I've seen some supernatural stuff - maybe there's a natural explanation for it though, who knows.

I am also a fan of logical positivism and empiricism and the scientific method, and the whole concept of scientific revolutions. All very possible to believe in at the same time. Its great that people have a whole range of beliefs but why they try to knock themselves out telling eachother they are wrong is beyond me.

Eben Alexanders also provided a hypothesis. Neither one is or can be considered most likely as neither can be proved.

It is for this reason that I personally think quantum theory is a possibility. I would never claim it's the only likely possibility or that it's the most likely possibility. That would be stupid.