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.

Harris' response was unscientific.

First, you claimed that Alexander's claim was not scientific, but was a personal experience. This non-scientific personal experience was partly accounted in a book called "Proof of Heaven". Certainly, the title is making a scientific claim, and he is the author.

Second, here is an excerpt from the webpage you posted

However, I’m willing to put my bet on Dr. Alexander that he understands what he’s talking about better than Sam Harris. I’ve seen Dr. Alexander’s credentials and it’s longer than my arm! Don’t get me wrong, just because Dr. Alexander has the credentials doesn’t mean that his conclusion is right. This is not an argument from authority. This is an argument from credibility. In my opinion, Sam has forfeited his credibility by not facing Dr. Alexander in a debate.

Nah. I don't think so.

YOU POSTED HALF THE PARAGRAPH, are you serious?!!?

what exactly don't you think?

Here's the FULL paragraph However, I’m willing to put my bet on Dr. Alexander that he understands what he’s talking about better than Sam Harris. I’ve seen Dr. Alexander’s credentials and it’s longer than my arm! Don’t get me wrong, just because Dr. Alexander has the credentials doesn’t mean that his conclusion is right. This is not an argument from authority. This is an argument from credibility. In my opinion, Sam has forfeited his credibility by not facing Dr. Alexander in a debate. What Sam did was a speculative drive-by shooting without knowing the medical facts of Dr. Alexander’s medical case. And then he just proclaimed that that is “the end of the debate”? How convenient! That’s an argument from proclamation. That’s not very scientific of Sam. That’s speculative bias at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst!

what exactly don't you think?

he doesn't need to defend his claims. He's got nothing to defend.

Here's what Harris said.

The truth is, there’s nothing to debate either. He can’t reasonably claim that the relevant parts of his brain (not just the cortex) were “completely shut down.” It’s just not a factual statement. And yet, everything in his account hinges on his making that claim. And even if I granted that his brain had been shut down — it’s not shut down now. And there is absolutely no way for him to establish (or even to subjectively know) that he didn’t have his experience as his brain was coming back online. End of debate, as far as I’m concerned.

What, exactly, do you disagree with? Each one of the claims by Alexander requires vigorous defence; Harris has nothing to do but sit and watch. he isn't the one making extraordinary claims.

He said end of debate. What debate? He didn't debate. He made a claim against another scientist and refused to debate it. What's more he made a claim against another that he cannot back up with evidence or fact. (not the same as your flying example as that can be refuted with evidence and fact). He lost a lot of credibility for that, that's not just my personal opinion.

He made a claim against another scientist and refused to debate it. What's more he made a claim against another that he cannot back up with evidence or fact.

what claim of Harris is not adequately backed up?

You're not going to give up on this are you? It's starting to be a bit of flogging a dead horse now. OK here you go

He likened Alexander's experience to a DMT trip and thus suggested that brain chemistry was the source of the experience. I'm not saying that's not a valid point. But this claim simply cannot be tested or proved. It's not even a proven fact for all NDE's let alone Alexander's in particular, it is probably completely imposible in Pam Reynolds case for example. It doesn't explain all cases and it is unproven for the one it is aimed at. That's not science. Why you do not grasp that it not being scientific makes it irrelevent, Sam Harris can sit back and watch, as you say, but he didn't do that, instead he made the claim.

Well, I certainly don't believe in one this morning...

Oh, I don't know, TOSN- Farage lost. What more can you expect?

I'm imagining God sitting on his hands muttering "Free will, free will, free will

• I do not interfere in human affairs, I do not interfere in human affairs.......OH FOR ME'S SAKE I JUST CAN'T LET THAT EXCRESCENCE WIN!!!"

I don't believe that something as complex and wonderful as Nigel Farage could have just evolved by chance....

He likened Alexander's experience to a DMT trip and thus suggested that brain chemistry was the source of the experience. I'm not saying that's not a valid point.

do you disagree with his point? Is that not a plausible if not the most plausible explanation? you don't have to explain every uttered sentence in a scientific discussion. The most plausible explanations need little to no evidence. The more extraordinary claims need more evidence.

In this case, Harris is making an incredibly weak claim. He doesn't have to show why his explanation is correct; it's Alexander that has all the work in front of him because his claims are extraordinary.

But this claim simply cannot be tested or proved.

That's correct. Harris can't prove his explanation must be the correct one, but, and for the hundredth time, he doesn't have to. he is saying Alexander's explanation doesn't make sense for two reasons (and therefore you should default to the more plausible one). The claim that Alexander's brain was entirely shut down lacks sufficient evidence, and even if it were true his brain is functioning now and he can't reasonably claim that the experiences didn't occur when he came back online. In either case, it's Alexander that needs to provide the proof, not Harris.

What there is unsubstantiated? What there isn't the most plausible explanation? What does Harris have to show?

I don't think you understand where the burden lies. It's not with Harris and his more plausible explanation, it's with Alexander and his incredible claims.

You're not going to give up on this are you? It's starting to be a bit of flogging a dead horse now. OK here you go

indeed. flog away.

What does some guy having a dream on a hospital bed have to do with wether there is a benevolent god ?

And Thanet South seemed to be so perfectly aligned to support his sort of life- that couldn't have happened by chance either. That's why him losing must be divine intervention......

When I see a Nigel Farage, I just think.... y'know... how could there not be some kind of divine order?

The claim that Alexander's brain was entirely shut down lacks sufficient evidence,

When a person goes into cardiac arrest the blood supply to the brain is disrupted. Loss of consciousness and function in the brain happens within seconds. EEG's show that in humans and other animals electrical activity stops in both the cerebral cortex and in the deeper structures completely disapears following cardiac arrest. There is a short window of time to restart the heart or brain function is completely disrupted. IF this is not the case, it requires us to completely re-define death.

Claiming that Alexander's brain didn't entirely shut down IS an extraordinary claim. I'm not saying that perhaps some neuron somewhere isn't firing and that it's current isn't so low that the EEG can't pick it up. I'm saying that Harris cannot make this claim. On top of which he then contradicts himself by claiming that the experience did actually happen, but must have happened at another time. We can say that about anything.

What does some guy having a dream on a hospital bed have to do with wether there is a benevolent god ? because a lot of people who have had NDE's have experienced higher beings or beings of light or in some cases god. Benevolent or otherwise. I'm not saying their experience is true I'm saying you would have to prove beyond doubt that it is before you can intelligently deny it. Or you can just plain deny it, but you don't have much of a leg to stand on, just opinion.

because a lot of people who have had NDE's have experienced higher beings or beings of light or in some cases god

And, as I mentioned upthread, the limited cross-cultural studies that exist show that there are some commonalities - but when it comes to seeing religious beings, those who have reported seeing a god have seen the god of their religion or culture. Which is interesting.

and as I said upthread, most experiences are interpreted within the knowledge and framework of a persons culture, religion and previous experiences.

Yes - which is why it's important to draw a distinction between the person's interpretation (what they thought they saw or experienced) and what actually may have happened.

I think some of us will have to agree to disagree on some things relating to the possibility of a god.

I don't personally believe in a god because there is no evidence to prove that there is one. That's not to say I won't change my mind if evidence is provided at another date in the future, but I doubt that there will be any evidence in my lifetime, unless there are major advancements in technology that allows us to detect ultra low energy levels.

Dr Alexander's experience could have been triggered by a DMT release when the brain was starved of oxygen. It sounds like the possible DMT release helps to relax the body in order to stop it from using up vital reserves of oxygen IYSWIM. I suppose the DMT can relax the body by causing a euphoric, dreamy type of state. This could be what Dr Alexander went through, and it may be possible that the last thing he thought about before he 'died' was the first thing he encountered when dead IYSWIM. Just another thought to add to the thread.

Yes - which is why it's important to draw a distinction between the person's interpretation (what they thought they saw or experienced) and what actually may have happened.

These two things are incredibly difficult to seperate, when you are studying the mind. Which is why more needs to be investigated and nothing other than the facts and the experiences in general should be claimed. People HAVE these experiences, regardless of the details and these experiences have different characteristics and outcomes than dreams, hullucinations and drug induced trips. So that in itself makes them worthy of investigation, rather than trying to explain them away with pseudo-explanations.

"the day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. To understand the true nature of the universe, one must think it terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” Tesla.

Claiming that Alexander's brain didn't entirely shut down IS an extraordinary claim. I'm not saying that perhaps some neuron somewhere isn't firing and that it's current isn't so low that the EEG can't pick it up. I'm saying that Harris cannot make this claim. On top of which he then contradicts himself by claiming that the experience did actually happen, but must have happened at another time. We can say that about anything.

Is that really a claim Harris can't make? Your explanation is perfectly plausible and more likely. People have been pronounced dead and not been dead. Not new. I'll take your explanation any day, and one contrary to it needs proof. Alexander's claim is that his brain was COMPLETELY shut down, AND he has memories during that time. Whose account is more likely, Harris' or Alexander's?

Harris didn't contradict himself. He asks, ASSUMING that Alexander was complete shut off (not thoroughly established, but let's grant Alexander that) how does anyone know that the memories weren't obtained during the shut off and not just after (or before shutting down) coming back online? He didn't assert that this happened, but, and I really should just have a key for this on my keyboard, the burden of proof is on Alexander that it didn't happen that way because HE is making the big claim.

Here is a scientific american article on the topic (by Michael Shermer).

Scientific American

the article quotes Oliver Sacks (famous neurologist).

Sacks concludes that “the one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case, then, 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.”

These two things are incredibly difficult to seperate, when you are studying the mind.

Often difficult but very important nonetheless from a scientific viewpoint.

No, when a person has an experience. It is not up to that person to prove that their expérience didn't take place when they think it did, or that their experience didn't really take place at all. If others don't believe them then it is up to those people to prove the experience didn't take place so that they have evidence to back up the claim of not believing them. If we could just simply deny experience without evidence or expect the person making the claim to start investigating why they themselves are wrong then that would make life very easy for a lot of criminals. What you are suggesting is just illogical.

Sacks concludes that “the one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case, then, 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.”* - Yes it is VERY curious and again it begs the question as to why he holds on to his explanation? When he himself is fully aware of the other possibilities. He has is reasons and his reasons don't do him any professional favours. Why continue to hold on to his explanation, unless he just wants to be ridiculed. A possibility but unlikely. So again, his experience means something and cannot just be dismissed.