Review of Life After Death: The Evidence

First Things ^ | April 2010 | Stephen M. Barr

[wmfights]

But the mysterious question remains: Why this "desire to separate from God?"

Because that person was never with God to begin with.

I know free will is a very popular belief, but Jesus says He will not lose one that the Father has given Him and nothing can Snatch them out of His hand.

Another way to look at free will is God either knows all He will have at the end from before the creation or He doesn't. If God doesn't He is not all knowing. I doubt any Christian would say God is less than all knowing.

[spunkets]

"Where did I even suggest that "all anyone needs to know [is] that animating spirits, created by god are what enables, drives and moves the nonliving material body"?"

"The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE"; Drew, Jean F

This thread is of course about folks whose animating spirits were mistaken about being called to "some other place" and after tunneling off early were sent back to resume animating the nonliving matter referred to as their body. As you put it, at the beginning of the second paragraph of the above link, "... so far, science has not identified any naturalistic source for “information” within the universe, biological or otherwise."

"What a strange, convoluted way to put the problem, spunkets! And so tendentious — a real "strawman" argument! "

No. A strawman argument requires that the claim, or proposition be misrepresented. Your paper and the other claims you've made support irreducible complexity and ID, which require and are about an unseen, unpredictable and arbitrarily unfathomable fifth force in nature.

"The implication being that I am personally "anti-science." So add to the strawman maneuver an ad hominum argument.... "

That's your characterization. I made no characterization. I simply stated and referred to the claims being made and presented.

"The above italics is not an example of witness testimony from the human past that I alluded to. What I meant was such "records" as cultural and religious traditions; the great myths; written histories; poetry, literature and the arts in general; philosophy; and philosophy's offspring, systematic natural science."

The subject is the validity of testimony as evidence. Presenting billions of incidencess of testimony is simply bandwagon, grasping at numbers and otherwise hand waiving.

" These human activities have been going on for millennia. Do they become worthless because they do not correspond to the "expectations" — the "what everybody knows" doxa — of the thoroughly corrupt, degenerate post-modern climate of opinion, of which you seem to be a self-selected spokesman? The "kultursmog consensus" utterly devalues the individual human person and all his works..."

Testimony is not scientific evidence.

[kosta50]

I can answer it, because I’ve spent the time studying the scriptures

Then why do you bother debating if you are unwilling to answer simple queastions? Wasting time?

[kosta50]

Well then I guess I must not be Catholic yet, for I have not undergone catechesis

Well, maybe that explains a lot about so many Catholic faithful, sort of making their own "Church" as they go along. Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example with her fable that the Church did not always oppose abortion.

Everyone who is baptized Catholic is required to believe Church doctrine as outlined in the Catholic Catechism, whether you underwent catechisis or not, and refrain from interpreting the scriptures privately.

[betty boop]

"The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE"; Drew, Jean F

Well thanks for the plug, spunkets. But you must be deranged if you think that article has anything to do with "animating spirits." It has everything to do with problems of information theory in biological applications. It doesn't even refer to an "arbitrarily unfathomable fifth force in nature," let alone posit one.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about! Perhaps you are seeing "ghosts?"

You wrote: "Testimony is not scientific evidence." Well fine; I readily agree with you there. My point is that just because "evidence" does not conform to the presuppositions and strict procedures of the scientific method does not mean that it necessarily ceases to be any kind of evidence of anything at all. Or to put it another way, that of which it purports to be "evidence" does not exist because it does not meet routine scientific tests.

As far as I know, "routine scientific tests" — the scientific method, post-Bacon — do not ever purport to reach beyond direct observables (as technologically extended if possible).

So why do you persist in applying an "unsuitable method" in the pursuit of understanding of issues which have nothing to do with direct observation?

It seems to me a huge sector of reality is simply expunged by means of such a maneuver. Thus, a man who favors this course is already rendered "half blind."

JMHO, FWIW.

[kosta50]

Why bother with physics and neurology at all when there's billions of folks that have testified over the ages that all anyone needs to know is that animating spirits, created by god are what enables, drives and moves the nonliving material body?

What a strange, convoluted way to put the problem, spunkets! And so tendentious — a real "strawman" argument!

There is nothing convoluted about spunkets' argument. That is exactly what is being taught: that some animating spirits (breaths) drive, move a body that is otherwise dead without it.

the thoroughly corrupt, degenerate post-modern climate of opinion...

And the world dominated by religious zeal and "truth" (for the past 2000 years) was uncorrupted, progressive, and full of blessings? LOL!

[kosta50]

On what basis can such an expectation rest, dear kosta? There is nothing in human history that would seem to support such a sanguine claim

On the basis of education and free will. Societies have a remarkable ability to shape opinions, moral standards and goals. All that's lacking is good will, which even the most religious societies seem to lack.

[kosta50]

I put in that adverbial modifier "seemingly" to denote that I was only speaking from my own observation and experience, not as any kind of authority on church doctrine, let alone divine Truth

But you made a seemingly sweeping generalization that, unlike humans, angels were unfailingly programmed to obey God's will, which not what your Church believes; as for others who call themselves Christians, they make doctrine as they read the Bible so anything is possible.

Thank you so very much for the citations from scripture, which support my observation and moreover further inform its meaning, as I understand it.

I disagree. There was nothing in that Psalm that lends support to your generalization that seemingly all angels are obligate God's servants. It only mentions those who do obey God's will. There is a subtle but clear difference.

Still, I find it difficult to understand how a human person, once deciding to live in Christ, would want to change his mind....Maybe kosta might be a good source for illuminating this question???

Simple, one day he decides not to. It doesn't mean it's easy, or something on a whim, at least it wasn't for me. Maybe you should read Maybe you should Bart Ehrman's God's Problem, or watch the entertaining exposition of Julia Sweeney on "Letting Go of God."

In all instances, it is usually not a fun process because it is the ultimate existential subject. It's much easier to believe something that makes you feel good, even if in the back of your mind you know it's not true.

[betty boop]

In all instances, it is usually not a fun process because it is the ultimate existential subject. It's much easier to believe something that makes you feel good, even if in the back of your mind you know it's not true.

So, using those rules, how are you feeling now? How do you even know how you feel?

[betty boop]

On the basis of education and free will.

So far, that cannot be said to have been a successful basis; that being the case, how could we say it is any way an adequate one — on the basis of "evidence"?

[betty boop]

That is exactly what is being taught: that some animating spirits (breaths) drive, move a body that is otherwise dead without it.

But that is not what I am "teaching." That is not my problem.

May I suggest you go check out the Hindus or the Buddhists for insights more responsive to your concerns?

My sense is Christians believe that sort of thing only happened once — in the act of divine Creation.

[betty boop]

Thank you so much for your explanations of/instructions in Catholic fidelity, kosta!

[spunkets]

"you must be deranged if you think that article has anything to do with "animating spirits." It has everything to do with problems of information theory in biological applications. It doesn't even refer to an "arbitrarily unfathomable fifth force in nature," let alone posit one."

The piece promoted ID, irreducible complexity and claimed the forces of nature are incomplete. I proved before that ID claims that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world. Your response was, as always, that materialism is simply insufficient.

Here's the proof again:

ID uses the laws of physics to make some calculation. The ID guy swears his logic is OK and his math likewise. The output of his calculation says, "the result of the calculation can't explain the observations."

There are then 2 remaining possibilities, because he swears his model is good:

1) The model is missing some knowledge and understanding(of physics)
2) The model is right, the physics are 100% correct, that's all the physics there is, and there's an arbitrary 5th force. The arbitrary 5th force is necessary to get all the other 4 forces of nature to work properly. Properly is defined by whatever arbitrary features need to be bestowed upon the 5th force.

There is a choice to make. The laws of physics are not sufficient and you abandon science to invent an arbitrary 5th force, and invent the arbitrary properties of it. Else, one admits ignorance, sticks with science, and works harder.

"My point is that just because "evidence" does not conform to the presuppositions and strict procedures of the scientific method does not mean that it necessarily ceases to be any kind of evidence of anything at all. Or to put it another way, that of which it purports to be "evidence" does not exist because it does not meet routine scientific tests."

W/o what can be considered scientific evidence to back it up, the testimony can not be considered evidence of anything. Such testimony can only be believed as a matter of pure faith and has no weight at all if it stands in contradiction to scientific evidence. "It seems to me a huge sector of reality is simply expunged by means of such a maneuver. "

If it is contradicted by scientific evidence, it has no value as evidence at all. It is simply a claim that contradicts reality.

" As far as I know, "routine scientific tests" — the scientific method, post-Bacon — do not ever purport to reach beyond direct observables (as technologically extended if possible). So why do you persist in applying an "unsuitable method" in the pursuit of understanding of issues which have nothing to do with direct observation?

As in my presentation of the law of conservation of energy, hte evidence for it and your claim that it's invalid?. ie. "My reading of Genesis 1–2 yields the interpretation of ex nihilo. This is not direct perception — such words do not appear in Genesis — but an apperception of the meaning of this revelation as further elucidated by other aspects of my cognitive and spiritual experience which I will not get into here."

[betty boop]

The piece promoted ID, irreducible complexity and claimed the forces of nature are incomplete.

It does not claim that the forces of nature are "incomplete." It merely suggests that human knowledge of same is incomplete. Which is why we continue to study nature.

If a fifth force in nature is operative, then surely, it is not "arbitrary."

But I have no ken of a fifth force; the most I can do is to imagine an extra temporal dimension which, added to 3S + 1T, would make 3S + 2T. And then see whether the "perspective from there" can elucidate aspects of nature which have continued "reluctant to give up their secrets."

Because science may not be "complete" is no reason to abandon science!!! Indeed, exactly the opposite is the case!

My "claim" was heartfelt and from the mind, the culmination of long cognitive and spiritual "struggle" that is not yet finished. If it is "invalid," then so am I.

So please move on. There's nothing to see here....

[spunkets]

"If it is "invalid," then so am I"

People can never be invalid.

[kosta50]

So, using those rules, how are you feeling now? How do you even know how you feel?

I am much more aware not to take things for granted and invest in dubious hopes, but appreciate what I have.

[spunkets]

Re: God's Spirit is His mind

"Where do you get that idea?"

Knowledge and understanding are acquired piecemeal. The term spirit and the concepts regarding the term's meaning were created in ignorance. If knowledge and understanding are ever to be attained, then correction and refinement are needed.

The term historically has encompassed those things which are functions of mind and products of the functions of mind. The idea that spirits can have an independent existence from some physical machinery that provides for the functions of any particular spirit can be rejected on the basis of the law of conservation of energy. the very idea of energy is that it is what provides for animations, funtions and interactions in the first place.

The Biblical term spririt is consistent with mind and no other real object. Consider the passage Matt 12:32, Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

This passage is God's own words regarding the fundamental matters of forgiveness and redemption. He says that anyone that speaks a word against Him, will be forgiven, but that anyone that speaks a word against His Spirit will not be. It's not logical that God is distinguishing between Himself as animated by His Spirit and some other unanimated, or unfathomable condition. It is logical to think that God's reference to His Spirit refers to the things that He values that are the direct result of the funciton of His mind.

The other situation mentioned that God says is forgiven, is the equivalent of rejection in ignorance. that's not a rejection of what he values, but a rejection of something else, whatever it may be.

The concept of trinity also contains the idea that spirit is mind, which contains the personality and those things of value which are resultant from the purposeful exercise of mind. The spirit is the essence of a person w/o being a physical instance of that person. The body simply provides for a physical instance of person in this world and roughly the soul is a physical instance of that same person elsewhere. Body and soul are simply the physical machinery that provides for the functions of mind, or spirit.

Both man and God are a trinity per Gen 1:26-27, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

This idea is consistent with those things that are resultant from deliberate exercise of mind and free will in this world being mapped onto the physical machinery of mind that exists elsewhere to provide for a physical instance of that person.

Note that the parable of the Garden in Gen and the actions of the characters in the parable apply to everyone and their own actions of mind. The actions of the characters in that parable did not result in some handed down defect of original sin. Neither the Jews, nor God believed it, and Ezekiel 18 refutes the Council of Oranges' claim. god notes in John 9 where the concept comes from.

[kosta50]

So far, that cannot be said to have been a successful basis

Neither has the religion been successful. In fact, it dominated social strata much lobger than the materialistic mindset has. Most people do not live in (the idea of) Christ, nor walk his walk. But they talk his talk.

[spunkets]

I’ll also note that the concept of sprit = mind explains the stories of possesion in the NT. Demons, or evil spirits are simply the resultants of mind and that corrections to the actions of mind are the equivalent of “driving the demons out”. Note that illness in the NT was not caused by demons and the 2 are distinguished by the writers.

[kosta50]

The term spirit is the word for breath, which also meant wind or power. In God's case it's the "energy" that moved things. In Judaism it stood for the power of God. In the NT, this is relayed in the menbtioned verses: the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable because it puts down the very power of God, denies the omnipotence, which would then making him just another god or idol, and that's a super big non-no.

Christains used the term (Supreme) Wisdom as the expression of God's mind. It is the monarchy of the Father that has him as the first principle of everything there is, including divinity and therefore he is the ultimate mind in the Holy Trinity. It is the Spirit, the power of God, that transforms the bread and wine into the Body anbd Blood. Thus, the Spirit has the role of an "actuator" and not a mind, at least in Eastern Christainity.