A Guy Dies And Experiences Both Hell and Heaven -- Real Thought-Provoking Testimony

Maddogg6 · Nov 12, 2006, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBlackCat

This is incorrect, and is a source of a lot of the confusion with science. In normal everyday life, most people would rank these words in this way in terms of what is the most important:

WOW - alot there was NOT what I was taught.
Like a theory being the pinnacle of knowledge..
I was taught 'physical laws' (aka 'law'), things like leverage, thermodynamics, newtons etc.. ARE the 'pinnicle' of physics knowledge. The most concrete of knowledge yet still considered 'refutable'.
A hypothesis is the first assertion of an idea - usually an 'educated guess' to some question or casual observation.
A theory technically explains/supports the hypothesis through facts, laws and/or other theories.
And experiments are designed to prove or disprove a theory.

The contrast of my hypothesis point...
Newton - needed the math to explain his observations, his formula was his theory and plugging in real life numbers into his formula was the experiments. And many of these steps were most likely taken only in his head, he didnt need to come up with formal hypothesis' - he scribbled a bunch of formulas to 'prove' his theory.
(thus the speed in which it became law, because its simplicity to be proven by the community as a whole) I assume most laws we know today were quick to be accepted as law when based on formulas alone that explains previously observed behaviour. (like ohms law)

while a crane proves through experiment the theory of leverage (a notion supported by math - now called a 'law'). These take physical experiments to prove, and thus would take longer to become 'law'. But all 'theories' are proven or disproven through the same processes.

And facts are things like non-theoretical math - or physically quantifiable/measurable or otherwise observable conditions (the earth is NOT flat as observed from space - there is 12 coffee beans in my cup, 6+6 = 12) and is typically seen as irrefutable.

Where as a law (like thermodynamics and leverage) while possible for debate - are accepted/treated *almost* as a fact because both math and repeated experimentaion has proven it over and over.

Now a 'theory' being the pinnacle in quantum or cosomological physics. maybe?? But, thats simply because we cant draft experiments and observe results directly - yet.. So I still dont see how that is the 'pinnacle'. ??
So, we propose additional hypothesis' and theories to help eliminate other possibilites - with experiments when possible - to help support or dis-prove a theory that cant be proven directly through observation/experimentaion, like above mentioned disciplines of physics. This is why we typically see only theories, staying as theory and never getting past that 'status'.

We were obviously taught very different material. (and what I was taught seems to make more sense to me :P)

Quote:

So if it is plausible within the scientific community that the universe seems like it is someones workmanship then it would imply a God, so which 1 would you believe?

your assumtion (the word' imply') is a HUGE one here..

The idea of ID and the idea of god (as depicted in religious texts) are leaps and bounds different and while one may not contridict the other - neither proves the other. (ie - 2 non conflicting ideas do NOT equal a proof of fact or law) Thats why its called ID and not the 'god' theory.

Quote:

...but it was foretold in the old testament that God would bring Israel back to its homeland in the latter-days and then that happened in 1948 and that generation will not pass away until all things written will be fulfilled, but i can make a biblical prediction as in the final end days it all Is mostly to do with the land of Israel, such as wars, rise of the antichrist etc and Israel is the centre of most of the prophecy's that must be fulfilled before Christ returns.

Also.. ID dosent try to explain the idea of pre-cognizance, (any)christ, or any nation. ALL those ideas came from text(s) published by man NOT from the scientific community. Thus I believe its simply 'self fulfilling prophecy' or coincidence. Its more logical anyway.

Freulein · Nov 12, 2006, 07:24 AM

In my job i have seen many people die. some lucky people survived hours and hours of Resuscitation, but noone told about special dreams or things about heaven and hell.
im personaly was rescued after a accident and the painkillers gave me some realy unbelievable dreams. i thougt i was in heaven, normaly this kind of painkillers give you nightmares.
your heart can beat without brain, it can also beat for minutes without body.

Sandok · Nov 12, 2006, 07:57 AM

This will just go around and around in circles... Faithful christian people say it was really a preview of Hell and Heaven while rational scientific people will deny this and say it's stupid.

Choose your camp, because this debate will last forever!

Freulein · Nov 12, 2006, 08:09 AM

sooner or later everyone of us will find out. i can wait .

TheBlackCat · Nov 12, 2006, 12:00 PM

I don't expect you to just believe me, Maddog. But what I said is in agreement with the position of the National Academies of Science, the most esteemed scientific organization in the United States:

Quote:

Originally Posted by National Academies of Science

Glossary of Terms Used inTeaching About the Nature of Science:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

About theories vs. laws specifically:

Quote:

Originally Posted by National Academies of Science

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.

(italics in original document changed to bold because they don't show up in quotations)

In more detail:

Quote:

Originally Posted by National Academies of Science

Think, for example, of how people usually use the word “theory.” Someone might refer to an idea and then add, “But that’s only a theory.” Or someone might preface a remark by saying, “My theory is . . . .” In common usage, theory often means “guess” or “hunch.”

In science, the word “theory” means something quite different. It refers to an overarching explanation that has been well substantiated. Science has many other powerful theories besides evolution. Cell theory says that all living things are composed of cells. The heliocentric theory says that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. Such concepts are supported by such abundant observational and experimental evidence that they are no longer questioned in science.

Sometimes scientists themselves use the word “theory” loosely and apply it to tentative explanations that lack well-established evidence. But it is important to distinguish these casual uses of the word “theory” with its use to describe concepts such as evolution that are supported by overwhelming evidence. Scientists might wish that they had a word other than “theory” to apply to such enduring explanations of the natural world, but the term is too deeply engrained in science to be discarded.

As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. For example, Chapter 3 describes how the geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth’s rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as “theories” in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word “hypothesis” conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word “theory.” A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. As the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations.

Like “theory,” the word “fact” has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories—which is one reason why the word “fact” is not much used in science.

Finally, “laws” in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

There is a slight difference, I am using fact merely for observation, but they say this later:

Quote:

Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

I did not just make this stuff up, nor was it simply what I was taught in school, it agrees with the position of the most prestigious scientific organization in the country.

Back to the issue of the Weak Anthropic Principle, I find this quote from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the orgainzation representing all scientists in the United States) website interesting:

Quote:

Others find the biology of simple microbes to be so staggeringly complex that the emergence of life must be written into the laws of nature. Life, therefore, is not freakish, but likely to be everywhere. The universe, they say, is pregnant with life.

Interestingly, cosmologists and astrophysicists are the scientists most likely to believe that microbes are too complex to be assembled by chance. Biologists, who rarely express opinions about cosmology and astrophysics, are less impressed by the microbes.

Personally, I've studied evolutionary biology, comparative anatomy, population genetics, statistics, geology, zoology, dental and bone morphologenesis, biomechanics, vertebrate and human paleontology, ethology, ethnology, ecology.

So when very smart people with Ph.Ds in math, or physics, or English Lit say things like "it's impossible for natural selection to account for life," I always have to ask, "Um, before we get started, have you ever gotten a B or better in a college-level course in biology? I just need to know what level of ignorance I'm dealing with."

It's my observation that smart people have a tendency to think that whatever they don't understand personally must be of cosmic difficulty, achievable only by forces beyond their ken.

But here's the thing of it: push biology back far enough, and you get to astrophysics. Push astrophysics back far enough, you get to cosmology and the Big Bang, and that's were scientists of both camps run out of room.

Some scientists are comfortable saying, "And before the Big Bang? It beats the hell out of me..."

Others take a hint from the maps before Columbus and say, "Here be God!" like the old maps that would say, "Here be dragons!"

That kind of god, however, has been called the God of the Gaps-- a diety who rules over whatever humans don't understand. The problem with gods like that is that they dwindle into unimportance as human knowledge grows.

So, I say: Let's give God his full majesty and glory. No pathetic little weenie god of the gaps, but Adonai, ruler of the universe, whose divine breath stirred the waters and brought life into being.

Maddogg6 · Nov 12, 2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBlackCat

I did not just make this stuff up, nor was it simply what I was taught in school, it agrees with the position of the most prestigious scientific organization in the country.

I didnt accuse you of making it up...

And I see the error of my use of terms.. But distracts from my point I was making besides. (which was - science is open for change by anyone - religion is not).

But that seems like arguing semantics anyway. Something prestigious scientists may get paid to argue over but I dont.

TheBlackCat · Nov 12, 2006, 03:13 PM

The problem is that this "issue of semantics" is used as a weapon against science by unscrupulous individuals who know better and passed along by people who don't. I can't count how many times I have heard the "evolution is a theory not a fact" or "evolution is a theory not a law" or "the big bang is a theory not a fact" or other things along those lines. Sometimes, for instance when done by leaders of the creationists and ID movement, they know better (as some have admitted under oath) but do it anyway because they know it will fool people. Other times it is by people who just don't know any better. So yes, it is an issue of semantics, but that does not make a minor issue nor does it make it irrelevant to discussions about science.

Esaz666 · Nov 20, 2006, 07:53 AM

ahh , that old chestnut, are near death experiences real or chemical ?
I would say both.
Its about one of the biggest question's that we have as people, where do we go when we die.
People with knowlege of a spritual nature may say to god, people with a scientific nature ,to dust.

I think myself that people see things in accord with thier cultural make up,as this man had his near death experience he percieved in his own way the forces he encounted.It comes down to how you really deep down see the forces of our universe.Do you see in a physical or a heaven/hell way or something else?.

Do you have belief in spirit?
People can have knolwedge of god when they live,but this is not detectable or verifiable
so we are left with one answer.

Is it true that if they ask why there is A, we say because of B ie, if A is us ,we live because of being born from our mother, and then they ask why C, we say because of D ie - our species evolved from the species before us,inevitably a descussion concerning causality leads to a cause for which there is no cause, otherwise an infinate succession will emerge and this is impossible.
There must be a cause for something to be real.What do you think that the first cause of the universe was, a physical event or spritual event.

Religion works by suspending our belief to the form of the theology that we chose to follow, this involves our emotions which we invest in this process,that is why people get emotional when a descussion is against our chosen theology/view.
It can hurt people deeply when their core value's are challenged in this way,i have no problem with anybody's differing views of god but I have problems with the negative parts of religion and also othodoxy(having a set position) I dont think anything can ever be certain as everything is in constant change and nothing we men help create is 100% pure or truthfull.