How can there be a loving God?

[Whatsisface]

I can. In video he talks about the specific things he chose which limited his sample of what would be included as NDEs. They had to meet certain criteria. They testimonies had to contain specifics which could be validated and not just generalities. He went on about the guy that saw the old fashioned and described it in detail. I think from his first study he kept only 6 out of 30 possible NDE candidates.

Ok, that's for the research into his first study and book, I'm interested into his investigation into Pam Reynolds.

He didn't say. I thought you watched the video?

I did, and he didn't say which is my point. I want to know if he went deeper than in the video. It would be interesting to know if he went as deep as Woerlee.

I will.

Great.

 

[docphin5]

God the mother, eh? ?

Why is that so hard to believe? Are we not “born again” by the Spirit? “Born” from the feminine Spirit as Mother.

Then there is the heavenly pleroma as Mother giving birth to her children on earth.

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (Gal. 4:26)​

​

Mother is a common metaphor applied to the divine.

 

[Tetsugaku]

So far, so good.

Who created time.

Who enters time. It's called the Incarnation.

I GAVE you the reason: Omnipresence.

Then? No, you are creating a chronology that does not exist.

Close, but clumsily expressed.

I didn't. There is no timeline of eternity. Time is swallowed up by eternity.

I TOLD you already. Pure logic. Nothing can cause itself, since doing so would imply that it was already in existence, therefore obviating any self causation.

Sorry, Stiggy. At this point I have no idea what your position is. I don't know how you are relating God to however many dimensions of time you are postulating, how causation is meant to operate between them, or why you think velocity will get you omnipresence. Would you like to try again, or should we just move on?

 

[Tetsugaku]

What's the utility in even considering something that can't be actually possible? Why does it matter?

Because different modalities tell us different things. Ruling something out as now known to be inconsistent with what we know of reality just means it isn't actual. This means you've ruled it out as an epistemic possibility. But ruling something out as not even being counterfactually possible is much stronger. It means no possible world could ever have been that way. This means you've ruled it out as a logical or metaphysical possibility - not only is it non-actual, but it is also a complete impossibility.

The value of logically possible but epistemically impossible scenarios is that they tell us what stands in need of either explanation or acceptance as a brute fact. For example, if you go online and find your bank account emptied, you're not going to be satisfied with the bank's explanation that it definitely is empty so the scenario of it not being empty is now an (epistemically) impossible world. You'll want to say, sure it's empty, but it could have and should have not been empty, and you'll rightly demand a better explanation for why the world is this way rather than how you expected it to be.

 

[Tetsugaku]

You are presupposing that there is no other type of time before the time that is associated with the beginning of the universe.

If there is time "before" universe-time, then it is thereby still part of the same timeline in virtue of being related to it by this temporal relation. If our dimension of time really had a beginning, then by definition you can't have anything 'before' it. A dimension of time is defined by relations of before and after, not by the presence or absence of matter.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Sorry, Stiggy. At this point I have no idea what your position is. I don't know how you are relating God to however many dimensions of time you are postulating,

It should have been obvious from my analogy about the race and its starting gun, in which there were NOT many dimensions of time, but just two different time frames, that of the race participants and that of the one firing the gun, i.e. the initiator of the race, with the former analogizing the universe, the latter our Creator.

how causation is meant to operate between them,

Simple. All effects have a cause. God is not an effect..

or why you think velocity will get you omnipresence.

Not just any velocity, but that was my mistake. I assumed you were familiar with Einstein's theory of relativity

Would you like to try again,

No thanks.

or should we just move on?

Perhaps you should.

 

[Tetsugaku]

It should have been obvious from my analogy about the race and its starting gun, in which there were NOT many dimensions of time, but just two different time frames, that of the race participants and that of the one firing the gun, i.e. the initiator of the race, with the former analogizing the universe, the latter our Creator.

That doesn't really help, as the race participants are all part of the same time-frame. You just end up with God in one bit of time that he hasn't caused, causing a later bit of time that comes after. How is this supposed to solve the problem or explain anything?

Simple. All effects have a cause. God is not an effect.

I don't know how this is meant to relate to what I asked.

Not just any velocity, but that was my mistake. I assumed you were familiar with Einstein's theory of relativity

I am, but this doesn't help in the slightest. Velocity is a change of location over time. An omnipresent being by definition cannot change location or have any velocity.

 

[Temujin]

If there is time "before" universe-time, then it is thereby still part of the same timeline in virtue of being related to it by this temporal relation. If our dimension of time really had a beginning, then by definition you can't have anything 'before' it. A dimension of time is defined by relations of before and after, not by the presence or absence of matter.

I hesitate to mention this, but surely we should be talking, not about time, but about spacetime, the canvas upon which any possible universe is painted? If there's no canvas, there can be no painting, not any possibility of future painting. Any supposed artist needs spacetime to exist before He can do anything. Indeed, any suggestion that there is an artist before there is a canvas begs the question of where and when the artist Himself exists. The notion of anything or anyone existing outside space-time or in some hypothetical different spacetime is really just a fudge. A being, however powerful, which has no place or time to exist in or act, cannot be said to exist at all in any meaningful way. Perhaps, like spacetime and the universe itself, He can exist in potentia, but in that state would be utterly impotent.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

That doesn't really help, as the race participants are all part of the same time-frame.

Who said they were not?

You just end up with God in one bit of time that he hasn't caused, causing a later bit of time that comes after.

God, as Creator of OUR time is not bound by our time, even though via the Incarnation He entered it.

I am, but this doesn't help in the slightest. Velocity is a change of location over time. An omnipresent being by definition cannot change location

He doesn't need to. Being omnipresent means He is in every location.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Who said they were not?

I meant to say the race participants and the one firing the starting gun are all part of the same time-frame.

God, as Creator of OUR time is not bound by our time, even though via the Incarnation He entered it.

So God caused our time from outside of it. At that point was God outside of time altogether, or in a different kind of time of his own?

He doesn't need to. Being omnipresent means He is in every location.

Then He can't change location, which means He cannot have any velocity.

 

[Caroljeen]

If there is time "before" universe-time, then it is thereby still part of the same timeline in virtue of being related to it by this temporal relation.

The different time would not be related to the created time which came about by the beginning of the universe. Not the same timeline. There is one timeline for prior to the beginning of the universe which still continues and a different timeline that begins with the creation of the universe which still continues but will end. The spirit world time line will continue after the demise of the universe. (Although there is debate about what is meant by a new heaven and a new earth.)

If our dimension of time really had a beginning, then by definition you can't have anything 'before' it. A dimension of time is defined by relations of before and after, not by the presence or absence of matter.

Greg Boyd in the article I posted earlier makes a distinction between time and sequence. post # 949
Do you think there is a distinction to be made?

 

[Gus Bovona]

If there was nothingness, somethingness would never follow. All there could ever be, would be a world of nothingness.

Richard Carrier makes the point that nothingness is inherently unstable, because in addition to there being no space, time, matter, energy, etc. there could not be any laws or rules that would require nothingness to be absolutely inert.

All anyone is doing is using intuitions about nothing, because we’ve never observed nothingness, so any conclusion must be tentative.

 

[Judges13:18]

Ok, I watched the video up to and including the Pam Reynolds story. I do accept that people have NDEs and supposed OBEs, what's at issue is what causes them.

Here's the problem I have with the video regarding the Pam Reynolds part in particular. It's purely anecdotal which means that the actual real detail of the circumstance might not have been looked into by Dr Sabom. I've seen other accounts of the paranormal that on the face of it look superficially convincing, but when properly looked into aren't quite as reported.

So I did a bit of looking. I found this investigation that really does go into detail about her operation, to see if she would be able to hear at certain points in the seven hour procedure she went through, as hearing certain things is a large part of her testimony.

It's by Gerald Woerlee, an anesthesiologist who analyzed the case and concluded that Reynolds' ability to perceive events during her surgery was a result of "anesthesia awareness". Unfortunately I can't copy and paste from the study, but it's Found here.

One example is that as part of monitoring her brain activity, an earphone was put into an ear and loud clicks were sounded, which Dr Sabom claims would stop her from hearing anything else. Thing is, those clicks were intermittent and gave ample opportunity for her hear in between clicks. I also read that the earphones were only in one ear. This is what investigating in detail will give you, which again, I'm not sure Dr Sabom did. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.

Well, I knew it wouldn't mean anything to you.

Now explain away the things she saw while her brain had no blood in it and it had no brain waves, and her body was cooled well below normal temp, and presumably her eyes were closed.

 

[Whatsisface]

Well, I knew it wouldn't mean anything to you.

Now explain away the things she saw while her brain had no blood in it and it had no brain waves, and her body was cooled well below normal temp, and presumably her eyes were closed.

First of all, do you acknowledge the points I've made so far? You certainly haven't addressed them. Have you looked at the study I linked to?

If I'm correct, there is a natural explanation for what she heard. You haven't acknowledged or shown wrong this possibility.

The reply to your above demand is, that the state she was in that you describe, she was not in for the total duration of the procedure that lasted seven hours. Here and now I can't find out the specifics of the timings, but they are in the study I linked to that you probably haven't looked at.

 

[Judges13:18]

I’m not the one that thinks that a god that wants his people to know him personally sends a scant few prophets out on their own onto some mountain or desert vision-quest or in the holy of holies where only the ordained can go...

The way into fellowship with God in the Holy of Holies has been opened for all the people of God through Christ in this New Covenant. Matthew 27:50-51, Hebrews 10:19-20

...only to return with personal messages from god as opposed to god talking to them directly.

In the New Covenant God does talk directly to his people without them having to be dependent on men to discern truth. 1 John 2:20-21,27

 

[Caroljeen]

Richard Carrier makes the point that nothingness is inherently unstable, because in addition to there being no space, time, matter, energy, etc. there could not be any laws or rules that would require nothingness to be absolutely inert.

All anyone is doing is using intuitions about nothing, because we’ve never observed nothingness, so any conclusion must be tentative.

Just say that nothingness existed before anything else. I think it is safe to assume that we wouldn't be here now. It would still be nothingness.
Unless, of course, if you can show that something can come about from nothingness.

I disagree with Carrier. How can nothingness be unstable? There is nothing to give it instability or stability.

 

[Judges13:18]

This is obviously not true. They are alive.

What is it about a brain that has no pulse, no blood even, and no brain activity, and cooled well below normal temperature that it can somehow be claimed to be alive? You who love hard and fast evidence, what scientific measure, what evidence do you have that shows that this person was still alive?

 

[Judges13:18]

Why? Why does a soul sleep?

The soul does not sleep. The capacity to be aware of your own soul ceases when you sleep. Sometimes it doesn't. The experience varies one experience to another. And varies one person from another. There is nothing to suggest that soul awareness has to be constant and unvarying for it to be real.

 

[Judges13:18]

No. We have the proof that shows that NDE experiences, however real, are not depicting reality.

What did Pam Reynolds experience that was tangibly and demonstrably shown to not be reality? Was she wrong about something that she claims to remember seeing and hearing while her brain was devoid of blood and had no brain waves?

 

[Judges13:18]

No, we do. We are seeing the brain trigger in many mental experiences, both real and imagined.

Trigger? Pam Reynolds had zero brain waves.