It is based on the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, a program that ran from 1979-2007. Are you at all familiar with that?
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It is based on the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, a program that ran from 1979-2007. Are you at all familiar with that?
No sir i am not. Should i Google it or would you like to give me a summary?
Thank you.
They had people watching a computer monitor, no mouse, no keyboard, no physical way to provide input. The idea was to see if they could influence random results from the computer. The results were way beyond chance and specific enough that the influence of individuals could be identified. They expanded it to attempting to influence the computer from a distance, either physical or temporal and determined that the influence remained. It gets even freakier from there.
I agree that God gifts humans with reasoning ability so that the astute among them can figure out they need God for salvation
from selfishness, mortality and possibly ultimate karma. Yes, "proof" regarding ultimate reality means rational argument or good reason.
1) I mean that atheists are currently trying to create eternal life, and if they succeed that would prove the NT was wrong to teach that only God can do that.
2) Paul implies an empty tomb every time he mentions Christ's resurrection! If the body of Christ were discovered in a tomb that would prove Paul was deceived.
3) To date the evidence shows none of these disproofs have occurred. Yay!
4) I am not concerned until any of these disproofs are proved.
5) I have experienced only what might be miraculous timing--other than creation, of course.
6) Yes, science supports the unique universe exploding from a singularity, which is close enough to ex nihilo IMO.
It is not I but atheists who desire to disprove God in these ways, and you are correct that they are "promissory",
which is why we need to not omit the concluding paragraph:
Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27).
More comments?
I also apologize, because I just now noticed this post.
I do not see you acknowledging that belief in an almighty moral authority aka God is necessary for the pyrite suggestion to be a golden rule.
Animals can also learn to recognize faces, etc., so the interesting question is "at what point do human children surpass animals?"
Some people possibly remembering bits of previous life is insufficient for reincarnation serving as a UMI and the way to achieve nirvana.
Okay, see you later on p. 61.
In most accounts of resurrection from the general time frame, what happened to the body was quite well known, so finding Jesus's body would not have discredited Paul. Now the gospel accounts that claim the tomb was empty would have been invalidated, but by the time they were written the body would have decomposed and be just unidentifiable banes. But for some strange reasons, ancient Christians felt the need to invent stories about the body or bodies found in Jesus's tomb and/or in a well in the garden nearby. Further, there are legends that some named people, besides Paul and not associated with him, saw the risen Jesus well after his ascension, including one named person planning to come to the Jerusalem area in 37 CE, some 4 years after the reported ascension, and still expecting to see the evidence.
The results have not been able to be reproduced even by the same researchers.
As well, their methodology looks very flawed.
When do animals surpass human infants? That depends on which animal you are speaking of. Chimpanzees can develop at a similar pace until about 3 years of age when Human children advance beyond them.
As for reincarnation being a means to achieve nirvana, that is only true in one of the four general cultures that accept reincarnation. The other cultures all view reincarnation as returning to learn things they failed to learn earlier or returning to help someone else. Most cultures also insist that humans can only reincarnate as humans, again unlike the Hindu/Buddhist tradition. The only thing this tradition has going for it is that it is the best known to the general public.
Is that why the results so came in at least billions to 1 against chance? When did the original researchers fail to reproduce their results? How is it that those scientists who are continuing the general research continue to get the results? I am in communication with the current head of the ongoing studies and he has not mentioned these problems so how do you happen to know that he is lying to me?
Am I to take your word for it or can you actually provide links to their published findings.
Billion to one against chance.. impressive, I wonder how they measured that?
We are not talking about engineering, science or even psychology but parapsychology.
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) was a research program at Princeton University that studied parapsychology.[1] Established in 1979 by then Dean of Engineering Robert G. Jahn, PEAR conducted formal studies on two primary subject areas, psychokinesis (PK) and remote viewing.[2][3] Owing to the controversial nature of the subject matter, the program had a strained relationship with Princeton and was considered by the administration and some faculty to be an embarrassment to the university.[4][5][6][7][8] Critics stated that it lacked scientific rigor, used poor methodology, and misused statistics,[9][10][11] and characterized it as pseudoscience.[1] PEAR closed in February 2007, being incorporated into the "International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL).[5]
Link
But you still have not told me where you found the information that the tests were not replicable, and in fact you never asked for references. You just made assertions that contradict everything that I have been told or read, and I have read a large portion of the material on your list. In fact, I have hard copies of much of the list.
And bear in mind that you are using technology that was at one time considered "paranormal". The term merely means outside of CURRENTLY explainable science. Some aspects of the paranormal have been tested sufficiently that many scientists are willing to state that IF science would find an explanation for how they occur, there would be no problem in accepting them as perfectly normal.
If you accept the physical resurrection of Jesus, you accept something that is paranormal. If you accept the "gifts of the Spirit", you accept something paranormal. Need I continue?
And bear in mind that you are using technology that was at one time considered "paranormal". The term merely means outside of CURRENTLY explainable science. Some aspects of the paranormal have been tested sufficiently that many scientists are willing to state that IF science would find an explanation for how they occur, there would be no problem in accepting them as perfectly normal.
If you accept the physical resurrection of Jesus, you accept something that is paranormal. If you accept the "gifts of the Spirit", you accept something paranormal. Need I continue?
I noted you opining that human children surpass chimp children at about 3 years of age, but I think the age of moral accountability is closer to eight.
I reiterate that the evidence for reincarnation is weak and thus incredible for establishing a UMI, much less for being a means to achieve nirvana/salvation.
Regarding Christ's resurrection, I disagree that his body remaining in the tomb would not have discredited the faith of Paul and other Christians.
I saw that you liked with my post about potential disproofs of divinity well enough, and your discussion with HeIsHere indicates that PEAR is doubted rather than confirmed, so I await them being able to move a mountain into the sea.
So, I think we are ready to move on down the track that started at the station of philosophy, moved past the watershed of cosmaterialism and moralism and has arrived at the choice (second watershed) of believing atheism or NT theism, because
theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God,
who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. Heb. 12:10).
The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions: For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.] For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.] For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?] And for a theist, “What does God desire?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]
Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).
A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.
While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).
Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).
Awaiting comments from y'all before moving to the station of Christology.
Ah okay. I am familiar with this phenomenon but I just didn’t know they had a study about it and I’m glad they did.
But before I say more, I’d like to ask you.
Based on this study of this phenomenon, what have you come up with as a theory of consciousness?
Please do not make weak analogies.
Yes, there is failed independent replication and clearly they lacked scientific rigor.
We are talking about quantitative research correct?
I am not advocating for reincarnation as a means to nirvana or salvation, merely that it fits the available data far better than any other existent theory.
As for the PEAR program, it has been presented in peer reviewed journals and the arguments against it, to my mind, have even less weight than the arguments against the physical resurrection. There was great pushback over many scientific advances when they occurred but that we now accept as fully valid. I do not look at whether or not there are objections to what claims to be an advancement, unlike some people, I look at the evidence and the nature of the objections.,
And you might not be aware, but academia is brutal. Any time someone advances something too far beyond what is currently acceptable there is pushback. One tenured professor acknowledged that he was paid less than many associate professors at his institution because he went too far beyond what was acceptable. A well-respected biblical archeologist had his reputation tarnished because he reacted to a find and published on it while most were debating whether it was legitimate or not. Ass recent political events have shown university funding can be severely impacted by what stance a given institution takes. Princeton was slow to support the PEAR project, not due to its academic or research profile but due to its controversial position. It had, and the ongoing studies based on its work continue to have, support from Nobel prize winners in various scientific fields. That, to my mind, speaks volumes about its rigor and the quality of its research. Skeptics do not like it though as it challenges their assumptions about reality. Claims are made about things not being replicable, but claims are also made by skeptics about contradictions in the Bible that render it meaningless. Anyone else see a double standard for rejecting their work without investigation?
And a final thought on this point. Someone asks you if you would like a nickel and you state that you do not need a nickel, you need a hundred thousand dollars. Their response is that if you walk this specific route the next day they will meet you at the end and you will walk away with a hundred thousand dollars if you are smart enough, but you need to be ready because it will be in cash and that can weigh a lot. The next day you start following the path and notice that there are nickels on the ground but keep on going to get your hundred thousand. When you meet the person, he asks you how many nickels you picked up and you say, "None, I just wanted the hundred thousand." His response is. "You ignored two million nickels which is a hundred thousand dollars."
cont.
cont.
Regarding Jesus's body, we will have to agree to disagree, I fear. I see evidence in Galatians and 1 John, among other places, that the earliest church did not believe in an empty tomb but sought to conceal the proof of the resurrection from the Romans and so invented a physical resurrection. You do not see that and so be it.
As for divine inspiration, it is easy to claim but extremely hard to prove, one might even say impossible, unless you know of some means to prove divinity rather than just assume it. But if you assume something is divinely inspired it becomes obvious that anything that differs must not be. However, that still leaves all your "proof" resting on just your opinion, with the equally weak opinions of other.
Now as for learning/gaining insight, another factor is what sources you are aware of and willing to use. Do you use only the approved sources, or do you also look at the unapproved to see why they are so considered. There is a reported letter from Tiberius to Agbar, a client king. (all we have is a 5th century source) that might offer some insights into the scriptures, but it is not in an approved source, and there is a section in that source that is clearly a fabrication, although the rest appears plausible, including the reported letter. Now, for the specific letter, there are three possibilities, one, that it is pure fabrication, but why do so many details seem to fit the mid-30's CE, that it is totally accurate as we have it, but why does it reference an issue that is otherwise unknown or the person who copied it in the 5th century made a very believable mistake and misunderstood a well-documented historical event, shifting it to the wrong location. If the last option is chosen, it also fits with strange comments made in acceptable historic Christian document and explains what they refer to.
Your comments about the OT versus NT also suggest to me that there are passages in the OT that you either ignore or are unaware of. As many scholars, both of the OT and NT agree, there is nothing in the NT that does not exist in the OT. Some will even say that the OT is commentary on just two verses, and the NT is pure commentary on the OT.
Regarding Jesus's body, we will have to agree to disagree, I fear. I see evidence in Galatians and 1 John, among other places, that the earliest church did not believe in an empty tomb but sought to conceal the proof of the resurrection from the Romans and so invented a physical resurrection. You do not see that and so be it.
As for divine inspiration, it is easy to claim but extremely hard to prove, one might even say impossible, unless you know of some means to prove divinity rather than just assume it. But if you assume something is divinely inspired it becomes obvious that anything that differs must not be. However, that still leaves all your "proof" resting on just your opinion, with the equally weak opinions of other.
Now as for learning/gaining insight, another factor is what sources you are aware of and willing to use. Do you use only the approved sources, or do you also look at the unapproved to see why they are so considered. There is a reported letter from Tiberius to Agbar, a client king. (all we have is a 5th century source) that might offer some insights into the scriptures, but it is not in an approved source, and there is a section in that source that is clearly a fabrication, although the rest appears plausible, including the reported letter. Now, for the specific letter, there are three possibilities, one, that it is pure fabrication, but why do so many details seem to fit the mid-30's CE, that it is totally accurate as we have it, but why does it reference an issue that is otherwise unknown or the person who copied it in the 5th century made a very believable mistake and misunderstood a well-documented historical event, shifting it to the wrong location. If the last option is chosen, it also fits with strange comments made in acceptable historic Christian document and explains what they refer to.
Your comments about the OT versus NT also suggest to me that there are passages in the OT that you either ignore or are unaware of. As many scholars, both of the OT and NT agree, there is nothing in the NT that does not exist in the OT. Some will even say that the OT is commentary on just two verses, and the NT is pure commentary on the OT.
Can you cite the peer reviewed source for your claims? I know some sources that make such claims, but they do so by distorting the knowable facts. At least one such source has openly admitted that any explanation that does not force them to accept what they do not wish to believe, no matter how absurd, is preferable to accepting what is claimed.