Stories are not evidence, NDEs are not evidence.
Any doctor will easily explain you why they are seeing stuff when their oxygen levels aren't normal.
The chances of "god" creating us are probably the same as some alien race creating us.
P.S. Points 1 and 5 contradict each other. Cheerio.
BUMP for the
concise scientific proof of God posted in this other thread;
it is a logical deduction starting from empirical observations and easily-accepted premises:
1) Observe the numerous empirical observations supporting "the survival hypothesis", which is part of "the scientific study of consciousness"; the survival hypothesis, i.e. "life after death", is the simplest explanation for the
evidence (summarized in 52 points), so it is most correct. For this proof, only point #36 (linked below) needs to be accepted; this point states that the overwhelming evidence (
51 other points) now places the
burden of proof upon those who are skeptical of the survival hypothesis. Therefore, the survival hypothesis is valid knowledge, "proven" by the weight of the evidence (and the counterargument proposed by LaudaM above is insufficient, even if correct).
2) Consider the Definition of humanism as necessarily rejecting the survival hypothesis. That is, all humanists reject the supernatural, god(s), "life after death", etc. This is because humanism is Defined as the idea that Man is the basis for existence, thought, and ethics and acts as the founder and guarantor of knowledge and thought.
3) Consider the Rational Principle that all reason and thinking must be backed by substance (especially when it comes to the God-question) and that therefore any denial of (a Supreme being called) GOD as the guarantor and founder of knowledge and reason is necessarily an affirmation of (a Rational being called) Man as that guarantor.
4) Conclusion: The knowledge acquired from the evidence is in conflict with humanism; therefore, GOD is the guarantor of knowledge, not Man.
"Let it be said that not all humanists are atheists, but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"
Atheism and Secularity, Page 10
LinkOnly Man or GOD can be the guarantor of knowledge and thought (reason).
I propose (along with Mr. Eller) that a
rationalist atheist would also dismiss claims about the entire line of "spiritual" thinking, as nothing more than a metaphor run amok.
This would be a mistake because Life after death is not a metaphor--
it is backed by 52 salient points of evidence.
Now I am asking atheists to be
rational with regards to the evidence; in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is
capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
I have just presented evidence refuting humanism, defined as the idea that Man is the basis for existence, thought, and ethics and acts as the founder and guarantor of knowledge and thought. For the humanist, a soul is a foreign and inert concept--and nothing more than a concept, literally a word without a referent.
All humanists are without a belief in the afterlife.I have proven that life exists after death, and that is where
humanism is wrong about
Man's consciousness.
I hope
humanists will try to responsibly address the evidence, and likewise for any atheist.
