Habermas makes too much of NDE's.

Thinker Joined: Jul 25, 2003 Posts: 437

For some reason Gary Habermas the other night kept trying to make way too much of near death experiences (NDE's). I don't see how NDE's necessarily support dualism, the existence of "souls" or "immortality." Habermas has really grasped at straws if he thinks he can make christianity sound more plausible with ambiguous "evidence" coming from NDE's.

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:59 pm

And then his resurrection claims, I know of no one that has come back after rigor mortis. I meant to mention this but I got distracted.

I'd love to see these alleged cases he's talking about.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 549

NDE's are more likely how the human mind struggles against death when it is close to dying.

Newbie Joined: Oct 08, 2006 Posts: 11

I really thought that Habermas was considered a respected figure in apologetics (if that isn't an oxymoron). I was completed unimpressed and actually offended by his level of "reasoning".

Reggie: great job.

Liberty University: you suck. If this is a professor teaching our youth, we should be afraid - very afraid.

And what was this: "what if we talked for 5 years over a football game, and I had good answers?" shit?

What if I had good answers and he didn't....?

I have now watched WL Craig debates, heard Habermas, read the Bible, read Aquinas, read numerous other arguments and apologetics and am at a loss as to why Christ-inanity is still a religion- and why we are (or I am) still discussing it.

Except for the fact that there is 80% of the American population trying to shove it down our throats.

I'm disgusted. I know not all Xians are idiots, but the case is exponentially growing against that premise.

What kind of brain damage did Habermas incur as a child in order to believe what he is saying, or, is he just a used car salesman who knows where he can get the bacon?

Did I say I was disgusted? I am. These people should be arrested for fraud.

Newbie Joined: Oct 08, 2006 Posts: 11

AAAAARRRRGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am listening more to Habermas (God save me!) and the FW problem.

Habermas is acting as if God exists and knows the future.

One could say right back:
"I know what exactly will happen too: what ever is going to happen! If you are going to pick up the quarter, you will, but you still have FW! WOooHoooo! Checkmate!!!"

He's just replacing "god knows" with "revisionist history" or "speculation". It's just word play. It's absolutely stupid.

OMG, I want to punch these guys in the face! I seriously get road rage from these morons.

Newbie Joined: Oct 08, 2006 Posts: 11

OMG!!!!! FUCK FCCKCKKKKKFUCKCKFUCKKCFUCKK!!!!!

The cross in the moon:

Habermas thinks its too much, but he believes he has found as solid a case for God as anything.

So, what? God gave Habermas perfect evidence to believe but a cross in the moon is too much

and this guy is writing books about the proof he has found of God?

FRAUD!!!! BASTARD!!!! His children should be openly mocked. His wife should be slapped for marrying him.

I am so goddamned frustrated. These guys are making money off of utter crap. utter shit.

(and if any one is offended by my language, read Martin Luther and what he says about "Reason": "a whore who should have dung smeared in her face"."

Fuckheads.

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:02 pm

Hello everyone.

Great show, Reggie.

I happen to be of the opinion that Habermas is grasping at straws with some of his supporting “evidences”, and I cant think of one that stands up to close scrutiny. However I do find him to be a thoroughly pleasant and amiable chap, which can never be a bad thing, so I don’t think it’s necessary for any of us on this forum to attack the mans character. Habermas may be wrong, but he’s a gentleman.

Reggie, I thought that some of your points and objections were excellent, and that they were delivered eloquently and accurately. I’d say that this particular show was probably your most confident performance. Well done.

Keep up the good work.

http://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 549

That was good show. Habermas seemed like a pretty reasonable person for a professor at Liberty University up until the point where he started talking about free will. Nothing he said on that subject made any sense. Essentially he was trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Just Arrived Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Posts: 3

thought this show was terrible. Habermas is definetely a friendly chap, but I was disappointed IG gave him the 20 or 12 core "facts" of the NT story so easliy. Has Bob Price taught you nothing? Sorry Gary, these are mythological symbolic midrashric stories -- no historical datum in them.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:30 pm

infidelguy wrote:

And then his resurrection claims, I know of no one that has come back after rigor mortis. I meant to mention this but I got distracted.

I'd love to see these alleged cases he's talking about.

You are wrong, Has anyone told you about Jesus?

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:41 pm

ddonuts wrote:

thought this show was terrible. Habermas is definetely a friendly chap, but I was disappointed IG gave him the 20 or 12 core "facts" of the NT story so easliy. Has Bob Price taught you nothing? Sorry Gary, these are mythological symbolic midrashric stories -- no historical datum in them.

ddonuts were you not paying attention? What I did, which I thought was obvious, was to have him talk himself into a hole.. Even allowing Gary to argue all of his points and to humor them as true, he still had no case. I found that quite compelling. Even allowing 95% of his evidences as true.. he still didn't have much of a case.

Just Arrived Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 7

Best part was the bit at the end where Reggie said "I don't like football." That was awesome. I was waiting for him to say something on those lines for the whole show.
It was funny how he managed to talk for an hour and a half without saying a single thing that was convincing. He had the 7 points which were all pretty debatable and then laid them on the table like they were supposed to prove something. He never gave any reason why we were supposed to take this evidence and draw the conclusion that the resurrection was real because he never cited any reasons why we should believe his 7 reasons...we had to take those on faith and draw further faith from them. He also needs to take some entry level logic classes if he wants to do "proofs".
The football analogy was so tired and irrelevant. Yes. We know. You likes you sum Jaysus and Football. Like 75% of the rest of the country. You're not one of them "nerds". How mature.

Just Arrived Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Posts: 3

Quote:

What I did, which I thought was obvious, was to have him talk himself into a hole

Well i'm usually trying to work at the same time as i'm listening, so I didn't really catch that you were intentionally allowing him his "facts". Very true, that even given these points his argument for the ressurection fails -- there are many reasonable naturalistic explanations for Gary's core "facts".

As Dr. Price points out though, the problem is that this whole line of apologetics is arguing against the strawman of 18th century rationalist theologians -- i.e., these apologists take from granted that the gospels are to some extent historical reportages, when modern higher-criticism has moved far beyond this.

Just Arrived Joined: Mar 02, 2005 Posts: 1

advancedatheist wrote:

For some reason Gary Habermas the other night kept trying to make way too much of near death experiences (NDE's).

One glaring error in Habermas reasoning was this:

When he talked about the facts of Jesus life, he made sure to use facts that were accepted by most authorities on the subject.

This is not an assurance of truth, as he admitted, but it is good practice to lean on the authority of experts in a field of study.

But what about NDE's? What is the opinion of the experts in the field, and what would the field be?

Well NDE's occur when you are close to death, and are, by Habermas himself, linked to oxygen deprived brains. So one group of experts should be medical doctors, and more specifically doctors specialising in the function of the brain.

But is there a consensus on the NDE cases Habermas mentioned? We can't say, because somehow he decided that he needed the backing of authorities on the Jesus facts, but not on the NDE facts?

Someone should challenge him with this!

Furthermore, he mentioned that after 11 seconds of oxygen deprivation there will be no brain activity. As is mentioned in this blog post
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=114

This is not a very arguable position. Furthermore, no brain activity DOES NOT equal brain dead.

To be declared brain dead the doctor must be sure that you brain has stopped beyond any chance of functioning again, just like you are not dead when your heart stops, since you often can be revived.

If you have trauma to your head, your brain might swell. It will typically swell over a period of 36 hours, and then start to return to the original size. After trauma to the head a diagnosis of brain dead should not be made until at least three days after the incident, because of this. Furthermore any diagnosis of brain dead should not be made before it is established twice, with at least 6 hours interval, or even better a 24 hour interval, that there is no brain activity.

Just Arrived Joined: Nov 08, 2008 Posts: 1

There was some confusion about free will on the show.

Habermas seemed to think that there is no contradiction between omniscience and free will.
He thinks that the fact that god knows absolutely for sure what you are going to do, doesn't have any affect on what you choose to do.
As if the two concepts are totally separate.

But his reasoning undercuts the meaning of free will. Free will means that there are multiple alternatives. If god knew ahead of time what was going to happen, then there really weren't any alternatives. The person might think there were alternatives, but there weren't. It that case everything was predetermined so no alternatives are possible. If there are no alternatives, then there is no free will.

He wants to have it both ways. I would like to say to him,
"If you and I were watching nature shows over 5 years....
I could convince you that if you and I were both omniscient beings and we watched all the people act out their lives, we could see that they were just following the grooves laid down. Neither one of us would think they had "free" will, even if they thought they did."

-- On a side note, he kept saying, "What is the most likely explanation for the resurrection?"
And his implication is that the resurrection must have been true, since we have all these "facts". But he completely overlooks the fact that human culture is and was totally drenched with myth and legend making. Not only is this the most likely explanation of the resurrection stories, but is really the only explanation.

-- Satyr


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore