God more likely than no, exists

>>"(http://www.nderf.com...) that site is a little more fact specific than the last one i cited. but, the last one i cited was not lacking. if people share NDEs and later reaffirm it in person... or can see things when they are dead, that is not due to the brain firing oddly. that explanation doesn't explain things like this." That site is a forum. None of the people that post there are scientists. That's not a reliable source. Granted, I'm not a scientist either, but I'm not arguing content - I'm arguing format. They present their interpretations of things, and science gives us hard data. It doesn't surprise me at all that people have their NDE's verified by people in the room. Their body is still there, and as long as none of the parts are physically disconnected, then there's definitely a possibility that the electrical portions of the brain are still working. Which is more likely? That there is a problem with people's brains as they are dying that makes them loose consciousness while the brain keeps functioning, albeit improperly due to some sort of damage... or that they're actually encountering some kind of deity. That's not a hard question to answer - it's EXTRAORDINARILY more likely that there is something wrong with their brain. >>"basically, the results of the lobe stimulation simulated some effects similar to NDEs, but nothing concrete and very rarely... nothing like a full blown experirenece and more like feeling detached from yourself." I'm puzzled why you keep bringing up people rambling on a forum, interpreting the words from other people talking about studies they didn't do. This has gone through 2 levels of religious conditioning - of course it seems to represent NDE's a valid religious experiences. The fact is that Temporal Lobe Epilepsy can produce a OBE or NDE without any sort of mystical explanation. Science tells us that there is a malfunction in the brain at the same time as these people are having their religious experiences (http://www.bbc.co.uk...). Science can also verify that the portion on the brain that governs spacial recognition and associated consciousness is less active while people believe they're undergoing a religious experience (http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com...). This is not hard to understand at all. There are chemicals and processes in the brain that make people believe they're having religious experiences. >>"also... as for miracles... it's not just in people's imaginations. most creditble and famous atheists i know, like richard dawkins, do not dispute that they occur. they claim other explanations though. basically, the only thing you could argue, is that miracle looking things happen to athestis etc. which would require that you actually provide data." This is ridiculous - I already explained the most common "miracle" - the contingency miracle. If atheists "claim other explanations" then what are theists doing? They are "claim[ing] other explanations." The notion that an atheist is under a burden to disprove religion is ridiculous. Religion is under burden to disprove science, ESPECIALLY in the case of contingency miracles. Atheists do not dispute that the events a theist sees as miraculous occur. They simply choose the logical explanation over the illogical one. And the second part of your argument here - "...that miracle looking things happen to atheists.." - is equally ridiculous. "Miracle looking things" happen to atheists all the time. They simply understand that there is a logical explanation. The theist automatically assumes god because they're been conditioned to do so. Once again - miracles are only miracles FOR theists. Now, the other portion of the miracle idea, we'll call the violation concept (man, this sounds like Hume vs. Holloway or something...). This would be where a law of nature has been broken, such as someone rising from the dead or multiplying fish and loaves. However, we only have third-hand testimony of these events. It's simply illogical to assume that stories that are 2000 years old have been recorded correctly when none of the people that recorded them were actually eyewitnesses to the event. Much more logical to understand them as metaphorical or just simply false. ******************************************* Now on top of all this, we still have a problem. Neither NDE (which are explainable by science and logic) nor miracles (which are again explainable by science and logic) constitutes proof, or even warranted assertability for the existence of god. You claimed in the first round to be seeking "preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, in a court of law." This suggests that one could introduce god as weighty evidence in this court of law. I have yet to see god included in any reasoning from any just court of law. So in essence, we have neither proof of god's existence, nor proof of his non-existence. We are left with only reason or faith. Since reason is constant and provides verifiable results, and faith produces only hope in correctness, I submit that reason is of a higher order than faith. Reasoning a bridge is sturdy enough to cross based on calculations and observations is much superior to simply having faith that it is sturdy, is it not? When faced with the question of "what caused X?" we are forced to adopt faith or reason. Obviously, the more judicious move is to adopt reason. And this reason tells us nothing of god's existence. Even when we don't understand the cause of something, it is STILL more reasonable to suppose we simply don't have the technology than to attribute the cause to a deity. To do so is to embrace ignorance. Don't confuse that with stupidity... ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever. I for one will not embrace ignorance by simply ignoring reason for faith when reason provides more concrete answers than faith. So... I submit that we have no cause to believe god's existence based on reason. Faith is not a valid form of gathering information about the external world. When one makes an existence claim such as "the tree exists," "that rock exists," or "god exists" one should do the exact same thing in all three cases - go look. Reason shows no tree is present. Reason shows no rock is present. Reason shows no god is present. Faith shows a tree is present... whoop-de-doo. The tree isn't there regardless of whether or not you have faith that it is. And so it is with god until we have REASON to believe otherwise.