A man who used to be a psychotic atheist explains how God changed his life.

[Auld Phart]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

And I am pretty sure you haven't either. No one has! There's no evidence for god either...Fact.

No, but I've seen his handiwork,

as have you.

difference is, I recognize it, you ignore it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

And I am pretty sure you haven't either. No one has! There's no evidence for god either...Fact.

No, but I've seen his handiwork, as have you. difference is, I recognize it, you ignore it.

Time and time again, what once was thought "God's handiwork" has later been found to be something else. Indeed, that such has happened repeatedly calls attention to the central logical deficiency in the Cosmological Argument: that we lack a certain causal explanation for a thing or happening does not make God the cause of it, unless, of course, one defines "God" as "the 'catch all' explanation, a metaphor of sorts, for all that we cannot currently and soundly attribute to some other cause." (There are in fact a few terms for that: "God of the Gaps," "argument from incredulity," and "divine fallacy.")

The rational answer to the question "if not God, then what?" is not "oh, it is therefore God" but rather "I don't know." Naturally, we cannot force folks to exercise sound reasoning, but we can call out unsound reasoning as such when we encounter it.

 

[Mudda]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

Have you?

 

[Auld Phart]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

Have you?

see previous answer

 

[Mudda]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

Have you?

see previous answer

So god for you is the unknown, because you see his handywork but don't know who did it. Geez, I guess brains weren't a requisite when they gave you the ban hammer.

 

[RWNJ]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

And I am pretty sure you haven't either. No one has! There's no evidence for god either...Fact.

No, but I've seen his handiwork, as have you. difference is, I recognize it, you ignore it.

Time and time again, what once was thought "God's handiwork" has later been found to be something else. Indeed, that such has happened repeatedly calls attention to the central logical deficiency in the Cosmological Argument: that we lack a certain causal explanation for a thing or happening does not make God the cause of it, unless, of course, one defines "God" as "the 'catch all' explanation, a metaphor of sorts, for all that we cannot currently and soundly attribute to some other cause." (There are in fact a few terms for that: "God of the Gaps," "argument from incredulity," and "divine fallacy.")

The rational answer to the question "if not God, then what?" is not "oh, it is therefore God" but rather "I don't know." Naturally, we cannot force folks to exercise sound reasoning, but we can call out unsound reasoning as such when we encounter it.

One thing you cannot get around is the law of cause and effect. The universe had a cause. This cause must be non physical and eternal,Since nothing physical can be eternal. The only thing that I can think of that fits this description is God.

 

[RWNJ]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

A man who used to be a psychotic atheist explains how God changed his life

So what? Absent demonstrable evidence that a panel of psychiatrists having attested to his psychopathy having been cured, I don't see any sound reason to even listen to what such an individual has to say, much less propagate what they have said. "Psychotic atheist" or "psychotic theist." They're both psychotic. None of us needs input from either of them.

He's been in prison, not to mention several mental institutions. He's out now. If he was still psychotic, he'd still be incarcerated. That says a lot. Doesn't it? His life has been changed for the better, and he gives God the credit. That's all that matters. Doctors couldn't help him. Psychiatrists couldn't help him. Only God could help Him. I rest my case.

He's been in prison, not to mention several mental institutions. He's out now. If he was still psychotic, he'd still be incarcerated. That says a lot. Doesn't it?

Not necessarily at all. For instance, whether his release suggests his psychosis has been cured partly depends on whether his sentence was suspended to effect his early release, as contrasted with his being released in accordance with standard parole procedures, or released simply because the tenure of his sentence had passed. Another thing it depends on is his ability and predilection to be and not be a recidivist, which, with regard to his psychopathy, he can only be if psychiatrists/psychologists have declared he's overcome his psychopathy. If you have evidence of their having done so, by all means, share it. That's all you really need do in order to elevate the man's remarks to a status of being potentially worth considering.

There is also the matter that while psychotic individuals who are also incarcerated can be placed under psychiatric supervision and given treatment (that doesn't mean the "patient" responds positively to the treatment given), psychotic individuals who are not imprisoned, and/or whose prison sentence has expired, cannot unless there's strong evidence their psychosis makes them a physical threat to other's well being. Consequently, it's very possible the man's psychosis(-es) remain unabated.

In light of the above and as I noted before, "absent demonstrable evidence [of] a panel of psychiatrists having attested to his psychopathy having been cured, I don't see any sound reason to even listen to what [that man] has to say, much less propagate what [says]."

Are you blind? Just listen to what he says. He doesn't sound like a psychopath. And why would a psychopath go to the trouble of creating this video in order to give others hope?

There is also this...

David Wood is an American evangelical missionary, Christian apologist and polemicist. He is currently head of the Acts 17 Apologetics Ministry. He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Wikipedia

Born: April 7, 1976 (age 41)
Nationality: American
Spouse: Marie Wood
Children: 4
Residence: The Bronx, New York City, NY
Education: Doctor of Philosophy, Fordham University

Married with four children. member of society of Christian philosophers. College degree. I'd say his change is genuine. Wouldn't you?

That the man is a member of the two noted organizations carries about as much weight as does being a member of grocery store shopping program.

David Wood...is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers

"The Society is open to anyone interested in philosophy who considers himself or herself a Christian." (Source)

David Wood is [a member of the] Evangelical Philosophical Society

To be a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), one must agree to the following doctrinal affirmation:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and therefore inerrant in the original manuscripts. God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.​

Hell, being an American Express member more reliably indicates something about an individual than does belonging to either of the two noted organizations. As far as I can recall just now, about the only credentials that give one merit as a philosopher or theologian are doctoral degrees in philosophy, religious studies, and/or divinity.

To that end, your citing that he has a PhD in philosophy is appropriate, credible and addresses the fact that he's got the potential for substantive and meritorious thought; however, it says nothing about the core issue which that the man, by your assertion, was at one point acknowledges as being psychotic and you've yet to show that his status as such has changed. You see, a person can be simultaneously very smart, well educated and psychotic. Among individuals who are all of those things, one must obtain evidence that from their mind the psychosis has passed and all that remains is the keen intellect and abundant knowledge.

At the risk of seeming as though I'm aspersing you -- I'm not; I'm merely illustrating a point -- I'll note that I don't even know, for example, that you're not psychotic in roughly the same way David Wood was determined to be. Insofar as you might be, and if indeed you are, it's unsurprising that you'd cotton to his musings. You described the man having been psychotic, and I've merely taken your word for it that he was indeed thus diagnosed. I'm merely asking you to provide demonstrative, not circumstantial, evidence from the folks/organization that declared him psychotic that he's no longer psychotic, or at least that he wasn't when he produced/filmed the video you've referenced. Remember too that you wrote that he "used to be a psychotic," so it's not at all unreasonable that I ask you for demonstrative evidence that he is no longer so, i.e., that the "used to be" part of your assertion is indeed true.

You cannot dispute the fact that his life was changed for the better. The cause of this change was God. Nothing else worked. No one else could help him. Only God could. You also asked me to prove he is no longer psychotic. Well, he went to college, got his degree, is married with 4 children and is currently reaching out to others in order to help change their lives. Does that sound like someone who's psychotic?

 

[badger2]

Precious. Suggested reading is Carl Gustav Jung, Why I Am Not A Catholic.

 

[badger2]

The traditional brush up against psychosis is well known, whereby the word (is [italics]) the thing.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

And I am pretty sure you haven't either. No one has! There's no evidence for god either...Fact.

No, but I've seen his handiwork, as have you. difference is, I recognize it, you ignore it.

Time and time again, what once was thought "God's handiwork" has later been found to be something else. Indeed, that such has happened repeatedly calls attention to the central logical deficiency in the Cosmological Argument: that we lack a certain causal explanation for a thing or happening does not make God the cause of it, unless, of course, one defines "God" as "the 'catch all' explanation, a metaphor of sorts, for all that we cannot currently and soundly attribute to some other cause." (There are in fact a few terms for that: "God of the Gaps," "argument from incredulity," and "divine fallacy.")

The rational answer to the question "if not God, then what?" is not "oh, it is therefore God" but rather "I don't know." Naturally, we cannot force folks to exercise sound reasoning, but we can call out unsound reasoning as such when we encounter it.

One thing you cannot get around is the law of cause and effect. The universe had a cause. This cause must be non physical and eternal,Since nothing physical can be eternal. The only thing that I can think of that fits this description is God.

The only thing that I can think of that fits this description is God.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

So what? Absent demonstrable evidence that a panel of psychiatrists having attested to his psychopathy having been cured, I don't see any sound reason to even listen to what such an individual has to say, much less propagate what they have said. "Psychotic atheist" or "psychotic theist." They're both psychotic. None of us needs input from either of them.

He's been in prison, not to mention several mental institutions. He's out now. If he was still psychotic, he'd still be incarcerated. That says a lot. Doesn't it? His life has been changed for the better, and he gives God the credit. That's all that matters. Doctors couldn't help him. Psychiatrists couldn't help him. Only God could help Him. I rest my case.

He's been in prison, not to mention several mental institutions. He's out now. If he was still psychotic, he'd still be incarcerated. That says a lot. Doesn't it?

Not necessarily at all. For instance, whether his release suggests his psychosis has been cured partly depends on whether his sentence was suspended to effect his early release, as contrasted with his being released in accordance with standard parole procedures, or released simply because the tenure of his sentence had passed. Another thing it depends on is his ability and predilection to be and not be a recidivist, which, with regard to his psychopathy, he can only be if psychiatrists/psychologists have declared he's overcome his psychopathy. If you have evidence of their having done so, by all means, share it. That's all you really need do in order to elevate the man's remarks to a status of being potentially worth considering.

There is also the matter that while psychotic individuals who are also incarcerated can be placed under psychiatric supervision and given treatment (that doesn't mean the "patient" responds positively to the treatment given), psychotic individuals who are not imprisoned, and/or whose prison sentence has expired, cannot unless there's strong evidence their psychosis makes them a physical threat to other's well being. Consequently, it's very possible the man's psychosis(-es) remain unabated.

In light of the above and as I noted before, "absent demonstrable evidence [of] a panel of psychiatrists having attested to his psychopathy having been cured, I don't see any sound reason to even listen to what [that man] has to say, much less propagate what [says]."

Are you blind? Just listen to what he says. He doesn't sound like a psychopath. And why would a psychopath go to the trouble of creating this video in order to give others hope?

There is also this...

David Wood is an American evangelical missionary, Christian apologist and polemicist. He is currently head of the Acts 17 Apologetics Ministry. He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Wikipedia

Born: April 7, 1976 (age 41)
Nationality: American
Spouse: Marie Wood
Children: 4
Residence: The Bronx, New York City, NY
Education: Doctor of Philosophy, Fordham University

Married with four children. member of society of Christian philosophers. College degree. I'd say his change is genuine. Wouldn't you?

That the man is a member of the two noted organizations carries about as much weight as does being a member of grocery store shopping program.

David Wood...is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers

"The Society is open to anyone interested in philosophy who considers himself or herself a Christian." (Source)

David Wood is [a member of the] Evangelical Philosophical Society

To be a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), one must agree to the following doctrinal affirmation:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and therefore inerrant in the original manuscripts. God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.​

Hell, being an American Express member more reliably indicates something about an individual than does belonging to either of the two noted organizations. As far as I can recall just now, about the only credentials that give one merit as a philosopher or theologian are doctoral degrees in philosophy, religious studies, and/or divinity.

To that end, your citing that he has a PhD in philosophy is appropriate, credible and addresses the fact that he's got the potential for substantive and meritorious thought; however, it says nothing about the core issue which that the man, by your assertion, was at one point acknowledges as being psychotic and you've yet to show that his status as such has changed. You see, a person can be simultaneously very smart, well educated and psychotic. Among individuals who are all of those things, one must obtain evidence that from their mind the psychosis has passed and all that remains is the keen intellect and abundant knowledge.

At the risk of seeming as though I'm aspersing you -- I'm not; I'm merely illustrating a point -- I'll note that I don't even know, for example, that you're not psychotic in roughly the same way David Wood was determined to be. Insofar as you might be, and if indeed you are, it's unsurprising that you'd cotton to his musings. You described the man having been psychotic, and I've merely taken your word for it that he was indeed thus diagnosed. I'm merely asking you to provide demonstrative, not circumstantial, evidence from the folks/organization that declared him psychotic that he's no longer psychotic, or at least that he wasn't when he produced/filmed the video you've referenced. Remember too that you wrote that he "used to be a psychotic," so it's not at all unreasonable that I ask you for demonstrative evidence that he is no longer so, i.e., that the "used to be" part of your assertion is indeed true.

You cannot dispute the fact that his life was changed for the better. The cause of this change was God. Nothing else worked. No one else could help him. Only God could. You also asked me to prove he is no longer psychotic. Well, he went to college, got his degree, is married with 4 children and is currently reaching out to others in order to help change their lives. Does that sound like someone who's psychotic?

You cannot dispute the fact that his life was changed for the better. The cause of this change was God. Nothing else worked. No one else could help him. Only God could.

There is no sound basis for concluding that God had a thing to do with it because it has yet to be established that the god of the Bible does indeed exist, to say nothing of that god having had a thing to do with any real or alleged changes in Wood's being. What may have helped him are his notions of what God is; however, insofar as we have no incontrovertible basis for asserting that God exists, there is no way to soundly assert that God is who helped him.

You also asked me to prove he is no longer psychotic. Well, he went to college, got his degree, is married with 4 children and is currently reaching out to others in order to help change their lives. Does that sound like someone who's psychotic?

I did. I even identified the nature of what constitutes a sound basis for thinking the man is no longer psychotic, or that he at least was not at the time he made the video, which is Wood's operative act you've bid us to consider. You have yet to provide such evidence.

You also asked me to prove he is no longer psychotic. Well, he went to college, got his degree, is married with 4 children and is currently reaching out to others in order to help change their lives. Does that sound like someone who's psychotic?

What that "sounds like" is irrelevant. I suspect the day before Wood murdered him, his father, and the other people in both their lives at the time, didn't think his son "sounded like" a psychopath, yet clearly his son was precisely that. By murdering his father as the man slept, Wood displayed the most opprobrious capacity and will to deceive individuals who placed in him their greatest trust and gave him the greatest love they had to give.

Either psychiatrists/psychologists have declared Wood free of his psychopathy(-ies) or they have not. Indeed, absent evidence that they have, I'm suspicious of the man's attestations about God's having changed him, moreover that, cause notwithstanding, that he is indeed a changed man. What I will say has changed about him is that after having obtained his terminal philosophy degree, as a consequence of the Jesuit's renowned adroitness at teaching one the art of eloquentia perfecta, he's even more adept at delivering a cogent case to support his assertion that he is a changed man [1]; however, his ability to do so has nothing to do with whether he is in fact a changed man.


Note:

1. Look at the types of things doctors of philosophy, particularly those from Fordham, become adept. They are precisely the skills and knowledge one needs to seem credible when presenting any argument about subjects for which one is very well informed. Philosophy degrees may as well be called degrees in "devil's advocacy," for any doctor of philosophy can cogently argue either side of any argument in which they engage, most especially ones about the role God played in "whatever." It is, for such individuals who are also psychopaths, mere child's play to present an "I'm a changed man and God is why" case that laymen (non psychologists) will accept as convincing.
   • Philosophy < Fordham University
     
   • Courses | Fordham

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is an amazing story about the power of God to change lives. It's a bit long, but's it's anything but boring. Please check it out when you find a half hour to spare.

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

[daisiesRwild]

Jesus has revealed himself to me and proves it to me continually... Jesus is very real...

 

[Votto]

Is there anything more fucked up than the human mind?

 

[daisiesRwild]

I am sure that God never shown himself to this guy..What changed him was the "hope" that he wasn't going to fade into nothing.

Which frankly is powerful but it doesn't make it anymore true.

oh please spare me wake up brotha!

 

[cnm]

So, madman declares belief in unseen being. Ok.

 

[daisiesRwild]

So, madman declares belief in unseen being. Ok.

Jesus proves himself w/ things i can see...

 

[Penelope]

This is an amazing story about the power of God to change lives. It's a bit long, but's it's anything but boring. Please check it out when you find a half hour to spare.

He is a Christian zealot , no better than a Muslim fundamentalist.

 

[Penelope]

Why?

because YOU havent' seen him?

So what? Absent demonstrable evidence that a panel of psychiatrists having attested to his psychopathy having been cured, I don't see any sound reason to even listen to what such an individual has to say, much less propagate what they have said. "Psychotic atheist" or "psychotic theist." They're both psychotic. None of us needs input from either of them.

He's been in prison, not to mention several mental institutions. He's out now. If he was still psychotic, he'd still be incarcerated. That says a lot. Doesn't it? His life has been changed for the better, and he gives God the credit. That's all that matters. Doctors couldn't help him. Psychiatrists couldn't help him. Only God could help Him. I rest my case.

He's been in prison, not to mention several mental institutions. He's out now. If he was still psychotic, he'd still be incarcerated. That says a lot. Doesn't it?

Not necessarily at all. For instance, whether his release suggests his psychosis has been cured partly depends on whether his sentence was suspended to effect his early release, as contrasted with his being released in accordance with standard parole procedures, or released simply because the tenure of his sentence had passed. Another thing it depends on is his ability and predilection to be and not be a recidivist, which, with regard to his psychopathy, he can only be if psychiatrists/psychologists have declared he's overcome his psychopathy. If you have evidence of their having done so, by all means, share it. That's all you really need do in order to elevate the man's remarks to a status of being potentially worth considering.

There is also the matter that while psychotic individuals who are also incarcerated can be placed under psychiatric supervision and given treatment (that doesn't mean the "patient" responds positively to the treatment given), psychotic individuals who are not imprisoned, and/or whose prison sentence has expired, cannot unless there's strong evidence their psychosis makes them a physical threat to other's well being. Consequently, it's very possible the man's psychosis(-es) remain unabated.

In light of the above and as I noted before, "absent demonstrable evidence [of] a panel of psychiatrists having attested to his psychopathy having been cured, I don't see any sound reason to even listen to what [that man] has to say, much less propagate what [says]."

Are you blind? Just listen to what he says. He doesn't sound like a psychopath. And why would a psychopath go to the trouble of creating this video in order to give others hope?

There is also this...

David Wood is an American evangelical missionary, Christian apologist and polemicist. He is currently head of the Acts 17 Apologetics Ministry. He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Wikipedia

Born: April 7, 1976 (age 41)
Nationality: American
Spouse: Marie Wood
Children: 4
Residence: The Bronx, New York City, NY
Education: Doctor of Philosophy, Fordham University

Married with four children. member of society of Christian philosophers. College degree. I'd say his change is genuine. Wouldn't you?

That the man is a member of the two noted organizations carries about as much weight as does being a member of grocery store shopping program.

David Wood...is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers

"The Society is open to anyone interested in philosophy who considers himself or herself a Christian." (Source)

David Wood is [a member of the] Evangelical Philosophical Society

To be a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), one must agree to the following doctrinal affirmation:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and therefore inerrant in the original manuscripts. God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.​

Hell, being an American Express member more reliably indicates something about an individual than does belonging to either of the two noted organizations. As far as I can recall just now, about the only credentials that give one merit as a philosopher or theologian are doctoral degrees in philosophy, religious studies, and/or divinity.

To that end, your citing that he has a PhD in philosophy is appropriate, credible and addresses the fact that he's got the potential for substantive and meritorious thought; however, it says nothing about the core issue which that the man, by your assertion, was at one point acknowledges as being psychotic and you've yet to show that his status as such has changed. You see, a person can be simultaneously very smart, well educated and psychotic. Among individuals who are all of those things, one must obtain evidence that from their mind the psychosis has passed and all that remains is the keen intellect and abundant knowledge.

At the risk of seeming as though I'm aspersing you -- I'm not; I'm merely illustrating a point -- I'll note that I don't even know, for example, that you're not psychotic in roughly the same way David Wood was determined to be. Insofar as you might be, and if indeed you are, it's unsurprising that you'd cotton to his musings. You described the man having been psychotic, and I've merely taken your word for it that he was indeed thus diagnosed. I'm merely asking you to provide demonstrative, not circumstantial, evidence from the folks/organization that declared him psychotic that he's no longer psychotic, or at least that he wasn't when he produced/filmed the video you've referenced. Remember too that you wrote that he "used to be a psychotic," so it's not at all unreasonable that I ask you for demonstrative evidence that he is no longer so, i.e., that the "used to be" part of your assertion is indeed true.

You cannot dispute the fact that his life was changed for the better. The cause of this change was God. Nothing else worked. No one else could help him. Only God could. You also asked me to prove he is no longer psychotic. Well, he went to college, got his degree, is married with 4 children and is currently reaching out to others in order to help change their lives. Does that sound like someone who's psychotic?

What I want to know is how he received a degree PHD, from Fordham Uni. after prison with his record. Please explain that to me??

 

[usmbguest5318]

He's been in prison, not to mention several mental institutions. He's out now. If he was still psychotic, he'd still be incarcerated. That says a lot. Doesn't it? His life has been changed for the better, and he gives God the credit. That's all that matters. Doctors couldn't help him. Psychiatrists couldn't help him. Only God could help Him. I rest my case.

He's been in prison, not to mention several mental institutions. He's out now. If he was still psychotic, he'd still be incarcerated. That says a lot. Doesn't it?

Not necessarily at all. For instance, whether his release suggests his psychosis has been cured partly depends on whether his sentence was suspended to effect his early release, as contrasted with his being released in accordance with standard parole procedures, or released simply because the tenure of his sentence had passed. Another thing it depends on is his ability and predilection to be and not be a recidivist, which, with regard to his psychopathy, he can only be if psychiatrists/psychologists have declared he's overcome his psychopathy. If you have evidence of their having done so, by all means, share it. That's all you really need do in order to elevate the man's remarks to a status of being potentially worth considering.

There is also the matter that while psychotic individuals who are also incarcerated can be placed under psychiatric supervision and given treatment (that doesn't mean the "patient" responds positively to the treatment given), psychotic individuals who are not imprisoned, and/or whose prison sentence has expired, cannot unless there's strong evidence their psychosis makes them a physical threat to other's well being. Consequently, it's very possible the man's psychosis(-es) remain unabated.

In light of the above and as I noted before, "absent demonstrable evidence [of] a panel of psychiatrists having attested to his psychopathy having been cured, I don't see any sound reason to even listen to what [that man] has to say, much less propagate what [says]."

Are you blind? Just listen to what he says. He doesn't sound like a psychopath. And why would a psychopath go to the trouble of creating this video in order to give others hope?

There is also this...

David Wood is an American evangelical missionary, Christian apologist and polemicist. He is currently head of the Acts 17 Apologetics Ministry. He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Wikipedia

Born: April 7, 1976 (age 41)
Nationality: American
Spouse: Marie Wood
Children: 4
Residence: The Bronx, New York City, NY
Education: Doctor of Philosophy, Fordham University

Married with four children. member of society of Christian philosophers. College degree. I'd say his change is genuine. Wouldn't you?

That the man is a member of the two noted organizations carries about as much weight as does being a member of grocery store shopping program.

David Wood...is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers

"The Society is open to anyone interested in philosophy who considers himself or herself a Christian." (Source)

David Wood is [a member of the] Evangelical Philosophical Society

To be a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), one must agree to the following doctrinal affirmation:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and therefore inerrant in the original manuscripts. God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.​

Hell, being an American Express member more reliably indicates something about an individual than does belonging to either of the two noted organizations. As far as I can recall just now, about the only credentials that give one merit as a philosopher or theologian are doctoral degrees in philosophy, religious studies, and/or divinity.

To that end, your citing that he has a PhD in philosophy is appropriate, credible and addresses the fact that he's got the potential for substantive and meritorious thought; however, it says nothing about the core issue which that the man, by your assertion, was at one point acknowledges as being psychotic and you've yet to show that his status as such has changed. You see, a person can be simultaneously very smart, well educated and psychotic. Among individuals who are all of those things, one must obtain evidence that from their mind the psychosis has passed and all that remains is the keen intellect and abundant knowledge.

At the risk of seeming as though I'm aspersing you -- I'm not; I'm merely illustrating a point -- I'll note that I don't even know, for example, that you're not psychotic in roughly the same way David Wood was determined to be. Insofar as you might be, and if indeed you are, it's unsurprising that you'd cotton to his musings. You described the man having been psychotic, and I've merely taken your word for it that he was indeed thus diagnosed. I'm merely asking you to provide demonstrative, not circumstantial, evidence from the folks/organization that declared him psychotic that he's no longer psychotic, or at least that he wasn't when he produced/filmed the video you've referenced. Remember too that you wrote that he "used to be a psychotic," so it's not at all unreasonable that I ask you for demonstrative evidence that he is no longer so, i.e., that the "used to be" part of your assertion is indeed true.

You cannot dispute the fact that his life was changed for the better. The cause of this change was God. Nothing else worked. No one else could help him. Only God could. You also asked me to prove he is no longer psychotic. Well, he went to college, got his degree, is married with 4 children and is currently reaching out to others in order to help change their lives. Does that sound like someone who's psychotic?

What I want to know is how he received a degree PHD, from Fordham Uni. after prison with his record. Please explain that to me??

???

Having a prison record indicates one suffers/-ed from poor judgement, or perhaps mental illness, not abject mental midgetry. Colleges don't care much about that sort of thing; they care whether one has demonstrated the intellectual acuity and diligence it takes to obtain a degree and they care whether one's background shows that one might bring a unique perspective to the intellectual analysis one will be called to exhibit while pursuing a degree. Were one instead trying to get admitted to a first rate private high school, well, yes, in that instance, one's having a demonstrated history of behavioral delinquency would all but guarantee one's application for admission be denied.

Why the different behavioral standards/expectations? Because college students are adults; thus the institution has no obligation beyond the very low bar called the standard "duty of care" for its community. High schools, on the other hand, face a much higher standard because they are in the position of being adults who are charged with looking after the general well being of people's children. It's a difference wrought by having a student body comprised of adults vs. having one comprised of minors.