Life After Death, proven!

[shadowprophet]

yeah, it was a catchy title, i had to use it,:cool:

Besides, hear me out first, then you can light torches and throw rocks ;)

Conservation of energy, it's more then just a few happy words some green ecologist threw together for some power point presentation.

It's one of the very few truly obvious truths in this universe.

The total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy "cannot be created or destroyed." The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can "change form", that is to say for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy.

The laws of physics,

I could debate about them forever,
To me physics are like a game.

It's a puzzle to figure out, and it's a really large breathable tangible playground, giving ones mind room to grow.

Very fertile ground.

But. let's examine energy, and maybe nature too, It's seems that science and nature are two different beasts entirely,

or is it really, that nature and science are two different sides to the same coin?

It does seem to me, that Science and nature seem to support each other more often then not.

I believe that we can all mostly agree that our minds our thoughts, yes even our very consciousness are energy, life in it's self is considered an energy.

I say... Does That lead one to conclude that when someone's life ends, their energy must go somewhere?

And let us go back to the first part of the law of energy conversion for a brief moment.

"The total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant."

Hmm, The total amount of energy remains constant.

Wow, So not only would our energy have to be converted from one form to another but it would remain totally in tact!?!? wow!

Our consciousness, Would remain totally in tact!?!? Wow!!

Yes, Science does seem to support that when we Die, our energy does not get destroyed. "how could it be?"

No, it's simply converted from one form to another, 'completely in tact consciousness and all"

wow, just wow,


http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?image=haloge7.jpg

[ICE]

The idea that you can call our consciousness or our being "energy" is debatable. If we are energy at our deepest self then, yes what you're saying is very logical and makes some sense. I just dont know that that statement can be made with any certainty. It becomes more a debate of semantics than anything else.

Theres no proof, that I've seen anyways to support or dispute either side. I hope to be corrected on that otherwise theres no real debate.

[shadowprophet]

The idea that you can call our consciousness or our being "energy" is debatable. If we are energy at our deepest self then, yes what you're saying is very logical and makes some sense. I just dont know that that statement can be made with any certainty. It becomes more a debate of semantics than anything else.

Theres no proof, that I've seen anyways to support or dispute either side. I hope to be corrected on that otherwise theres no real debate.

Well sure, I can elaborate on the view.
The thing is, our bodies rely on energy to stay alive, we eat food for energy, our bodies convert food into energy,

"think about it"

Our brains use electrical impulses to function. heck without that electrical activity in our brains, we wouldn't be alive at all. in fact it's the electrical activity of the brain that is gagged in fact to see if a coma patient is brain dead.

The fact is brother ice, in this physical form we are in. We need energy to live. And since our brains run on energy. and we die when that energy stops. It's a pretty safe assumption that our very consciousness in this form is based on electrical activity.

Does that mean that God doesn't exist?
I think not. people can and will disagree about opinions from time to time. But God's existence can not be judged based on the color of a mans shoes in Tokyo.

The bible says many times. This form is imperfect and corrupted. and i believe in some cases incomplete.

Weather we believe in God or not, We must accept,
That just because the brain as we know it run's on electricity, does not negate The existence of God.,

This stumbling block comes from the ongoing socially accepted view that, that science and religion must conflict with one another. It is deeply rooted in most people..

But the truth is, in many cases they support one another.

We still don't fully understand The brain. Why it works. how it stores almost limitless information as it does.

but simply proving that The brain runs off electricity, doesn't negate God.

In fact, That we as humans Do pass from one form to another as science proves, Well that pretty much proves that God must be real, Because he was telling us We passed on from one form to another since the creation of man..


I hope that clears some of it up bro.


There is proof brother ice. But we can not sit on the sidelines and wait for answers to come, We must seek for them,"seek and ye shall find" But we must also be willing to accept the answers when we find them.

[ICE]

Ive always held the belief that science without religion is pointless and religion without science is blind. My view on this is that life occurs because of biochemical processes in the body turning stored energy into usable energy. That conversion occurs while you are alive but when you are dead that process stops. The stored energy decomposes and is again converted into something else. For example the body taken in by mushrooms or something for energy.

My question is are we actually electrical impulses? My computer on my lap is ran by electricity but it isnt electricity in its deepest form. The electricity just allows it to function. Is there an intangible energy that is us at our deepest level inhabiting our physical form?

If we are talking about the electrical impulses in the body I dont know that I can buy it. The soul is another thing entirely. That could be considered energy assuming you believe in a soul.

[shadowprophet]

Ive always held the belief that science without religion is pointless and religion without science is blind. My view on this is that life occurs because of biochemical processes in the body turning stored energy into usable energy. That conversion occurs while you are alive but when you are dead that process stops. The stored energy decomposes and is again converted into something else. For example the body taken in by mushrooms or something for energy.

My question is are we actually electrical impulses? My computer on my lap is ran by electricity but it isnt electricity in its deepest form. The electricity just allows it to function. Is there an intangible energy that is us at our deepest level inhabiting our physical form?

If we are talking about the electrical impulses in the body I dont know that I can buy it. The soul is another thing entirely. That could be considered energy assuming you believe in a soul.

Well what is a soul?
the bible speaks about them. what purpose they serve. But it never really explains what soul "is" what it's made of.

it is said that god is a creator, And through him all things are possible, but it's also clearly obvious that God tends to create naturally using nature to form his creations. we humans create other humans, naturally through reproduction however the credit for that human life goes to God.

just because two people make a baby doesn't mean it wasn't gods original plan or creation.

Nature is a recurring theme in creation.

And it's not a huge leap to believe that god created life naturally through natural principals that we humans have yet to grasp.

it's it really such a far reach to believe that the human soul is the byproduct of the energy transformation of life into death?

energy can not decay or evaporate into nothingness,. the laws of energy
theirselves state that energy "must be converted into another form," in other words, the energy must remain "whole" and complete" and convert into another form. That is the natural process

It would seem logical, and accessible to both parties scientific and religious views.

In my opinion, the physical laws of energy conversion do closely mirror What the bible says happens to a soul when it passes from this life.

it all seems very logical to me. like two pieces of the same puzzle coming together.

[ICE]

To me its not a question of what happens to the energy inside us when we die, its whether or not theres a little energy in us that isnt used for moving muscles or thinking thoughts. A little energy that IS us. If the answer is a yes then its a very provocative thought.

Is there a soul, is it energy. I dont think we can truely know the answer to that. I suppose thats what faith is for. Its not something we can go out and look at or test.

[shadowprophet]

To me its not a question of what happens to the energy inside us when we die, its whether or not theres a little energy in us that isnt used for moving muscles or thinking thoughts. A little energy that IS us. If the answer is a yes then its a very provocative thought.

Is there a soul, is it energy. I dont think we can truely know the answer to that. I suppose thats what faith is for. Its not something we can go out and look at or test.

Ah but when we accept that a concept or method of thinking is beyond us. That is a limitation we place upon ourselves.

We must never give up seeking the answers. if newton had decided that gravity was just one of those things man wasn't meant to understand, where would we be today?

We must never limit ourselves into thinking that something is out of our reach of understanding. if we all did this thing. we would still be living in the stick ages,

yes the stick ages.
because we would have never thought that tools made from stone would be possible.

Just because some people believe that certain things aren't meant to be understood, doesn't mean that there wont always be others seeking for the answers to those same questions.

If you believe you have a soul, Thats is based on your faith, to each person faith is a personal belief unique to themselves as diverse and unique as the human mind.

But faith in the soul isn't whats really in question here. we could call it a soul, but that's all just opinion.

What we do know is, The body thrives and lives off energy. The brain directly uses energy to transfer it's messages from one part of the brain to another on a cellular level . if even at our deepest recesses of the mind we are not energy based beings, then the miracle of life is truly more profound and wondrous then possibly imaginable, if science can't explain life then, That only leaves the creation theory.

hmm..

how can what we are even deeply inside us. be anything other then energy? Thats the real question.

[mike_jmg]

Now that you mention this, I felt like puting my grain of salt

Ok, here is my theory

- Long long long time ago the universe was a little dot where all the mass and energy were concentrated, you me and absolutely everything was there. right

- I don't know why, maybe it reached a critical point, it exploded, from that explosion the universe started to expand, planets and stars started to form and blablablabla... up to this day

- I think our consiousness is the sum of all the biochemical processes that occur in our bodies everyday

- The thing is, what I think it happens when we die is that we become part of everything once again, I like thinking that our consiousness remains intact although it is not very realistic, but even so I still do.

- Lastly, there will be a moment when the universe will cease to expand, I think it will crash onto something, I don't know, maybe, and it will start to compress until it becomes a little dot, to start the cycle once again

edit:
Universe = all the mass and energy that exists = God

Therefore we all are part of God, could be called sons of God, we die we go back to him

note: english is not my first language and I couldn't write this as good as I would've liked to

[shadowprophet]

Now that you mention this, I felt like puting my grain of salt

Ok, here is my theory

- Long long long time ago the universe was a little dot where all the mass and energy were concentrated, you me and absolutely everything was there. right

- I don't know why, maybe it reached a critical point, it exploded, from that explosion the universe was born, planets and stars started to form and blablablabla... up to this day

- I think our consiousness is the sum of all the biochemical processes that occur in our bodies everyday

- The thing is, what I think it happens when we die is that we become a part of everything once again, I like thinking that our consiousness remains intact although it is not very realistic, but even so I still do.

- Lastly, there will be a moment when the universe will cease to expand, I think it will crash onto something, I don't know what, and it will start to compress until it becomes a little dot, to star the cycle once again

The thing about that opinion brother mike, is that To remain completely respectful of you and your beliefs I can't comment on your spiritual beliefs.
they just like brother ice's are unique and your own. Who am I to say any differently, *nods

[mike_jmg]

Yeah, I don't think anyone can't dissuade someone else into believing what he believes on a subject like this. So maybe this is kinda pointless don't you think.

Even so it is a very nice talk

[shadowprophet]

Yeah, I don't think anyone can't dissuade someone else into believing what he believes on a subject like this. So maybe this is kinda pointless don't you think.

Even so it is a very nice talk
No it's never pointless, their are some folks out there who simply don't have a belief at all.

it's for those people, confused or lost or even curious,That I share my views on such things. it's certainly not to dissuade others in any way though.

[beetroot bertie]

OK, my tuppence worth...

I don't think there is a God. I have no reason to believe so unless I choose to believe some of the things that I have been told in my life on the matter (and in my opinion none of them have any firm proof or backing - and that I guess is why it's called faith). I went to church as a kid but it wasn't my choice and I'm particularly disapproving of forcing ones' own beliefs on others.

What about all the other religions with their own unique view on things. How can they all be right? Most seem to refer to God in a Christian sense but what about other religions that are not monothiestic?

I would say I'm agnostic rather than athiest. I have no reason to believe in a deity or deities unless proven otherwise. I'm not totally closed to the concept but would need more than what I consider to be blind faith. The only thing I see as a constant is nature (closet hippy alert) - we are all a part of the ecosystem and the energy within it. I don't consider this to be a conscious energy though.

I reckon our consciousness and soul are just constructs of the mind or maybe just a bit of internal hope that there is something more than this, something beyond. I think that when we die, our brain ceases to function and those things slip away. We are left with our bodies, the physical remains of what we were and then the subsequent decomposition or cremation of the body releases other energy to feed the ground/plants/earth around it. These plants, creatures, organisms then grow/give off gasses etc or get consumed themselves, which then get used by something else and so on. In that sense I see the "energy" being constantly recycled but have now reason to think that any form of consciousness remains in this.

That said, the explanation of ghosts and spirits (if they can ever be totally proven) may add some weight to an opinion of energy with a conscious aspect. Again more food for thought.

I have to say it's been interesting reading other peoples opinions on this and discussing it quite rationally. Thanks SP for the original post.

[shadowprophet]

OK, my tuppence worth...

I don't think there is a God. I have no reason to believe so unless I choose to believe some of the things that I have been told in my life on the matter (and in my opinion none of them have any firm proof or backing - and that I guess is why it's called faith). I went to church as a kid but it wasn't my choice and I'm particularly disapproving of forcing ones' own beliefs on others.

What about all the other religions with their own unique view on things. How can they all be right? Most seem to refer to God in a Christian sense but what about other religions that are not monothiestic?

I would say I'm agnostic rather than athiest. I have no reason to believe in a deity or deities unless proven otherwise. I'm not totally closed to the concept but would need more than what I consider to be blind faith. The only thing I see as a constant is nature (closet hippy alert) - we are all a part of the ecosystem and the energy within it. I don't consider this to be a conscious energy though.

I reckon our consciousness and soul are just constructs of the mind or maybe just a bit of internal hope that there is something more than this, something beyond. I think that when we die, our brain ceases to function and those things slip away. We are left with our bodies, the physical remains of what we were and then the subsequent decomposition or cremation of the body releases other energy to feed the ground/plants/earth around it. These plants, creatures, organisms then grow/give off gasses etc or get consumed themselves, which then get used by something else and so on. In that sense I see the "energy" being constantly recycled but have now reason to think that any form of consciousness remains in this.

That said, the explanation of ghosts and spirits (if they can ever be totally proven) may add some weight to an opinion of energy with a conscious aspect. Again more food for thought.

I have to say it's been interesting reading other peoples opinions on this and discussing it quite rationally. Thanks SP for the original post.

Well you have some really nice thoughts about the subject to brother beetroot, I found your reply to be well thought out and insightful.

[ICE]

To me the simple odds of everything forming coupled with the fact that we have no explanation for how it formed points me towards a god. I know many of you are now shouting at your monitor "We know how it formed. The big bang!". The truth is that we have no clue why the big bang would have occurred. One very important law in nature is cause and effect. Nothing ever occurs without a cause. Not even the Big Bang.

You've all heard the things like had the expansion of the universe one second after the big bang been smaller by 1 part in a hundred, thousand, million, million the universe would have re-collapsed on itself (Stephen Hawking) or the odds that suitable circumstances for stars to exist the relevant initial conditions would need to be fined tuned to a precision of 1 followed by a thousand, billion, billion zeros or that a change in gravity or in the weak force by even 1 part in 10 to the 100th power would have prevented a life permitting universe. (P.C.W. Davies)

To me believing in God takes less faith than to believe the Big Bang occurred for no reason and that given those odds everything turned out this well. Note I'm not saying which god at this point :p

[RedKing14CA]

Hello, i'll be back, its 1:16 AM

but i'm really interested in this topic, and haven't seen any of you in days.. literally.. like over 700 days....

ttyl, mates

[mike_jmg]

to beetroot

Most facts lead us to think that consciousness simply disappears when our brain ceases to function but it is kinda sad. Maybe that's why we keep looking for a better explanation, like what you mentioned about ghosts.

I like thinking that it remains intact and that we continue to exist in some way, although I keep telling myself it's not possible no one is going to taught me out of it, not even myself :p haha

to ICE

you might be right, it is too much of a coincidence for all of this chemical compounds to be combined into forming stars, planets, plants, animals and even ourselves, it is too perfect to be just random combinations

[RedKing14CA]

Luke 16:23-31: In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'
But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and none may cross over from there to us.'
And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--
for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

[desiree]

To me its not a question of what happens to the energy inside us when we die, its whether or not theres a little energy in us that isnt used for moving muscles or thinking thoughts. A little energy that IS us. If the answer is a yes then its a very provocative thought.

Is there a soul, is it energy. I dont think we can truely know the answer to that. I suppose thats what faith is for. Its not something we can go out and look at or test.


I agree with you one hundred percent because really how would we really know whether it does exist - its just something we all want to believe in, i guess

[bullhead]

Conciousness continuing after death smells mighty squeezy to me. I'd love that to happen I would. You recall, "energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another", I know you remember, but ive reminded you anyway. That physical law has provided me, as someone who doesnt believe in god or santa or harry potter, with great comfort as I fall asleep each time.

Then there is this other theory which I choose to nest my loose beliefs in, and that is thus;

It has been said, that a dream which seems to last for days actually only occurs within a fraction of a real life second, and that after death there is 6 minuits or so of residual brain activity. Then I try to imagine the lifetimes I could live within those six minuits. I take comfort from that, even if its only some scientific dream theory it makes more sence to me than walking into the kitchen and finding my hands suspended in mid air by the sink doing the washing up. I take my gloves off and of course, my hands are gone, theyre doing the dishes! Crafty digits, I tell you.

bull in a barrel, x

[pibs]

http://current.com/e/89598648/en_US
I hope its not off topic but I just saw this yesterday and it seemed very interesting.

My belief is after I die I don't exist, no magic, no pixie dust, etc. What does still exist is a legacy I can leave behind and it could be either a good or bad one. I do ponder about balance through out my living experience and I guess that can be implemented into one of my beliefs hah

I only label myself as a human being and live my life treating others like I would like to be treated myself. Is there a god? I will happily answer that question with an I don't know:p

Seriously the most religious people in the planet are scientist. While popes and nuns are all singing and sleeping for an answer, scientist are out on a limb throwing shit off the edge of the universe! hahaha thats just my opinion sorry if I offended you kindly reader :rofl:

[Maturion]

I believe in God. I always did. This will never change. I don't need any proof. :)

[ICE]

Heres what I dont understand. Being satisfied with "I dont know if there is or isnt a god". Now I know that many of you would argue that there is no definitive way to know for sure but doing nothing wreaks of ignorance of the potential importance of the matter.

All I am saying is if you're open to the idea snoop around a little and see if there is a belief system that makes sense to you. After all if there is no god then who cares. No one wins, no one loses. However, if I am right and there is a god then you should all care quite a lot. Oh and most importantly of all listen to no ones opinion of the semantics of religion. Find out on your own. Everyone is biased.

[ninja9393]

Ice if you want people to believe what they want, then why can't they just not conform to a religion and have separate beliefs of their own

Or do they have to pick a religion they might not even 100% agree on...

[ICE]

I didnt say they couldnt. In fact thats the very reason I used the phrase "belief system" rather than religion and why I said "Find out on your own. Everyone is biased". My whole point was just that if you have the "maybe there is, maybe there isnt" outlook then perhaps you should look into the maybe there is bit. It could be important.

[ninja9393]

I didnt say they couldnt. In fact thats the very reason I used the phrase "belief system" rather than religion and why I said "Find out on your own. Everyone is biased". My whole point was just that if you have the "maybe there is, maybe there isnt" outlook then perhaps you should look into the maybe there is bit. It could be important.

ahhh im cool with that

my personal philosophy is kinda laid back, I just want to live my life how it is and not even think about a religion for me, in my eyes, whatever happens... happens. But, I want to live my life good with my own set of morals

I do agree with you that everyone should have the ability to practice/believe what they want, a people flip flopping religons, should try to decide.

I am just personally happy right now, and that is just enough for me

[DarthPaul]

This sounds too smart for me to come in... But meh, here I go.

You guys have good points from what I've read so far. But I'd like to comment something about Shadow's point.

If, like you say... This energy remains intact until the day you die, and then transforms into some other energy, how come the human being(and every other life-form) gets old and loses it's energy as time passes? We clearly don't have the same energy as we did before. The organs run slower, our minds don't process as well as they used to, our sight degrades, our legs slow down... The energy goes somewhere else before we die. In my opinion, it doesn't remain intact.

But with all honesty, I don't seriously care about what happens. It will happen anyway. And I'll just enjoy my life while it lasts.

I'm with ninja9393 on this one.

Very interesting article. :)

[shadowprophet]

This sounds too smart for me to come in... But meh, here I go.

You guys have good points from what I've read so far. But I'd like to comment something about Shadow's point.

If, like you say... This energy remains intact until the day you die, and then transforms into some other energy, how come the human being(and every other life-form) gets old and loses it's energy as time passes? We clearly don't have the same energy as we did before. The organs run slower, our minds don't process as well as they used to, our sight degrades, our legs slow down... The energy goes somewhere else before we die. In my opinion, it doesn't remain intact.

But with all honesty, I don't seriously care about what happens. It will happen anyway. And I'll just enjoy my life while it lasts.

I'm with ninja9393 on this one.

Very interesting article. :)
simple, just as the grand canyon was formed over millions of years.

time effects everything in the physical universe, as we grow old our bodies age wither with time and become weak.

this is not a matter of weather grandpa is more or less as alive as you are.

he is breating, thinking,functioning and in every sense as alive as you.

maybe not as young.
maybe not as strong.

but most certainly he is among the living at the time of presumed question, just you are.

so assuming grandpa is still among the living with us.
then he is most certainly as alive as us,

untill that transition of life/takes place.

[ICE]

From the time we are conceived we are dying. Are cells are constantly dying off and being replaced by others in our bodies attempt to stave off our own death. Time really does make fools of us all. Even our bodies.

[shadowprophet]

From the time we are conceived we are dying. Are cells are constantly dying off and being replaced by others in our bodies attempt to stave off our own death. Time really does make fools of us all. Even our bodies.

cells die, they also duplicate and thrive,

we as an individual are not dead till the final moment.
I have a scrape on my knee, those cells are damaged and dead, but am i any less alive then someone without a scraped knee?

we arent talking about age and sickness, or the determination of youth, we are talking about the fine line between life and death,

as common sense can tell us something isn't dead till it ceases to live..

imo assuming someone is less alive because they are simply older,is a flawed concept.


for instance, i am younger then wraggster, not by much, but does that make me more alive then him?

on a scientific standpoint, the conversion of energy wouldn't take place untill true actual death occurs at any rate.

[ICE]

In about 7 years time our bodies will have replaced every single cell in our body. It does this every 7 years or so. It doesnt do it for fun, it does it because our cells are constantly dying and if it didnt replace them we would die as well. Our bodies are full of cell death.

I'm not saying that older people are deader, I'm just saying that once we're alive we arent getting aliver. Our bodies wear out and we die. That process starts when we're conceived.

A worn out car is still a car and a worn out person is still a person. Its just that they are clearly closer to death than a younger person. The thing is there is no gray area between life and death. You're either one or the other. But you cant say that as you live your life and your body starts getting a little behind in replacing its dying cells that you arent at least a little closer to death than you were when you were a kid.

Obviously there are other factors in the wearing of our bodies besides cell death but you get my point.

[shadowprophet]

In about 7 years time our bodies will have replaced every single cell in our body. It does this every 7 years or so. It doesnt do it for fun, it does it because our cells are constantly dying and if it didnt replace them we would die as well. Our bodies are full of cell death.

I'm not saying that older people are deader, I'm just saying that once we're alive we arent getting aliver. Our bodies wear out and we die. That process starts when we're conceived.

A worn out car is still a car and a worn out person is still a person. Its just that they are clearly closer to death than a younger person. The thing is there is no gray area between life and death. You're either one or the other. But you cant say that as you live your life and your body starts getting a little behind in replacing its dying cells that you arent at least a little closer to death than you were when you were a kid.

Obviously there are other factors in the wearing of our bodies besides cell death but you get my point.
what we view as cell death, just isnt the same concept as the death of an entire person if simply "because" our bodies grow new tissues and cell mass to replace the damaged.

obviously if cells are reproducing like they should,

that act in itself affirms that life is thriving.

[ICE]

You're missing my point. I said cell death isn't the only factor. The truh is from the time we're in the world our bodies are wearing out and breaking down. It's just semantics and opinions as to what that means about life and death. I think if your body is more broken down you are clearly closer to death. Closer to death, not more dead.

[shadowprophet]

You're missing my point. I said cell death isn't the only factor. The truh is from the time we're in the world our bodies are wearing out and breaking down. It's just semantics and opinions as to what that means about life and death. I think if your body is more broken down you are clearly closer to death. Closer to death, not more dead. honestly its not the issue of who is closer to death based on a different biological point of view,
you live closer to a nuclear power plant then i do,

therefore you are closer to death then I,
but wait. there is that swimming pool my neighbors have,
and i've never seen him clean the damned thing ,

if someone swam in that mess, they could get sick and die.
so maybe i am closer to death then you.

the point is brother, we can point and counterpoint all day.

and I admit its fun.

but it resolves nothing unless one of us folds at some point.

still, that wont be me.

i'll see your philosophy on death, and raise you two counter philosophys, and a creation theory




:p

[bah]

Religion and logical rationalizations of our existence do not mix.
When you try to use logic to 'prove' your faith is fact you get sudo-logic that appears logical to those of similar faith and utterly nonsensical to those who do not.

Science = logic in practice, testing and either supporting or disproving a theory.
Religion = faith in the unprovable and even untestable.


Have your faith, but please don't muddy scientific debate with it. Concepts based on religious doctrine (or more commonly peoples interpretations of said doctrine) are not on the same level as those who's premise is entirely rooted in testable/disprovable scientific logic.

[ICE]

I couldnt disagree more. Einstein believed in a god and he seemed like a fairly scientific thinker. Like I said before "To me the simple odds of everything forming coupled with the fact that we have no explanation for how it formed points me towards a god. I know many of you are now shouting at your monitor "We know how it formed. The big bang!". The truth is that we have no clue why the big bang would have occurred. One very important law in nature is cause and effect. Nothing ever occurs without a cause. Not even the Big Bang.

You've all heard the things like had the expansion of the universe one second after the big bang been smaller by 1 part in a hundred, thousand, million, million the universe would have re-collapsed on itself (Stephen Hawking) or the odds that suitable circumstances for stars to exist the relevant initial conditions would need to be fined tuned to a precision of 1 followed by a thousand, billion, billion zeros or that a change in gravity or in the weak force by even 1 part in 10 to the 100th power would have prevented a life permitting universe. (P.C.W. Davies)

To me believing in God takes less faith than to believe the Big Bang occurred for no reason and that given those odds everything turned out this well."

Now they've even added another part to the big bang that they can explain even less of. Inflation. The big bang started slow almost with a little bang, for no reason mind you, then exploded in inflation again for no reason. Thats the only way the radiation in the universe could be this evenly distributed and it makes zero sense to any child with an understanding of cause and effect.

You really shouldn't throw every religion into one box and and try to tell us how they dont work. My faith is no less testable then most of the things people live their lives accepting every day without even thinking about.

[shadowprophet]

Religion and logical rationalizations of our existence do not mix.
When you try to use logic to 'prove' your faith is fact you get sudo-logic that appears logical to those of similar faith and utterly nonsensical to those who do not.

Science = logic in practice, testing and either supporting or disproving a theory.
Religion = faith in the unprovable and even untestable.


Have your faith, but please don't muddy scientific debate with it. Concepts based on religious doctrine (or more commonly peoples interpretations of said doctrine) are not on the same level as those who's premise is entirely rooted in testable/disprovable scientific logic.

I, spend a great deal of time and effort to create a thread with acceptance and tolerance for everyones beliefs.
it would be appropriate not to bash others with uninformed nonsence, so you don't share some of the others sentiment, that is fine..

But dont you dare insult someones intelligence based on their spiritual beliefs,my unserstanding of this subject matter has proven that my belief in a higher power doesn't limit my scientific mind in the slightest, and yet i have yet to see you offer anything but biased opinion,in both fields science and religion.A spiritual belief is not a weakness in an intellectual field or any other. it is a shared cultural and spiritual bond between members of said group. to assume that someone with a cultural and spiritual background would be less intelligent then someone who doesn't is ignorant, entirely inaccurate,i and some what non tolerant.

some of the greatest minds to ever grace the scientific front where devoutly spiritual..

history has so much evidence that God is real,is its staggering,is
records of the time have proven jesus was really there, his place of death is now a holy temple called the dome of the rock.

the spear used on jesus,is found.
the shroud,is found. other records point to other religious figures of the time.

the arc of the covenant and even noahs arc are thought to be found now,

no bah the problem isnt lack of proof at, the problem truly is as simple as it seems,
there will always be believers and those who don't believe, both are set in there ways, science will continue to ignore the proof as long as that proof underminds it...

The point is, the proof is there, but just because some people refuse to accept that proof, doesn't make that proof untrue.

we all have a choice after all.

but just because we made our choices, that doesn't mean others will choose to believe as you or I chosen to.

*on an unrelated side note, I never understood why it was so important for atheist's to share what "they believe".
by all means, they are righted to that.. it's just.. it confuses me,,

I was under the impression that atheists didn't really have a belief.
still yet they will argue and insult and persecute others for having a belief..
I can understand the christians side. they believe they can save a soul.
but what is the atheists angle.... why so much loathing and persecution because we believe?
i mean. if they dont really have a stake in religion as they claim..

im just saying, a whole lot of atheists sound a whole lot alike,, a whole lot of the time.
it's sounds to me like atheists share a whole lot of beliefs with one another.

almost like a religion,, when I think about it..

[bah]

Thanks for reinforcing the point made in the first paragraph of my last post.

Science can strongly demonstrate we have no evidence of god, hence no religious concepts are the most popular theory in scientific communities.
It cannot without being mangled out of usefulness 'prove' anything supernatural.


When I learned of the big bang, it was introduced as the big bang theory. It is the most supported and widely accepted theory but a better one can still come along. Science isn't about 'perfection' in 1 book, its about the evolution of understanding. We build on what we know, when things stop working we question our prior assessments.

I was taught you can either disprove or support a theory (through well designed experiments with as close to 1 variable at a time), but never 'prove' it.

Do children being indoctrinated by their parents faith get the same honesty and are they encouraged to really question what they are told, no.
Re-interpreting the old book over and over is not how to progress enlightenment.

Mangling terms like energy (now that science has given us a pretty good grasp on its manipulation for our benefit) into religious messages does not work (for anyone objective, outside of similar faith).



Einstein did not believe in the god of any doctrine, he was almost certainly agnostic. There is a much larger difference there than you may think.
Its the intellectual equivalent of saying 'We as a humans do not know'. It is no more for a god than against it.

Even high page-ranked religious rants (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html) like this seem to get that he was no religious man. 'God' can be literal 'omnipotent creator' or jut a term for 'the sum of what we do not know.
The former is the god of religious doctrine, the latter does not carry any of the harmful personified-god varying 'opinions and judgment' of the planet and its inhabitants.

Russell's Teapot sums it up quite succinctly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)


Religious belief has no correlation to intelligence or lack thereof, but of course someone bringing concepts from religious faith into any scientifically based theory/discussion is going to be to the severe detriment of the validity of their stance in that particular discussion. Religion is based on the unfalsifiable, there is no logical argument that can be used for or against it therefore it has no place is a scientific debate.
Bringing science into religious theology is equally out of place and nonsensical.


Science is the understanding of how things work via observation and testing, region is musings of why things happen.
There can be non religious musings, called philosophy. There is no religion-inclusive equivalent of science. Intelligent Design is derided by anyone outside of similar religion for a reason (its a nonsensical combination).

[shadowprophet]

Thanks for reinforcing the point made in the first paragraph of my last post.

Science can strongly demonstrate we have no evidence of god, hence no religious concepts are the most popular theory in scientific communities.
It cannot without being mangled out of usefulness 'prove' anything supernatural.


When I learned of the big bang, it was introduced as the big bang theory. It is the most supported and widely accepted theory but a better one can still come along. Science isn't about 'perfection' in 1 book, its about the evolution of understanding. We build on what we know, when things stop working we question our prior assessments.

I was taught you can either disprove or support a theory (through well designed experiments with as close to 1 variable at a time), but never 'prove' it.

Do children being indoctrinated by their parents faith get the same honesty and are they encouraged to really question what they are told, no.
Re-interpreting the old book over and over is not how to progress enlightenment.

Mangling terms like energy (now that science has given us a pretty good grasp on its manipulation for our benefit) into religious messages does not work (for anyone objective, outside of similar faith).



Einstein did not believe in the god of any doctrine, he was almost certainly agnostic. There is a much larger difference there than you may think.
Its the intellectual equivalent of saying 'We as a humans do not know'. It is no more for a god than against it.

Even high page-ranked religious rants (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html) like this seem to get that he was no religious man. 'God' can be literal 'omnipotent creator' or jut a term for 'the sum of what we do not know.
The former is the god of religious doctrine, the latter does not carry any of the harmful personified-god varying 'opinions and judgment' of the planet and its inhabitants.

Russell's Teapot sums it up quite succinctly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)


Religious belief has no correlation to intelligence or lack thereof, but of course someone bringing concepts from religious faith into any scientifically based theory/discussion is going to be to the severe detriment of the validity of their stance in that particular discussion. Religion is based on the unfalsifiable, there is no logical argument that can be used for or against it therefore it has no place is a scientific debate.
Bringing science into religious theology is equally out of place and nonsensical.


Science is the understanding of how things work via observation and testing, region is musings of why things happen.
There can be non religious musings, called philosophy. There is no religion-inclusive equivalent of science. Intelligent Design is derided by anyone outside of similar religion for a reason (its a nonsensical combination).

and, what part of this post isn't biased opinion ?

you call faith and religion "musings"
i call your post nonsense because it seems every word you have shared about the subject, is some what uninformed and pessimistic tword people with spiretual substance.

how could anyone see your words as anything but a struggle to disbelief.

your really gonna need better ammo for this debate bro.
using the thoughts and opinions of other athiests to reinforce
your own opinion, only proves you are indocturinated yourself.

how much of the subjecct matter have you actually studied personally? or picked up through others opinions?


who was john the baptist?
who was saul?
who was jesus and why did he have to die?
who was lot?
who was marry magdalen?

if you don't know the answers to these questions, you don't have enough information to have formed an insightful opinion
about christianity..

[beetroot bertie]

Before this turns into a slanging match, and I hope it won't do as I'm finding this discussion quite interesting, I'd like to say I can see where Bah is coming from.

I don't find insulting each others beliefs or intelligence to be particularly helpful but I can see how difficult it is for religion and science to co-exist together particularly when the two have such (in my eyes anyway) a dichotomous relationship.

There was a programme shown over here on Channel 4 a while back which discussed this from the Athiest's (and scientific) viewpoint. It probably won't sit well with those of you who do have firm spiritual beliefs but if you can take the time to watch it I would be really interested to hear the views of those who are religious to it.

It's very biased but it does deal with facts and he (Dawkins) makes a lot of interesting and valid points about how science and religion are difficult to relate to one another.

I hope some of you find it interesting. Even if you disagree wholeheartedly it would be good to hear why.

There's 2 parts about 50 mins each:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954&hl=en

[ICE]

Atheist have no viable explanation that can account for how everything got here. There are just too many why's and how's for anyone with a questioning mind to buy into the big bang. I find it amusing that the people who go around tooting their horn about how much of a scientific thinker they are and about how there is no proof for a god so quickly buy into such a proofless theory.

I think it would be best if everyone kept their posts short and sweet. The longer the post the more impossible any debate comes. Point for point is better than point, point, point, point for point, point, point, point.

Oh is that video anything like that mess of a "documentary" Zeightgeist?

EDIT: Let me reword my thought. Its not that the idea of the big bang doesnt work. Its just that they cant prove how it happened, they cant prove why it happened or why or how the ensuing inflation happened. Its just a theory. An idea that is completely unproven but everyone accepts it as if some guy went out in his back yard and somehow tested it. Its not just unproven. They have no clue how or why any of it happened. Is "it just did" good enough? I guess so..

[shadowprophet]

Before this turns into a slanging match, and I hope it won't do as I'm finding this discussion quite interesting, I'd like to say I can see where Bah is coming from.

I don't find insulting each others beliefs or intelligence to be particularly helpful but I can see how difficult it is for religion and science to co-exist together particularly when the two have such (in my eyes anyway) a dichotomous relationship.

There was a programme shown over here on Channel 4 a while back which discussed this from the Athiest's (and scientific) viewpoint. It probably won't sit well with those of you who do have firm spiritual beliefs but if you can take the time to watch it I would be really interested to hear the views of those who are religious to it.

It's very biased but it does deal with facts and he (Dawkins) makes a lot of interesting and valid points about how science and religion are difficult to relate to one another.

I hope some of you find it interesting. Even if you disagree wholeheartedly it would be good to hear why.

There's 2 parts about 50 mins each:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954&hl=en it's one of the reasons religious topics are taboo.

most ppl myself included have a hard time being open minded to topics that contradict their beliefs.
ultimately, nothing can come from exchanging and expressing spiritual beliefs but. bitter feelings,

I tried my best to be as accurate and civil as I could, but we are all human. and religion is just too sensitive a subject, to openly discuss amoung mixed company.

I knew from the start this thread would fail, all religion threads do. the human population is simply too diverse for great masses of people to all share the same views.

[pibs]

I knew from the start this thread would fail, all religion threads do. the human population is simply too diverse for great masses of people to all share the same views.

Its not a fail, its got everyone thinking and that should be more than you can ask for. I for one am glad that we all have different views. It is just a shame we can't all co-exist without bickering.

One nation under groove:cool:

[beetroot bertie]

I agree. Just because we all have different feelings on the subject doesn't mean we can't discuss it and try to be as tolerant as possible. I certainly don't think the thread failed just because people disagree. This is what these forums are for anyway - just a means for folks that are likeminded in some respects to exchange thoughts and views on stuff. It always going to be a touchy subject but that's what makes it such a good one to talk about.

@ ICE - I never saw the Zeitgheist documentary, but the links I posted show a man who despite being anti-religious would be prepared to consider other things should he be proved wrong - in the goal of finding the truth. Not many religious people would be prepared to do that. Most of it was about how science sets theories and then tests them until they are proven wrong, questioning them and reassessing. If I remember correctly I even think he questioned the actual big bang himself somewhere in it and was happy to admit we don't know it all, but did feel that evolution and natural selection were thoeries that based on our current knowledge have sound proof and scientific backing.

[Darksaviour69]

I'm not normally a praying man, but if your up there.... superman..... please help!!!

[ICE]

@ ICE - I never saw the Zeitgheist documentary, but the links I posted show a man who despite being anti-religious would be prepared to consider other things should he be proved wrong - in the goal of finding the truth. Not many religious people would be prepared to do that. Most of it was about how science sets theories and then tests them until they are proven wrong, questioning them and reassessing. If I remember correctly I even think he questioned the actual big bang himself somewhere in it and was happy to admit we don't know it all, but did feel that evolution and natural selection were thoeries that based on our current knowledge have sound proof and scientific backing.

You know things like believing in a god and believing in the big bang and evolution are entirely possible. Due to the time when most religious texts were written none of them had any clue about the concept of billions of years or evolution. I think god uses logical methods to do things most of time and the bible doesnt say any different. You just have to put it in the context of the time in which it was written.

I do love a good documentary. I might have to check it out later.. I just have a very sour taste left in my mouth by Zeitgeist.. lol

EDIT: OK so I have expressed my thoughts on the number of open unanswered questions in regard to the big bang theory and its causeless completely spontaneous nature but how about this. If there is no god how did life spring up? How did we go from a completely inorganic world to the world we live in now?

[Accordion]

1. on the three metamorphoses

Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.
There is much that is difficult for the spirit, the strong reverent spirit that would bear much: but the difficult and the most difficult are what its strength demands.
What is difficult? asks the spirit that would bear much, and kneels down like a camel wanting to be well loaded. What is most difficult, O heroes, asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon myself and exult in my strength? Is it not humbling oneself to wound one’s haughtiness? Letting one’s folly shine to mock one’s wisdom?
Or is it this: parting from our cause when it triumphs? Climbing high mountains to tempt the tempter?
Or is it this: feeding on the acorns and grass of knowledge and, for the sake of the truth, suffering hunger in one’s soul?
Or is it this: being sick and sending home the comforters and making friends with the deaf, who never hear what you want?
Or is it this: stepping into filthy waters when they are the waters of truth, and not repulsing cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this: loving those who despise us and offering a hand to the ghost that would frighten us?
All these most difficult things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel that, burdened, speeds into the desert, thus the spirit speeds into its desert.
In the loneliest desert, however, the second metamorphosis occurs: here the spirit becomes a lion who would conquer his freedom and be master in his own desert. Here he seeks out his last master: he wants to fight him and his last god; for ultimate victory he wants to fight with the great dragon.
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? Thou shalt is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, I will. Thou shalt lies in his way, sparkling like gold, an animal covered with scales; and on every scale shines a golden thou shalt.
Values, thousands of years old, shine on these scales; and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: All value of all things shines on me. All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more ‘I will.’ Thus speaks the dragon.
My brothers, why is there a need in the spirit for the lion? Why is not the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, enough?
To create new values—that even the lion cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself for new creation—that is within the power of the lion. The creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred No even to duty—for that, my brothers, the lion is needed. To assume the right to new values—that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much. Verily, to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey. He once loved thou shalt as most sacred: now he must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.
But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yes. For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred Yes is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers his own world.
Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I have told you: how the spirit became a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.
Thus spoke Zarathustra. And at the time he sojourned in the town called the Motley Cow.

[Eviltaco64]

All I'm going to say on this topic is that I'm a Christian and believe in God.

I'm not going to convert you, and in return I don't want to hear about how much of "an indoctrinated fool" I am.

Let's just leave it at that, alright? ;)