Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:33 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,341,997 times
Reputation: 4113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
No . . . science hasn't got a clue . . . but they cobble together euphemisms and vague phrases in an attempt to present their non-explanations as explanations. Case in point is mordant's post.

QED This euphemistically states only what is observed to "emerge" and describes it. It explains nothing. It refuses to acknowledge that the energy transformed into a composite consciousness in the brain . . . has properties and attributes that cannot reside in the matter of the brain. This composite energy interacts with the universe in unique and identifiable ways . . . much like the flames of a fire interact differently than the combustibles that produce it. The difference is the "fire of consciousness" manifests as a conscious entity not currently measurable . . . unlike fire which is measurable.
Just because you have the opinion that 'science hasn't got a clue' doesn't make your opinion fact. It just makes you look uninformed about current knowledge in the field of neuroscience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:38 AM
 
25 posts, read 20,353 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Y
So what if science can not explain it? That does not mean the afterlife is real. That would be what is called "An Argument From Ignorance". Basically "You can not explain it, therefore this thing I just made up out of my imagination is true/credible".

Have we a LOT more to learn in this area? Hell yes. Is there a SINGLE reason at this time to subscribe to the idea of after lives or consciousness existing independently of the brain? No, not a one.
1. As an author puts it, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
2. I've had out of body experiences/near death experiences. This info will always be subjective to you as my personal experiences will never be able to be verified by you. I understand. But how do you discount or explain blind people or tons of people out there having similar accounts? I can't explain to you scientifically but I certainly don't think my OBEs/NDEs are just"imagined". I suspect that until you have something so profound yourself, you won't ever be open to the possibility this may exist.
3. A reason to subscribe? Hmmm for me...well if there's a chance after heart and organ transplants that science can stumble upon a way to do brain transplants, I'd be first in line to exchange a deteriorating body at age 80! Lol if people were content not to push similar impossible boundaries, what a boring flat world we'd be in today. C'mon Is that not one good reason enough?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,802 posts, read 13,339,148 times
Reputation: 9807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiousqueen View Post
1. As an author puts it, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
That is, of course, the only reason we keep having these conversations. In absolute terms, theists cannot prove god and atheists cannot disprove him. However what absence of evidence IS, when it is so pervasive and consistent, is evidence of vanishingly low probabilities. That is all most of us atheists claim -- very low probability, not absolute evidence of absence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Southwestern, USA, now.
21,020 posts, read 19,267,131 times
Reputation: 23657
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
That is, of course, the only reason we keep having these conversations. In absolute terms, theists cannot prove god and atheists cannot disprove him. However what absence of evidence IS, when it is so pervasive and consistent, is evidence of vanishingly low probabilities. That is all most of us atheists claim -- very low probability, not absolute evidence of absence.
Over and over you show good sense in your communication skills here...can't
give u anymore reps...so here I am.
(I don't care what you believe or not, but you express it clearly.)

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:14 AM
 
25 posts, read 20,353 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post

Curious to know how you feel such a claim is relevant to the thread?
Re: Energy* (hah it's too early-thx for noticing M) is neither created or destroyed...only transformed quote by Einstein I wrote here to elicit a response from both sides. Its relevance for the purpose of furthering convo was achieved: Some use it to defend the afterlife, some use it as a means to justify it proves it doesn't exist. I'm interested in understanding different views on this matter

Last edited by Curiousqueen; 10-29-2013 at 08:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,802 posts, read 13,339,148 times
Reputation: 9807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiousqueen View Post
Re: Evidence is neither created or destroyed...only transformed quote by Einstein I wrote here to elicit a response from both sides. Its relevance for the purpose of furthering convo was achieved: Some use it to defend the afterlife, some use it as a means to justify it proves it doesn't exist. I'm interested in understanding different views on this matter
Lol ... I think you meant energy is neither created nor destroyed but I wonder if there is a "law of conservation of evidence" ;-)

I am really curious what you make of my response to that Einstein quote though. If you addressed it, I missed it. Basically, my position is that conservation of matter and energy are irrelevant to the question of whether "you" or "I" recognizably survive death. Our body doesn't cease to exist, but it doesn't survive AS THAT BODY either. It disintegrates. Every atom is conserved, and every bit of energy is conserved, but it is no longer remotely organized in the form of OUR body anymore. At least I assume your relatives will not want to keep your dead body in your armchair after you die ;-) Similarly the particular organization of energy on a biochemical substrate known as the brain, will no longer be organized either.

Saying that we survive death because of the conservation of energy is like saying that a battleship sunk by torpedoes survives sinking. It does, sort of, but so what. It can't be sailed anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:41 AM
 
25 posts, read 20,353 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
You need to edit your link.
Thank you for noticing.
Is There REALLY Proof of Heaven or Life After Death?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,802 posts, read 13,339,148 times
Reputation: 9807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiousqueen View Post
To address just one claim in this article:
Quote:
Research in resuscitation now shows that you can be technically “dead” –no heart rate or brain function and if kept under the right circumstances (body & brain kept cool and oxygen levels monitored) your character, your memories (your soul) can be revived several hours later proving that your consciousness exists separate from the workings of your brain.
Note, "TECHNICALLY" dead. Not DEAD dead. If there is still oxygen required then some kind of life is still sustained.

It IS interesting that brainwaves are are not detectable but this does not mean that there is none.

Elsewhere the author admits there is intriguing evidence both FOR and AGAINST an afterlife. In other words, "situation muddy, as usual". Until the situation is crystal clear, I am strongly disinclined to make any assumptions at all. This is the only rational response to such situations. No matter how much we want something to be true, we cannot state it as truth until the situation warrants.

This is my general reaction to all these kinds of musings. I don't discount them entirely, but they are not fully baked and ready to eat, either.

I have personally had a "paranormal experience" that I can't explain. So I don't. It is tucked away with other evidence, awaiting a time when perhaps it might be rendered explicable rather than merely speculation. It is also kept in perspective with all the paranormal experiences that others report, all corner-of-your-eye experiences that don't quite gel into a pattern.

So it goes. There is so much that we can state with a reasonable degree of certainty, that I can stand the lack of certainty in other areas. I have reasonable defaults based on good evidentiary standards. This is the way forward for me. It works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 09:07 AM
 
63,505 posts, read 39,800,339 times
Reputation: 7809
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I have personally had a "paranormal experience"; that I can't explain. So I don't. It is tucked away with other evidence, awaiting a time when perhaps it might be rendered explicable rather than merely speculation. It is also kept in perspective with all the paranormal experiences that others report, all corner-of-your-eye experiences that don't quite gel into a pattern. So it goes. There is so much that we can state with a reasonable degree of certainty, that I can stand the lack of certainty in other areas. I have reasonable defaults based on good evidentiary standards. This is the way forward for me. It works.
I would be very interested in reading about your experience . . . if you are inclined to share with everyone. If not . . . you could DM me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 09:18 AM
 
25 posts, read 20,353 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Lol ... I think you meant energy is neither created nor destroyed but I wonder if there is a "law of conservation of evidence" ;-)

I am really curious what you make of my response to that Einstein quote though. If you addressed it, I missed it. Basically, my position is that conservation of matter and energy are irrelevant to the question of whether "you" or "I" recognizably survive death. Our body doesn't cease to exist, but it doesn't survive AS THAT BODY either. It disintegrates. Every atom is conserved, and every bit of energy is conserved, but it is no longer remotely organized in the form of OUR body anymore. At least I assume your relatives will not want to keep your dead body in your armchair after you die ;-) Similarly the particular organization of energy on a biochemical substrate known as the brain, will no longer be organized either.

Saying that we survive death because of the conservation of energy is like saying that a battleship sunk by torpedoes survives sinking. It does, sort of, but so what. It can't be sailed anymore.
I corrected the quote. Too funny! I'm on this thread since 4am and need coffee lol

I understand what you're saying. From my point of view though, having had OBEs after being a skeptic for so many years... I don't look like a sunken ship so to speak out of body? Assuming that my perception and awareness is valid to you. But what I experienced is not a dream. Between the sleep/wake state. Full awareness, full control. (Have you ever had sleep paralysis?!) your mind is fully aware yet you can't move a single muscle on your body?? I looked into a lot of books to help me understand and maybe a how to book would help you? Lol I know this is strange. But the only way I see you opening up is after your own experimentation with this. But how can I get you to see if your eyes are 99% shut on this already? I just know at one point I was the same with my views. So if consciousness is able to survive independent from the body, this is not just a so-what scenario. So I may not have the sophistication to explain things scientifically... Just as science can't explain how consciousness arose from matter but the lack of understanding and explanation for the creation of consciousness doesn't stop us from accepting it either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top