Science proves life after death

[_Themis]

I never said I did. Yet again another poor assumption about others they never actually indicated to you. Unjustified beliefs is all about not knowing. I never said souls don't exist, only that the evidence for their existence is currently lacking. I also never said I was atheist as you no doubt have assumed.

I do make assumptions, I mean, how can it be avoided in this format? I'm not "trying" to put you in a box.

It can be avoided by not making the assumption. You start by asking people's position first.

So when you called my claims "unjustified" I did assume you thought your claims were justified.

Even though I had been quite clear about how beliefs are justified.

While I am a more of an engineer, I have worked closely with doctors of sciences over the years. I respect them and their views, but they can be just as stupid and wrong as the next person.

Can be, but smart educated people tend to get things wrong less then those who are not smart or educated.

Ever day new things are discovered that challenge the current science.

Scientific knowledge does not bounce around in ever direction. It has been from the start moving in a general direction. Over time less changes are needed as it gets a little closer to how things really are.

One day, while hiking, a vision opened up before me and I saw there were other worlds around us, that our light didn't interact with them. That our matter and partials passed right through them, and they though us. Shortly there after, the theory as dark matter and dark energy were introduced to us.

Yes another unjustified belief of yours. That is not to say you are wrong. Only that it it doesn't come close to establishing it as right.

My point is, while my vision is very different from what many people think of Dark Energy, I had the same basic idea as some the scientists that came up with it, that there is matter and energy here with us, yet beyond us. So, while in the science world, my vision is "unjustified", to me the world spoke to me and showed me something just as cool as what they got. And as I said before, the truth of it will be more mystic than science.

Yes because you think you are smart and they stupid. They spend a lot of time educating themselves to figuring these things out, yet you think your vision should be given more weight. Visions and insights are common, and commonly wrong. They are just the start and no where near good enough to justify beliefs. Now when I say justified or not justified I don't mean it in absolute ways. For example the belief in a soul has not been disproved or proven, but believing in a soul that survives death is not very justified, and a belief we don't is more justified with current understanding. One can also take a more neutral position.

[_Themis]

You cannot prove the earth is not 6000 years old.

It's been done. There are multitudes of different evidences from many different scientific disciplines. I doubt you will ever take the time to learn them.

[_SPG]

Yes because you think you are smart and they stupid.

tisk.... Assumptions.

[_LittleNipper]

You cannot prove the earth is not 6000 years old.

Where did you get that figure, Nipper? From the Bible? No. You got it from some semiliterate theologian who knew nothing and cared nothing about the actual age of the Earth. He didn't prove it and neither can you. Neither of you know or care about various dating methods. Neither of you have been credible for centuries.

If you were not a colossal hypocrite, you would live without the benefits of the science you have such contempt for, but then you would have to become Amish. That means you would have to get off your duff and do more for yourself than copy and paste someone else's words and someone else's technology. But, no....

Again we have you up against the many Christians who accept science. We have you failing to do any research, again. We have you relying upon unreliable people--convicts and demonstrated liars and frauds--rather than people of faith who also have obtained educations, again. We have you trying to herd Christians back into the ignorance they have left behind, again.

If people leave and mock religion, it is because of the Little Nippers and the Franklin Grahams and the Ken Hams of the world, trying to shove their Jack Chick cartoon cosmos down our throats...again. You're about a thousand years too late. I recommend you spend your time volunteering at the Ark Park, where you can play Bible dress up and talk nonsense all day.

The ONLY value Science possesses is PRACTICAL APPLICATION. Pontificating the age of the earth and man's common ancestors did not bring us either modern medicine, photography, recorded sound, radio, the television, the automobile, nor the Atomic Bomb.

Sorry you seem so manipulated to assume that without the theory of evolution, man would cease to invent or dream. What evolution did bring to us is the notion that GOD is dead and man is the superior being and man owes nothing to anyone but himself. As a result, TV, education, and music are turning towards crap, because man's notion of good and God's notion of good are divergent.

Evolutionists study what is dead and make assumptions based on their own contrivances. Nearly everything that's been invented has been the result of engineering. Science is but a tool; however, in the hands of a child, tools can be very dangerous. All Christians realize this. Non-believers see only themselves having the answer, and they really demonstrate again and again that they are quite at a loss.

[_Lemmie]

The ONLY value Science possesses is PRACTICAL APPLICATION. Pontificating the age of the earth and man's common ancestors did not bring us either modern medicine, photography, recorded sound, radio, the television, the automobile, nor the Atomic Bomb.

There are so many really thoughtless parts of this paragraph, so I'll concentrate on only two issues. First, how do you think PRACTICAL APPLICATIONs come about? There's a reason Research and Development funding is typically open-ended and allows for theoretical exploration.

And second,I can't believe you are arguing that the only valuable scientific knowledge is that which puts things in your hands do stuff with. Talk about missing the best parts of being alive.

[_Themis]

Yes because you think you are smart and they stupid.

tisk.... Assumptions.

You do like to attack science a lot and then promote your own ideas which are just ideas running through your head. Why attack so much unless you think they are wrong a lot and that you are closer to being right? In reality ideas running through the head of the scientists is juts the starting point and no where close to being a justified belief until lots of evidence is collected that supports the idea and no good evidence that shows it is wrong. That doesn't stop people from having lots of unjustified beliefs. I may have a lot less today, but probably still have some.

[_SPG]

You do like to attack science a lot and then promote your own ideas which are just ideas running through your head. Why attack so much unless you think they are wrong a lot and that you are closer to being right? In reality ideas running through the head of the scientists is juts the starting point and no where close to being a justified belief until lots of evidence is collected that supports the idea and no good evidence that shows it is wrong. That doesn't stop people from having lots of unjustified beliefs. I may have a lot less today, but probably still have some.

I don't think I have attacked science, except to say, "It no more legit in reality than religion." By that, I mean, religion got us a civilized place, not science. Science is a product of religion. 20,000 years ago, a bunch of scientists didn't get together and say, "hey, let's create civilization."

There are two types of "science" that gets mentioned here. There is science that is art of observation and evaluation, and then there is cult of scientists that think they know stuff. I am humble enough, both in religion and science, to say I don't know anything. However, I am not afraid to be different. I am not afraid to toss out my ideas and have people trash them. In the process, I'm pretty confident that you don't know either. You have justified your beliefs, (or at least it sounds like you have) statistics imply you are wrong.

I enjoy discussing these things, but I am not trying to convince you about how smart I am. I used think I was right, and oddly, I realize that is when I was the most wrong. But my "attacks" on science are not on science itself, but rather on the cultish mentality that you can actually know something. Just one example is the medical system. They are all smart scientists, and they can do some cool things, but more and more, I think they wrong about so many things.

[_Lemmie]

I don't think I have attacked science, except to say, "It [is] no more legit in reality than religion." By that, I mean, religion got us a civilized place, not science. Science is a product of religion. 20,000 years ago, a bunch of scientists didn't get together and say, "hey, let's create civilization."

Can you support this? Because it really doesn't sound like any version of history I've ever learned.

Later on, you mention statistics....

You have justified your beliefs [in scientific knowledge over the religious kind], (or at least it sounds like you have) statistics imply you are wrong.

Hopefully I have captured your intent with the bracket, if so, what statistics are you referring to?

[Guest]

The ONLY value Science possesses is PRACTICAL APPLICATION. Pontificating the age of the earth and man's common ancestors did not bring us either modern medicine, photography, recorded sound, radio, the television, the automobile, nor the Atomic Bomb.

There are so many really thoughtless parts of this paragraph, so I'll concentrate on only two issues. First, how do you think PRACTICAL APPLICATIONs come about? There's a reason Research and Development funding is typically open-ended and allows for theoretical exploration.

And second,I can't believe you are arguing that the only valuable scientific knowledge is that which puts things in your hands do stuff with. Talk about missing the best parts of being alive.

I didn't say that the only value of science is to put things in my or anyone else's hands. And while it is great if an individual enjoys what they do for a living, it still involves work. What I'm pointing out is that necessity is the "mother" of invention. And I firmly believe that GOD has given man a brain to work out problems. I also believe that man often overlooks the simple fact that GOD can help in the investigation if called upon. Frankly, I've never heard of one evolutionist, "Christian" or not, beseeching GOD for insight in understanding data ------- he will always ask his colleagues. If ones wishes to write a fairytale about how the would began, well have at it, but if the desire is to really understand GOD, why and how ------ you cannot pretend that ignoring HIS existence doesn't have an affect.

I think the one who is thoughtless is someone who explains life minus GOD without creating it himself first, while laughing at believers because they do not accept blind chance.

[_SPG]

I don't think I have attacked science, except to say, "It [is] no more legit in reality than religion." By that, I mean, religion got us a civilized place, not science. Science is a product of religion. 20,000 years ago, a bunch of scientists didn't get together and say, "hey, let's create civilization."

Can you support this? Because it really doesn't sound like any version of history I've ever learned.

Later on, you mention statistics....

You have justified your beliefs [in scientific knowledge over the religious kind], (or at least it sounds like you have) statistics imply you are wrong.

Hopefully I have captured your intent with the bracket, if so, what statistics are you referring to?

If you mean, "can I quote a particular book, or scientist" for my support, then no. But, using things I have gotten from science journals, history books, color TV, etc, then, "yes", I can.

It has been pretty well accepted that it was man's early attempts to understand and accept death that started religion. Man, becoming more aware of their pain and thoughts, and they wondered where loved ones went when they died. Mainly because, (we think) they did not want to accept the idea that their loved ones simply stopped existing.

Even though there isn't much talk about spiritual phenomenon, such as near death experiences, trances, visions, I think it also played a part.

The earliest structures were tombs. The earliest examples of scientific thought were religion inspired. For example, tomb door facing east, or structures to hold the dead above the animals, star patterns recognized for explaining spirits and forces.

And when I say, "statistics" I am sort of referring to the science more than actual numbers.

Using the sciences of probability, you can test how many times a coin will come up heads. The more tests you do, it is common knowledge that a fair coin will get closer to 50/50.
All people considered equal, (unless you want to assign more reality points to one type of person) the world would come up as about 80% religious over scientific. More people do turn to religion for answers then science. And by science, I mean the technical world. Sure, people use technology, if they have it, but when in trouble, who do they turn to?

Now, granted, because we have TV and can make movies about it, we like to poo-poo the religious. But basically, their lives work and worked before technology came along. Yes, there were higher death rates when religion ruled supreme, but nature had made a plan for that. Now, science may have caused the next Extinction Level Event. People were generally content to live and die, but now more and more people are afraid to die and want to live forever. And more and more science is created everyday to make that a reality. But what then? Once immortality is a reality? I'm not sure I want to be here then. We have more then 4x the human population in 200 years. When will we hit critical mass, and what will that be like? Maybe 60 billion people suddenly exposed to an unsustainable system?

My point is, statistically, people have always turned to religion for their reality, and most still do. And when the bombs start to go off, religion will be there to pick up the pieces.