It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death doesn't make sense according to physics

page: 16
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Ok, here's something i thought up. We are social creatures, yearning for another human social interaction. Someone of us end up getting attached to certain people, and they become almost like family. Now if a god existed, why would he be so bitter and mean to not let us see those people again? Also, if were here by luck and chance, then why is this here? How can something be created out of nothing, even if our senses are ruled by our brain? You see brain chemicals are still a something.




posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

Originally posted by Spoodily

I love science but it should maintain an agnostic viewpoint and not an atheistic one. When it starts becoming atheistic and beliefs come into play, it is not science but a religion trying to prove certain points and not trying to find an overall truth, no matter what that truth may be.


Nonsense. Science works best because it stays away from the supernatural entirely.

Science is never a religion. Only people who try to dismiss it say such.

Science is about observation of natural law. Religion deals with the supernatural. Therefore science cannot deal with religious and supernatural topics.

If you want a topic that remains "agnostic" stick with metaphysics.


Atheism is a belief system. The definition of atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity and the doctrine that there is no deity. When atheism tries to blend itself with science it is mixing a belief system into what should be an unbiased medium. Science when coupled with a belief system such as atheism taints science and science becomes part of a religion.

Science and religion don't mix, especially when using an unchangable belief or disbelief of a preconceived notion of deity.

Science should always remain agnostic and be open to any research, theory, question and truth.


Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Finger Exercise


Originally posted by Spoodily
I love science

Yet you think it's the same as religion. Must be a bit like Claudius's love for Messalina, then.


Atheism is a belief...

Correct.


...system

Wrong.


The definition of atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity...

Correct.


...and the doctrine that there is no deity.

Wrong.

A doctrinaire atheist is a contradiction in terms. For such a person non-belief in a deity or deities would be an article of faith. If this person doesn't believe in any god or gods, what then is his or her faith (in anything) based on?

Scientific atheism is a conclusion from the evidence (or, if you prefer, the howling lack of it) that any deity exists. It is based on experiment and deduction, not on faith. Without faith there can be no religion.



Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Your quote. My emphasis.


Science and religion don't mix

Well said. So why are you trying to mix them?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


...and the doctrine that there is no deity.

Wrong.

A doctrinaire atheist is a contradiction in terms. For such a person non-belief in a deity or deities would be an article of faith. If this person doesn't believe in any god or gods, what then is his or her faith (in anything) based on?

Scientific atheism is a conclusion from the evidence (or, if you prefer, the howling lack of it) that any deity exists. It is based on experiment and deduction, not on faith. Without faith there can be no religion.



Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Your quote. My emphasis.


Science and religion don't mix

Well said. So why are you trying to mix them?


www.m-w.com...


atheism
One entry found for atheism.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity


There is no proof of where the universe came from. We know the big bang happened and that energy is eternal. It is faith that the universe exists in absolutely nothing and is a close system.

It is as equally possible that our universe is derived from another reality and that reality derived from another and so on. The entire universal process could go onto infinity and the entire system repeating to infinity in the likes of a fractal could be termed 'God'.

The faith that there is no 'God' based on an assumed definition of 'God' is religion, the same as a belief in 'God'. The viewpoint based on faith that the universe is closed system that simply exists is a religion, the same as a belief in creation by some type of deity. The only atheist there can ever be is 'God', ironically.

Agnosticism is the scientific perspective, not atheism. Atheism is based on belief, agnosticism is an unbiased quest for knowledge.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Still mixing 'em up, eh?

Quoting the dictionary is one thing. Understanding it is another.

The (b) definition is necessary for orthological completeness. It would apply if there was such a doctrine, which there is not. Waving the dictionary about does not constitute a refutation of what I said before -- or indeed of anything.

As for the rest of your post: you're still blethering on about the universe being 'surrounded' by something or nothing. Every time you do this, you underline the fact that your mind is hopelessly trapped in three dimensions. This is probably why you regard other dimensions as other realities.

The other points you make are just logic-chopping and pedantry.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


So you have proof of what happened at the beggining of the Big Bang and what the source of the energy in this universe is? I would love to hear it.

I'm just disregarding your negative comments towards and about me. I am trying to avoid ad hominem in this debate and sticking to discourse.

PS
Yes, atheism is a belief system based on opinion and not fact. I would suggest being agnostic if you do not like being considered part of a religion that doesn't believe in deity. Just don't have an opinion either way and let science sort it out.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Metaphysics explains that which physics cannot.

If one goes by the basic principles of physics, then yes, death doesn't make sense.

But the truth is that we are not meat sacks but souls who are temporarily incarnate in bodies.

Souls cannot be directly detected by electronic devices because the instruments are composed of matter and we do not come from the physical realm. The woe of all parapsychologists.

In other words, unlike electricity and gravity, souls consist of an energy that transcends the physical spectrum when free of matter. That is why our personalities survive the death of our bodies.

Traditional science will always fail to explain that which is beyond their instrumentation to detect, much less measure or replicate.


The light spectrum. Use this as a model.





posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


However, phenomena in the light spectrum are repeatably measurable.

Putative, unmeasurable, unrepeatable metaphysical effects cannot. Thus, any assignment you make will be completely arbitrary and meaningless, as is typical with any metaphysics.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Metaphysics explains that which physics cannot.

If one goes by the basic principles of physics, then yes, death doesn't make sense.

But the truth is that we are not meat sacks but souls who are temporarily incarnate in bodies.

Souls cannot be directly detected by electronic devices because the instruments are composed of matter and we do not come from the physical realm. The woe of all parapsychologists.

In other words, unlike electricity and gravity, souls consist of an energy that transcends the physical spectrum when free of matter. That is why our personalities survive the death of our bodies.

Traditional science will always fail to explain that which is beyond their instrumentation to detect, much less measure or replicate.


The light spectrum. Use this as a model.



The failure here is that you can't actually prove the existence of these things. So, as you say, they can't be measured in a way that's even remotely reliable, so we can't make any conclusions.

Basically, you're pulling information from your rear, and you indirectly admitted it. No offense, of course, but that's a fatal flaw in your logic.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Here's a nice article that's appropriate to the thread.



Dualism flatters us, for it suggests that our minds, our selves, are not merely the result of rambunctious chemistry, and we are thus free to talk about souls and spirits and essences that are unfettered by the physical body.

Dualism is pretty much dead to serious researchers, though an echo of it can be found among philosophers who are sometimes called the Mysterians.

(snip)

But here's the most radical idea of all: The reason why the mind is hard to define is not because it has some mysterious, ethereal, spooky qualities but because it doesn't really exist. We just imagine it. You might say it's all in our heads.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Marked One

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Metaphysics explains that which physics cannot.

If one goes by the basic principles of physics, then yes, death doesn't make sense.

But the truth is that we are not meat sacks but souls who are temporarily incarnate in bodies.

Souls cannot be directly detected by electronic devices because the instruments are composed of matter and we do not come from the physical realm. The woe of all parapsychologists.

In other words, unlike electricity and gravity, souls consist of an energy that transcends the physical spectrum when free of matter. That is why our personalities survive the death of our bodies.

Traditional science will always fail to explain that which is beyond their instrumentation to detect, much less measure or replicate.


The light spectrum. Use this as a model.



The failure here is that you can't actually prove the existence of these things. So, as you say, they can't be measured in a way that's even remotely reliable, so we can't make any conclusions.

Basically, you're pulling information from your rear, and you indirectly admitted it. No offense, of course, but that's a fatal flaw in your logic.


Alright. Maybe I should've elaborated more. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That which today is considered pseudoscience may become physical science tomorrow.

Space travel for instance. Before it was possible, many people thought it was impossible. And everybody thought the world was flat. Now everyone knows the world is round and space travel is possible.

Then again. I'm not insisting on anything as being fact.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Until there is evidence for any of this "supernatural" stuff, it doesn't exist.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One
That which today is considered pseudoscience may become physical science tomorrow.

Space travel for instance. Before it was possible, many people thought it was impossible. And everybody thought the world was flat. Now everyone knows the world is round and space travel is possible.

Then again. I'm not insisting on anything as being fact.

You can speculate, but you can't be that specific. There's no reason to think that could be possible. For example,


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
But the truth is that we are not meat sacks but souls who are temporarily incarnate in bodies.

There's no evidence to support this.

I wasn't really sure about what you meant by the light spectrum thing, which is why I quoted Paul's quote along with yours.


Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Or at least the lack of the ability to detect and measure the evidence. I guess we disagree slightly, at least philosophically.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Marked One
That which today is considered pseudoscience may become physical science tomorrow.

Space travel for instance. Before it was possible, many people thought it was impossible. And everybody thought the world was flat. Now everyone knows the world is round and space travel is possible.

Then again. I'm not insisting on anything as being fact.

You can speculate, but you can't be that specific. There's no reason to think that could be possible.


Which part do you mean by "that"?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Until there is evidence for any of this "supernatural" stuff, it doesn't exist.



Good point mm, but i'd like to add something. If humanity has a heart, i'd like to see that to. Until then, it looks like were all going to hell, if one exists. I would like to point out, is why should there be people against the idea of life after death, when there's moron's enough in real life to fill that cusiony void of nothingness? I don't mean on ats btw, a man is reckless, drives to fast, then kills someone. Did that person deserve to die? What about the guy? He'll be set free in about a few years. What about people that have no health care, and die because they couldn't help being poor? So everything they knew is gone, just because some idiot said no? Sorry if this sounds like i'm fighting for believers, it's just a thought i had.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Humans want there to be a reason for everything.

But that's not the way life really works. There isn't a purpose, except for the ones we make ourselves.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
The absence of evidence doesn't mean the evidence of absence. This is an absolute statement, meaning you have to stand behind this statement 100% no matter what.

There are always cases in world history of absence of evidence only for a short while, when lo and behold eventually some-one in the said community finds the evidence, which by the way is never absent, we just have to figure out different ways of seeing at.

I promise that I will 100%, at all times, stand by my statement that evidence is never absent. Just enseen at the moment.

Being that were both making absolute statements here, only 1 of us is right, and I got my money on myself.

Evidence of absence is only possible when we fully know "absolutely" everything there is to know. Until then, your wrong.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
So far all of the argument in favor of "god" and "religion" and "souls" is also evidence in favor of the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is basically the argument that the existance of souls hasn't been disproven once you factor in the possibility that everything we know about the laws of physics is wrong.

Well, if all we know about science and observable fact were indeed false, it would be entirely possible that spaghetti can suddenly become self aware, form itself into a giant, gravity defying monster, travel back in time and become God. So you've all convinced me to find faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now I can only hope that I'm spelling his name correctly.

Nothing can be proven absolutely, once you start making vague suggestions that stuff happens on "levels that can't be measured in the physical realm" or "maybe science is completely wrong from its very core." It is in this context that I challenge those of you professing your belief in the human soul to prove that you even exist.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
You can't discover something without first having an appropriate purpose for it that is associated with its context. That's why many of our scientific marvels are discovered by accident.

Atomic energy for instance. Pretend that you could travel back in time to Medieval Europe and explain the dynamics of Atomic energy to people. Would they understand it? Some people may understand it. But will all those people accept it as truth? No. (Keep in mind that I can't say for sure all of the above will happen without ACTUALLY traveling back in time to Medieval Europe. And not to mention that the ability to travel time is as impossible as being able to determine the existence of soul and the dynamics of a soul.)

Did we have atomic energy in Medieval Europe? No (according to history). Is it possible somebody discovered atomic energy only to have the church destroy their research followed by being exectued? Maybe. (I didn't say "Yes." I said "Maybe".)

Everybody remembers the Papal Inquisiton don't they? All the records that belonged to the Natives of South America were destroyed. Is it possible that in any of those records, instructions on creating atomic energy and its use could be found? How about the ability to travel faster than the speed of light? How about the dynamics of life after death? Maybe. (I could say yes if I wanted to. And whoever reads this could say "NO!". Well how do you know the answer is "no" without seeing those records with your own eyes?. And how could I say yes without having seen the records as well? think about it.)

Finally. I said "something can't be discovered without having a purpose related to the context in which it is discovered". What does this mean?

Let's go back to atomic energy.

Atomic energy can be used to power an entire city and enable its inhabitants to prosper, relieving them of the burden of relying heavily on fossil fuels and in addition create new jobs for them.

However, atomic energy can be used to do exactly the opposite. Destroy the city and thus destroy so many lives. With lasting-effects that are absolutely devastating.

And the rocket that was used to deliver the atomic warhead that destroyed the city? It could also be used to carry a crew of astronauts to the moon and back.

Think about these things while forgetting about religion for a moment.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Marked One]

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Marked One]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Our energy is generated by chemical reactions within the "meat" you inhabit.

Hmp! I don't know how you can look at it in just that manner. How can you say that we're just meat? Reminds me of.....





top topics



 
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join