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.

 

Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

page: 15
113
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


"Spiritual people were unable to prove the same for years, he definitely will not be able to prove either."

Would like to know more about the experiments you are talking about.

You have made several points yesterday, and I am replying without quoting for brevity.

1. Fossils - Yes fossils can add to our understanding of the past biosphere existing on earth. However a theory still needs to be prove experimentally in the labs.

2. You quoted view of a University about fossils or observations of stars.

I have no issue with any observations. We support human's quest for discovery.

My point is not about observations, but creation of a theory and teaching of that theory in all schools of the world without actually proving the theory.

The facts remains that TOE remains unproven till date. However many theories have fallen by the wayside but this one stands due to highly political nature of the theory.

3. I said that religions have been intruded by atheists. You asked for proof?

Where do I start? This has happened to every religion and the evidence will run into millions of pages.
Are Christians learning the word of Jesus as the Jesus told and meant?
Are Muslims learning the word of Muhammed the way Muhammed told and meant?
One needs to ask these questions. The religion has been politicized no end.

The Vedic teacher says that spiritual discovery is at individual level. Each soul develops spirituality by effort. The teacher's job is in teaching the methods and benefit. There is no group or herd that can achieve spirituality together. Each soul is independent and free. Each soul is responsible for its actions.




posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

GargIndia
...For example if a pin pricks my finger, I feel pain and show by expressions. However if the same pin pricks a dead body, that dead body does not show any pain by its expressions as it does not feel any pain....


I like that example. If consciousness is something inherent in all atoms, then why does dead body lack a consciousness, but a live "working" body has a consciousness?

The same atoms (same brain chemicals) present in the live body are present in the dead body, so what has changed? Why did "consciousness" leave the dead body when the same atoms are still there? What changed on the atomic/quantum level? Did anything change?





Robert Lanza does not believe the brain/body creates conciousness. In fact there isn't a single scientist that can definitively say how conciousness is 'created' Currently there are only theories. No proof. But if the body is dead, it's dead. Nothing for conciousness to 'operate'.
edit on 18/1/14 by angryhulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

edit on 18-1-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Sorry gang, I know I'm on the outs here...but I'm sick of seeing *this* thread pop up...AGAIN.


I've been to and read everything I could on this guys site. He strikes me as being 100% selling to a very very certain crowd. And that crowd?


The Metaphysical Crowd

And I have the distinct sensation that he's attempting to do it with pseudo science.

Don't quote me...but I won't be surprised if...

A book(s, if I am truly on the mark here) comes soon...
Seminars
Cruises
1 on 1 sessions
bottle openers
etc...etc...ad nauseum....



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
It is incredibly despairing reading many of the comments in this thread. The thought of death has such an unconscious grip on their subconscious that many posters will believe and peddle any fantasy to escape any kind of confrontation or discussion of its inevitability. Death IS the end of life, you all know this, it can't be escaped. Its occurrence is the full stop at the end of life and existence for each and every one of us. Nothing of you survives the demise of the physical body.

We are not, nor do we have a spirit or soul that transmissions to some other realm of vibration or frequency that we could call an 'afterlife' after we die. Death utterly dismisses consciousness, because consciousness is not nor ever could be separate from the physical medium of the body and brain. It is something you just have to accept.

Many of you won't be able to accept death as the oblivion that it is. Many of you won't allow yourself to accept it, but nevertheless, death is what it is, and no amount of denial or fantasy storytelling will alter that fact.

Just live your life the best you can. Be a good an empathetic person, and when death does come to you, you will at least be able to say to yourself that you did okay for yourself and others. That is all you can ask for.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


You are so confused and your words are so twisted that I feel sorry for you.

What are you trying to say. Restate your opinion.

One one hand - you say death is end of 'life'. On the other, you say death is end of 'body'? What do you mean by 'life'?

Death cannot be end of body, as the body very much exists after death. Have you never seen a dead body?



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I'm just enjoying reading the opinionated and narrow minded comments by those that have no intention on reading the book but seem to know exactly what his theory is and how to dismantle it. Right down to the wire.

Keep it up chaps.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by angryhulk
 


There are two problems here:

a. What is consciousness. Has author defined 'consciousness'?
b. What is 'other' universe. What is proof (direct/indirect) to prove this other universe exists?

Please answer these questions if you read the book?

edit on 19-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by angryhulk
 


When your car dies on you does it mean you cease to exist . Your car and body are mere facilitators for movement of matter in this time continuum . That is the concept of the soul . And there is a wealth of information and documented case studies on life after death events . Some can tell of things that they could not possibly have know that happened after their being declared dead and covered with a sheet . When resuscitated they amazed the doctors who were bound by their professional credibility to deny such . But some doctors took up the matter and brought it to light . UFOs and Out of Body experiences have been relegated to tin hat conspiracies . Makes you wonder what else you don't know .



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

GargIndia
Would like to know more about the experiments you are talking about.

Experiments about what? Proof that God exist?



GargIndia
You have made several points yesterday, and I am replying without quoting for brevity.

1. Fossils - Yes fossils can add to our understanding of the past biosphere existing on earth. However a theory still needs to be prove experimentally in the labs.

2. You quoted view of a University about fossils or observations of stars.

I have no issue with any observations. We support human's quest for discovery.

My point is not about observations, but creation of a theory and teaching of that theory in all schools of the world without actually proving the theory.

The facts remains that TOE remains unproven till date. However many theories have fallen by the wayside but this one stands due to highly political nature of the theory.


I think that you are misunderstanding what theory means in title - 'Theory of Evolution'.

Scientific definition is following:


Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words “theory” and “fact.”

In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the Moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik (see page 2) predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory. *


Source: Science Evolution and Creationism (page 11)



GargIndia
3. I said that religions have been intruded by atheists. You asked for proof?

Where do I start? This has happened to every religion and the evidence will run into millions of pages.
Are Christians learning the word of Jesus as the Jesus told and meant?
Are Muslims learning the word of Muhammed the way Muhammed told and meant?
One needs to ask these questions. The religion has been politicized no end.

Where in those examples of yours you see work of atheists? If by learning/following the words of those prophets you mean literal following of the rules and religious laws (such as cases in some of Muslim countries), then I would first say that I am against all of them, not because I am atheist, but because we had enough of dark ages.



GargIndia
The Vedic teacher says that spiritual discovery is at individual level. Each soul develops spirituality by effort. The teacher's job is in teaching the methods and benefit. There is no group or herd that can achieve spirituality together. Each soul is independent and free. Each soul is responsible for its actions.

Lets move step back - is Vedic teaching part of Vedic religion, that was part of Hinduism religion?
edit on 20-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


You quoted a paragraph from a book. Would you mind telling me about the author and name of book?

The theories like atomic structure of matter, heliocentric theory, and cells in living bodies are supported by direct evidence 'today'. You do not have to go back in time and learn from fossils.

TOE is no way in the same category as the above theories. Finding a hypothetical 'animal' at a hypothetical time is part of the same grand plan where the evidence itself is so fragile and non-replicable. So it boils down to believing your author, whatever he says.

As far as Vedic 'religion' is concerned, this topic does not belong here. You need to learn a lot. This is all I can say.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I do not believe in religion as it serves no purpose.

I believe in truth, and truth only. And my view is not colored by your "Science".

God is an important part of our world. Only fools deny that.

I believe in true knowledge - which includes the knowledge of matter as well as knowledge of soul and the knowledge of God.

Any methods or instruments that help me get true knowledge are welcome.




edit on 20-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


You don't believe in "religion" neither do I !
I do believe in the God of the bible and his Son our Lord Jesus Christ.

Upon what do you credit with the Stars in the Heavens and the life that you have today ? You must have the desire first to seek that knowledge before you can know anything . Is your answer the theory put forth by the latest scientific claim ? That all of what you see in the heavens and earth came from literally nothingness ? Or is it I am here and now therefore I am now lets party ? I am just wondering ? The Black Hole theory just does not add up to me . Just how far can you squeeze an ATOM before its Protons and Electrons and Neutrons comes together and literally shorts out together and destroys that atom and it's differential charges that makes it function ?



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


SimonPeter, the God is universal. There is only one God and that God cannot be divided into a God of Christians, a God of Hindus etc.

You start on your journey when you accept some basic facts:

1. That God is a single entity for the entire Universe.
2. That you are not God or a part of God. You are soul, an entity distinct from God. You have flaws due to soul's inherent weaknesses - for example attachment.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 



God is also the God of the atheist also . He took time to send his Son down to earth to offer Grace and Mercy . I doubt he so dealt with the Hindu in the same manner .



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


Why you say so? What do you know about 'Hindu' that I do not know?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

GargIndia
You quoted a paragraph from a book. Would you mind telling me about the author and name of book?


It is publication by National Academy of Sciences. (USA)

Here is more info about it:



Authors

Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine (IOM); National Academies


Description

How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.

Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.




GargIndia
The theories like atomic structure of matter, heliocentric theory, and cells in living bodies are supported by direct evidence 'today'. You do not have to go back in time and learn from fossils.

TOE is no way in the same category as the above theories. Finding a hypothetical 'animal' at a hypothetical time is part of the same grand plan where the evidence itself is so fragile and non-replicable. So it boils down to believing your author, whatever he says.


According to scientists, 'Theory of Evolution' is exactly that, fact - proven theory. Just as I said, there has been some misunderstanding what word theory means. It is interesting that you ignore huge amount of data that points to ToE to be fact. Evidence is not fragile nor non-replicable. I believe we already sorted that out from many links.

Question is - how much more evidence would be sufficient for you to understand that ToE is more than hypothesis?




GargIndia
As far as Vedic 'religion' is concerned, this topic does not belong here. You need to learn a lot. This is all I can say.

Sure, create topic about it. I am always willing to learn something new. We all have to learn a lot... At least we should agree on that...



GargIndia
I do not believe in religion as it serves no purpose.

I believe in truth, and truth only. And my view is not colored by your "Science".

God is an important part of our world. Only fools deny that.

I believe in true knowledge - which includes the knowledge of matter as well as knowledge of soul and the knowledge of God.

Any methods or instruments that help me get true knowledge are welcome.


In single post you managed to contradict your self more than once. First, you calling for some 'truth' while giving up on human collected knowledge - science.

Than you claim that you believe in true knowledge.

And finally you mentioned that you welcome any methods that will get you true knowledge.

What if that knowledge shows (as it already does) that truth about God is that we actually created him, not other way around?

Should you consider yourself ignorant trying to deny all 'true knowledge' just for a reassuring peace of mind?

One wise human said this:



It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Carl Sagan


I believe above quote tells a lot and I completely agree. It is scary how unimportant we humans are in waste cosmos, and it is scary how small our part of cosmos is compared to the rest. We are learning, trying to figure universe out and obstacles such as sacred texts that provide very little evidence should be separated and not used in explanation of live, cosmos or anything else. There is some sentimental value in those, something worth keeping for purpose of tradition, but it should be clear that science is growing and giving answers to once impossible to answer questions. Open your mind and eyes... we can learn.

edit on 21-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   

GargIndia
Why you say so? What do you know about 'Hindu' that I do not know?


I know this was not meant for me, but more than once it seems that our understanding and your understanding of Hindu and Hinduism is different. Here is recent article and facts about Hinduism: Hinduism Fast Facts

Note, Vedas are covered under Hinduism:


The Vedas are the primary literary works, containing sacred verses and hymns composed in Sanskrit and taking on their current form around 1500 B.C. The Rig Veda was the first of the four Vedas. The Samaveda, Yajurveda and Atharvaveda followed later.


Not sure why are you trying to show Vedas for something different, Vedic teaching is part of Hinduism.

And Vedic teaching introduced caste system, something I mentioned earlier, and something you avoid for some unknown reason:


Caste System:
Indian society has traditionally been divided into a hierarchical system called caste or jati, which is not limited to Hindus, but which most Hindus have observed throughout history. It is hereditary and each caste has its own set of values, rules, dietary beliefs, etc. Many do not marry outside their castes.

There are four major varnas or social classes most caste members fall into:
- Brahmans - the priests and other educated professionals.
- Kshatriyas - warriors and those who own a lot of land.
- Vaishyas - formerly the farmers, now those involved in commerce; merchants.
- Shudras (some sources say Sudra) - the lowest of the social classes. Made up of laborers, artisans, and other servants.

There are some that do not fall into any of these categories, and they are now considered part of the Scheduled Caste. They are lower than the Shudras on the hierarchy, and they are people who perform "unclean" work, such as leather working and street cleaning. They have been called untouchables, Dalits, Harijans or backward castes. Although Hinduism teaches that discrimination and prejudice go against the idea of the divinity of all beings, both sometimes exist within the caste system.

Mahatma Gandhi called these untouchables "children of God." Although the 1950 Indian constitution outlawed "untouchability," violence against them continues.


Couple of months ago I was listening radio documentary about issues with caste system and sexual abuses in India. Most of them don't even get reported, and mostly because it is tradition from caste system. This was on NPR and I am sure that you can find it if you search. It was quote interesting, and they had interviews with multiple victims and are mentioning obstacles in law. Those get a bit shadowed at larger problem - rescent rise in assult of women in India.


If your understanding of Hinduism and Vedic religion is different, care to teach us and show us how?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


At the time of Carl Sagans death I believe I heard that he had broken from the ranks and was researching the possibility of creation by Intelligent design or something to that effect . He must have lost faith in spontaneous creation .



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

SimonPeter
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


At the time of Carl Sagans death I believe I heard that he had broken from the ranks and was researching the possibility of creation by Intelligent design or something to that effect . He must have lost faith in spontaneous creation .


What you heard was false. His own wife was asked repeatedly whether Carl Sagan recanted in his final moments, whether she believed they would meet again in another life - her answer was that he had faced his death without illusion, fear, or remorse. They both treated it as a final parting, as the capstone on a journey of appreciation. Carl Sagan did not die a theist. He died a proud human being, beholden to no one and asking for nothing.

I respect that far more than any theist grasping for a last chance to live the life they wasted in hope of greater things than they already had. Your path is your own, but pardon me for shaking my head in disappointment as I walk in the other direction.

I would like to note here that I find the idea of consciousness transferring from life form to life form to be an exciting prospect, like a file from a video game character being wiped after the game is finished and switched to another character, in another game, again and again. Like every character in Skyrim being playable, but only one at a time, and no memory would exist of having played a previous character, nor would you know who you would play next. Exciting!
edit on 21-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join