What do you think happens after death?

TheGame · 10-25-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Everyone always brings up the "it's just a theory" argument, when the term isn't being used how you think it is. In science, a theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. It isn't guesswork.

Its not 100% guesswork, but it also isn't a fact. A scientific fact is an observeable natural occurance. We cannot observe macro evolution, thereforce it cannot be labeled as a fact. A scientific theory is an attempt to explain how natural occurances work. While a theory is based off of facts, it is not a fact. It attempts to put together scientific facts to come to a conclusion that cannot actually be observed in full.

I don't personally discount how well thought out some theories are, but in the end, its just a theory... any way you look at it. For all we know we could be living in the Matrix. Or we could be the build up under some exteremely large evolved creature's toenail, just waiting for the day where he cleans us out.. Or like a weird Anime I watched touched on.. The would could have just been created when you were born, and you could be in complete control of your environment and not even know it.. and when you die the worls could end.

-EDIT-

Just tossing in this to add tot he first point. Someone mentioned evolution is as much of a theory as gravity. The thing is, gravity is a scientific fact. Gravity is observeable and testable. The theories come in where they use that scientific fact to try to explain the orgins of gravity, or explain what creates gravity.

Evolution is a scientific fact also, you see man evolve from a child into an adult (aka micro evolution), and we're even seeing some slow generational evolution. The theories for evolution come into play when they use it to explain the orgin of our species.

Teuthida · 10-26-2009, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

Evolution is a scientific fact also, you see man evolve from a child into an adult (aka micro evolution), and we're even seeing some slow generational evolution. The theories for evolution come into play when they use it to explain the orgin of our species.

Ah ok. With the whole chicken thing I thought I was having to prove the whole concept of evolution. Yeah, the origin of our species it's a little muddled. Changes with every new finding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

Origins of life: If you'd like to say random chance, a chance so remote the many statisticians believe it near impossible if not impossible, is the origin of life, thats fine. I remain open to the other option as well. There is as much "science" to support that as the religion/God(s) theory, a theory simultaneously held for thousands of years by many cultures who never interacted with one another. There is something to be said for that, and arguments of "needing an answer" have little to support them other than a thought process intended to find an answer other than "God". They all didn't believe in a purple dragon, of the infamous "spaghetti monster in the sky" as many of the more egotistocal atheists like to call it.

You do realize all cultures had very unique gods and creation stories. It sounds like you're saying that the concept of gods in most cultures has the same validity as tested experiments involving self-replicating amino acids which is the proposed basis for life. Really? For a people with no knowledge of what the sun is, of course they'll create stories behind why it rises and falls every day and night, thus you have a myriad of sun gods. And as cultures interacted they took bits and pieces to add to their mythology. There are a number of resurrection gods as well. Why do people dismiss the older god Osiris when Jesus was probably based on him. And poor Zeus gets no respect these days. There might not be purple dragons (or there might be, there are a hell of a lot of gods out there) but you do have the Japanese dragon god Watatsumi and the feathered snake god Quetzalcoatl for example. In the world of gods there is no proof, but your own belief. Which is fine. Believe in whatever you like. It can't be disproven. Just don't dismiss actual studies and experiments in the same breathe as the sun being pulled by a chariot across the sky.

And besides, Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

KillerGremlin · 10-26-2009, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

Just tossing in this to add tot he first point. Someone mentioned evolution is as much of a theory as gravity. The thing is, gravity is a scientific fact. Gravity is observeable and testable. The theories come in where they use that scientific fact to try to explain the orgins of gravity, or explain what creates gravity.

Gravity is a theory. Gravity is under current revision as we look for the Higgs boson (the "God particle) with the Large Hadron Collider. Gravity is a weak force (in fact the weakest I believe), and the point of finding the Higgs bosons is to account for the disparities in forces. If you want to think about how weak gravity is....stick a magnet to your fridge and watch it defy Earth's gravity. Pretty neat.

But yeah, the point of my comparison was there is a ton of evidence which suggests even if our current theory isn't 100% right it's still pretty strong. Evolution and Gravity are both pretty strong theories.

TheGame · 10-26-2009, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Gravity is a theory. Gravity is under current revision as we look for the Higgs boson (the "God particle) with the Large Hadron Collider. Gravity is a weak force (in fact the weakest I believe), and the point of finding the Higgs bosons is to account for the disparities in forces. If you want to think about how weak gravity is....stick a magnet to your fridge and watch it defy Earth's gravity. Pretty neat.

You have a misunderstanding of the difference between a scientific fact, law, and theory. A scientific fact is ANY observeable occurance. A scientific fact does not need an explination, its just something that we can observe. A scientific theory is an explination of HOW that occurance was created, or what causes that natural occurance, and in some cases just an explanation of how the occurance works. A scientific law is the math that we observe to be behind a natural occurance.

Check this out on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

I was actually kinda suprised to find this article this morning. But I think it helps put this whole debate in perspective and explains my point.

The theory is just the explanation. A theory, as well thought out as it can be, cannot be proven to be true in all circumstances, and/or cannot be observed.

TheGame · 10-26-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Take Christianity: if Jesus did come down to Earth, then the billions of people who have a collective tingling for some divine creator but are not Christian are still going to burn in Hell.

http://thecrazypastor.wordpress.com/...her-religions/

Professor S · 10-26-2009, 09:39 AM

A few things:

1) Yes, I am deist, or more accurately, a Christ agnostic.

2) Yes, I realize there are many Gods, but it all falls under a unifying paranormal deity concept shared across the world for millenia. As to what god falls under that concept, well, take your pick. As for collective unconscious (etc.), well, that's a theory and one that is no more valid than a belief in the existence of God.

3) Adding God into science: You don't add God into scientific experimentation. How do you add an unporvable theory/idea? It's as impossible as proving God's existence. Instead, you let the idea of God as the alternative drive you to find further truth, instead of eliminating the possibility and you're left with assuming flawed and abused theories are facts because there happens to be no scientific alternative. God as an alternative pushes further discover and clarification. Removing him leads to scientific ignorance, IMO.

4) Evolutionary theory in it's totality is not fact. Sorry, it's not. Within a species is it fact? I'd say so. The problem and abuse comes when unscientific assumtions and extrapolations are made that shoe-horn evolution as fact across species, which is still unproven. Example: Bacteria. We know that aggressive use of anti-biotics leads to evolution within the species or even genus if you want to stretch it, making the bacteria resistant to treatment. The problem is that there is no proof that these mutations have mutated bacteria into something beyond bacteria. Maybe cross species evolution is impossible to prove. Okay... so is the existence of God. Pick your belief.

KillerGremlin · 10-26-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

http://thecrazypastor.wordpress.com/...her-religions/

I've heard similar interpretations on the subject. My point was to challenge Prof S' observation on the commonality of a divine creator among humans. You also have to realize what the Bible and Scripture says differs from what organized religion practices. I assure you Muslims and Catholics aren't as tolerant. I mean look at the Middle East, those guys have been blowing each other up for thousands of years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

You have a misunderstanding of the difference between a scientific fact, law, and theory. A scientific fact is ANY observeable occurance. A scientific fact does not need an explination, its just something that we can observe. A scientific theory is an explination of HOW that occurance was created, or what causes that natural occurance, and in some cases just an explanation of how the occurance works. A scientific law is the math that we observe to be behind a natural occurance.

Check this out on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

I was actually kinda suprised to find this article this morning. But I think it helps put this whole debate in perspective and explains my point.

The theory is just the explanation. A theory, as well thought out as it can be, cannot be proven to be true in all circumstances, and/or cannot be observed.

Touche. I always overcomplicated gravity, I sometimes forget it is just the tendency for two objects with mass to pull towards each other.

KillerGremlin · 10-26-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

4) Evolutionary theory in it's totality is not fact. Sorry, it's not. Within a species is it fact? I'd say so. The problem and abuse comes when unscientific assumtions and extrapolations are made that shoe-horn evolution as fact across species, which is still unproven. Example: Bacteria. We know that aggressive use of anti-biotics leads to evolution within the species or even genus if you want to stretch it, making the bacteria resistant to treatment. The problem is that there is no proof that these mutations have mutated bacteria into something beyond bacteria. Maybe cross species evolution is impossible to prove. Okay... so is the existence of God. Pick your belief.

I believe in the holy ham sandwich...which sounds very yummy right about now.

So new question for everyone who believes in an afterlife....where does your conscious go when you die? Does it go somewhere, or is it dependent on body and you have some sort of external soul out there.

Bond · 10-27-2009, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

So new question for everyone who believes in an afterlife....where does your conscious go when you die? Does it go somewhere, or is it dependent on body and you have some sort of external soul out there.

No idea, but I sort of like the idea of non-local consciousness - that when we die our consciousness is released from our body and spreads infinitely across the universe. It sounds very harmonious to me.

Professor S · 10-27-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I believe in the holy ham sandwich...which sounds very yummy right about now.

mmmm.... sacrilicious...

Quote:

So new question for everyone who believes in an afterlife....where does your conscious go when you die? Does it go somewhere, or is it dependent on body and you have some sort of external soul out there.

Well, I've had experiences with ghosts*, so I think at least some of them remain locally. To me, that is a terribly frightening prospect for my immortal consciousness/soul.

*I don't care to convince anyone else that they are real. Hell, if I didn't have the experiences I've had, with witnesses no less, I would think I was crazy too.

KillerGremlin · 10-27-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well, I've had experiences with ghosts*, so I think at least some of them remain locally. To me, that is a terribly frightening prospect for my immortal consciousness/soul.

*I don't care to convince anyone else that they are real. Hell, if I didn't have the experiences I've had, with witnesses no less, I would think I was crazy too.

Do tell, how was the experience? Was it a friendly haunting?
You're not the first person I have heard say they have seen ghosts.