Life after death

by truthseeker 136 Replies latest jw friends

  • sizemik
    Not true.
    it is not at all scientific to then believe in the existence of a diety as that source,

    Actually, what I said was . . .

    but to believe in the existence of a deity (a source) is not unscientific in itself.

    You are taking issue with something I never said. In fact I went to great lengths to frame things with generous allowance for the unknown. Either you read my post hastily or you are entrenched in absolutes.

    With your reference to Apollo . . . you appear to be saying the existence of a deity will be disproved one day . . . that is pure speculation and therefore "unscientific"

  • Fadeout

    I believe you are simply misusing the word "deity." If you are allowing that the "source" may be impersonal, then "deity" may not be the proper term to use.

    sizemik: With your reference to Apollo . . . you appear to be saying the existence of a deity will be disproved one day . . . that is pure speculation and therefore "unscientific"

    There is no need to scientifically disprove the existence of such deities, since the very notion of their existence is unscientific to begin with and based wholly on assertion. That falls within the realm of superstition and religion. Science ought to have nothing to do with it except as it relates to psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.-- not treating it as if it is a valid possibility for reality that must be considered.

    Essentially, the existence of Apollo and other deities is already "disproven" as much as will ever be possible, inasmuch as the claim was always unsupported by any evidence.

  • sizemik

    There is no word I'm aware of that quantitatively and qualitatively identifies the "source of all energy". This is purely because nothing is known of the concept, except that the laws of energy determine it must exist. Hence no word for it . . . unless I'm behind on the subject?

    The word "deity" has many applications and definitions depending on context . . . so I take your point that the word may not convey accurately the thought being discussed. It seems that many applications of the word are in reference to past and existing concepts of God and their being objects of veneration or worship.

    This is not the context in which I used the word. The point being made is that it can be concluded scientifcally, that the energy manifesting itself as the physical world . . . must have a source . . . nothing more.

    The "argument" is this . . . any conclusions beyond that are conjecture and/or speculation and therefore unscientific. This fact is born out by the fact that to date, the existence of a "god" cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. That being the case, the true scientist will leave the door open to either possibilty, regardless of his/her personal conjecture, speculation or personal belief.

    To adhere to either theism or atheism . . . is not scientific. Each is a declaration of belief for which the supporting evidence is by no means conclusive . . . that's all.

    It is often the inclination of the entrenched atheist to present thier argument as being more scientific . . . when in terms of known scientific fact, is simply not true . . . the physical world and what is currently known as to it's nature . . . does not preclude the existence of "god" in a general unfettered sense.

    It's not that easy to divest oneself of previous convictions and prejudices . . . nor is it unusual to go looking for "the science" to support a strongly held belief. We are not as generous as we could be, in allowing for the unknown.

    As for me . . . I am neither theist or atheist . . . because I have very little scientific proof of either. Well short of where I could declare either an "absolute".

    In response to your conclusion, I could say that God's habitat is gradually being uncovered by advancing science. It is only erroneous concepts that are being eroded.

  • SouthCentral

    Great Topic!!

    I remember in the Movie "Eve's Bayou" a key character said, "There hasta be something after this life or God is playing a terrible trick on us all."

    I think that there is some sort of afterlife, but I am really not sure. When I look at the bible through the eyes of the WT, Eccl 9:4, 5 and 10 stand out. I really don't know. My heart says that there is definitely an afterlife though.

  • godrulz

    The WT misinterprets/proof texts Eccl. 9.

  • andys

    I am a Christian and believe that we all do have a spirit, when you think about it the brain and mind are separate, think of the brain as a processor, the brain controls body function, etc.........................................

    Look up the definition of the mind in a dictionary and this is one of the definitions:

    The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality.

    "If the mind is indeed a thing separate from or higher than the functioning of the brain, then presumably it will not be possible for any machine, no matter how sophisticated, to duplicate it. If on the other hand the mind is no more than the aggregated functions of the brain, then it will be possible, at least in theory, to create a machine with a mind"

  • godrulz

    Denying the Deity of Christ is a doctrine of demons. Heaven/hell is not occult, but biblical truth.

Share this