If you are a scientist who believes in life after death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot about near death experiences and people’s experiences around death. There’s a remarkable consistency in the stories. There’s so much to this world we don’t know, and I think it’s somewhat arrogant to assume what we can see, touch, feel, hear and taste comprise all of what exists in the universe. Dog’s hear things we can’t. Birds see things we can’t. We have this small life, we come and we go. I believe there’s something more than what we can understand and I’m open to learning as much as I can about it.

I’ve had some experiences since my mom and dad died that have been unexplainable. I used to think gone is gone. Now I don’t. When my mom was in the ICU before she died I asked her to do something so so so specific to let me know it was her after she died. What I asked of her has happened over and over again since she died. And there have been other things related to my das that have down right convinced me that there very well might be life after death. That said, none of us will truly know until our life ends.

Why not tell us exactly what you asked of her? Perhaps because it would be easy to refute? Better to stay mysterious: It adds to the "interesting discussion".

Besides, if you thought "gone is gone" you wouldn't have asked your mother to give you a sign after she died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science cannot explain many things.

Can science explain what causes all cancers? No.

Can science explain the etiology of an idiopathic diagnosis? No.

Do things exist that we cannot see, hear, smell, or feel? Cannot photo or video? Yes, oxygen in the air.

You know the stupidity of this argument, right?

We can demonstrate, easily and in many ways, the existence of oxygen "in the air". There was a time when we could not.

Can you demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural? Anything, any one thing. You pick it. Then get your many prizes and awards and millions of dollars and be known as the world's greatest scientist and prophet, both at the same time, as the rest of us skeptics will immediately believe.

We'll wait.

"There was a time when we could not" see oxygen. As you stated. But it didn't mean it didn't exist.

[Anonymous]

the oxygen analogy is terrible. It was definitively detected in 1773, but likely well before that. The soul, or any substance escaping from the body at death has never been detected.

[Anonymous]

The problem is not the Bible vs. Science, but the problem is there are two competing worldviews that seek to interpret the same evidence; Christianity and Naturalism.

Naturalism holds that nature or matter is all that exists. It has always existed or it came into existence from nothing. There is nothing outside or before nature, i.e., the material universe that is studied by modern science. There is no God and no supernatural.

Christianity holds the belief that the universe was created through intelligence. This means there was logic and order to the world that made scientific discovery possible in the first place.

Both Christianity and Naturalism require faith and bring their own presuppositions to the table. The difference? One heeds the infallible Word of the Creator who was there in the beginning and cannot lie (ref. Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 6:18), while the other heeds the words of fallible human beings who don’t posses all knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not the Bible vs. Science, but the problem is there are two competing worldviews that seek to interpret the same evidence; Christianity and Naturalism.

Naturalism holds that nature or matter is all that exists. It has always existed or it came into existence from nothing. There is nothing outside or before nature, i.e., the material universe that is studied by modern science. There is no God and no supernatural.

Christianity holds the belief that the universe was created through intelligence. This means there was logic and order to the world that made scientific discovery possible in the first place.

Both Christianity and Naturalism require faith and bring their own presuppositions to the table. The difference? One heeds the infallible Word of the Creator who was there in the beginning and cannot lie (ref. Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 6:18), while the other heeds the words of fallible human beings who don’t posses all knowledge.

completely wrong and a strawman to boot. The competing worldviews are not "naturalism" and Christianity, but science vs. religion. Science uses the scientific method to arrive at provable, evidence-based conclusions. Religion is based on received wisdom from very dubious sources that is accepted unquestioningly. Obviously science is superior for some subjects, but religion has an edge on the afterlife. Science has no way of proving if that is true or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not the Bible vs. Science, but the problem is there are two competing worldviews that seek to interpret the same evidence; Christianity and Naturalism.

Naturalism holds that nature or matter is all that exists. It has always existed or it came into existence from nothing. There is nothing outside or before nature, i.e., the material universe that is studied by modern science. There is no God and no supernatural.

Christianity holds the belief that the universe was created through intelligence. This means there was logic and order to the world that made scientific discovery possible in the first place.

Both Christianity and Naturalism require faith and bring their own presuppositions to the table. The difference? One heeds the infallible Word of the Creator who was there in the beginning and cannot lie (ref. Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 6:18), while the other heeds the words of fallible human beings who don’t posses all knowledge.

completely wrong and a strawman to boot. The competing worldviews are not "naturalism" and Christianity, but science vs. religion. Science uses the scientific method to arrive at provable, evidence-based conclusions. Religion is based on received wisdom from very dubious sources that is accepted unquestioningly. Obviously science is superior for some subjects, but religion has an edge on the afterlife. Science has no way of proving if that is true or not.

“Science requires faith too before it can have reasons.” —- Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not the Bible vs. Science, but the problem is there are two competing worldviews that seek to interpret the same evidence; Christianity and Naturalism.

Naturalism holds that nature or matter is all that exists. It has always existed or it came into existence from nothing. There is nothing outside or before nature, i.e., the material universe that is studied by modern science. There is no God and no supernatural.

Christianity holds the belief that the universe was created through intelligence. This means there was logic and order to the world that made scientific discovery possible in the first place.

Both Christianity and Naturalism require faith and bring their own presuppositions to the table. The difference? One heeds the infallible Word of the Creator who was there in the beginning and cannot lie (ref. Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 6:18), while the other heeds the words of fallible human beings who don’t posses all knowledge.

completely wrong and a strawman to boot. The competing worldviews are not "naturalism" and Christianity, but science vs. religion. Science uses the scientific method to arrive at provable, evidence-based conclusions. Religion is based on received wisdom from very dubious sources that is accepted unquestioningly. Obviously science is superior for some subjects, but religion has an edge on the afterlife. Science has no way of proving if that is true or not.

“Science requires faith too before it can have reasons.” —- Richard Dawkins

??? Dawkins is a notorious atheist, so ths is likely taken out of context. Don't pretend that he's espousing revealed wisdom like from the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not the Bible vs. Science, but the problem is there are two competing worldviews that seek to interpret the same evidence; Christianity and Naturalism.

Naturalism holds that nature or matter is all that exists. It has always existed or it came into existence from nothing. There is nothing outside or before nature, i.e., the material universe that is studied by modern science. There is no God and no supernatural.

Christianity holds the belief that the universe was created through intelligence. This means there was logic and order to the world that made scientific discovery possible in the first place.

Both Christianity and Naturalism require faith and bring their own presuppositions to the table. The difference? One heeds the infallible Word of the Creator who was there in the beginning and cannot lie (ref. Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 6:18), while the other heeds the words of fallible human beings who don’t posses all knowledge.

Human beings are fallible- that is a fact, but isn't this Creator even more fallible since the bible, which you use as evidence of this Creator, was written by fallible human beings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the oxygen analogy is terrible. It was definitively detected in 1773, but likely well before that. The soul, or any substance escaping from the body at death has never been detected.

Again, there was a time when we could not see oxygen. But it was there. Not being able to scientifically explain or view something does not negate its existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the oxygen analogy is terrible. It was definitively detected in 1773, but likely well before that. The soul, or any substance escaping from the body at death has never been detected.

Again, there was a time when we could not see oxygen. But it was there. Not being able to scientifically explain or view something does not negate its existence.

Also, not sure what religion believes in a soul escaping the body. My Christian one does not. "The dead know not." When you die, you are dead. Hopefully, when Jesus returns, you will be resurrected.

[Anonymous]

I'm waiting for scientists to prove how 2 rocks banged together to start a life. Sugar and spice and all things nice, stirred in a pot? Lol! There is no scientist who can take rocks, sticks, dirt and start a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the oxygen analogy is terrible. It was definitively detected in 1773, but likely well before that. The soul, or any substance escaping from the body at death has never been detected.

Again, there was a time when we could not see oxygen. But it was there. Not being able to scientifically explain or view something does not negate its existence.

Also, not sure what religion believes in a soul escaping the body. My Christian one does not. "The dead know not." When you die, you are dead. Hopefully, when Jesus returns, you will be resurrected.

well, this is a new wrinkle. Thanks for that. So you mean bodily resurrected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting for scientists to prove how 2 rocks banged together to start a life. Sugar and spice and all things nice, stirred in a pot? Lol! There is no scientist who can take rocks, sticks, dirt and start a life.

Science can better explain how it happened though than invent some invisible man in the sky

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the oxygen analogy is terrible. It was definitively detected in 1773, but likely well before that. The soul, or any substance escaping from the body at death has never been detected.

1773 was a mere 250 years ago. We know so much more now, imagine how much more we might know in another 250 years.

You say the “soul” has never been detected, but there has been a belief in an afterlife for thousands and thousands of years. Doesn’t it strike you that a wide variety of cultures over an incredibly wide expanse of time have come to believe there’s something more than this life that we experience? You are just one person born of billions, in one small slice of time in history. I don’t see how any one person can think they know all there is to know on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting for scientists to prove how 2 rocks banged together to start a life. Sugar and spice and all things nice, stirred in a pot? Lol! There is no scientist who can take rocks, sticks, dirt and start a life.

I made amino acids in a lab in high school...which at least starts to explain how natural conditions can create the chemistry needed for life.