If you are a scientist who believes in life after death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Physicist from page 1 here. I don't know the context of the Dawkins quote, and it's doubtful that me and PP you are responding to interpret it similarly. But IMHO the scientific method requires faith that it's a useful framework for better understanding ground truths about the world around us. We know that what we observe/measure loses some information, but we have faith that the scientific method allows us to put limits on that uncertainty and improve our understanding.

Religion requires faith that foundational texts and teaching provide a framework for understanding a deeper truth about life. Unlike the scientific method, there isn't a shared and accountable objectivity...so it's necessarily more personal/individual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Physicist from page 1 here. I don't know the context of the Dawkins quote, and it's doubtful that me and PP you are responding to interpret it similarly. But IMHO the scientific method requires faith that it's a useful framework for better understanding ground truths about the world around us. We know that what we observe/measure loses some information, but we have faith that the scientific method allows us to put limits on that uncertainty and improve our understanding.

Religion requires faith that foundational texts and teaching provide a framework for understanding a deeper truth about life. Unlike the scientific method, there isn't a shared and accountable objectivity...so it's necessarily more personal/individual.

But which texts? The Bible (which Christians, other than the Jews for Jesus, do not follow), the Koran? The Vedantic Scriptures?

[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.

You are wrong!

Not life per se, but the building blocks of it. Not only was it done, it was done nearly 60 years ago, proving you are either dishonest or uninformed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Someday we will fully solve the abiogenesis mystery, the way we solve all of them. Just because we haven't yet doesn't mean anything, just like before we knew what caused lightning some people thought it was Zeus' weapon.

Do you think lightning is Zeus' weapon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are wrong!

Not life per se, but the building blocks of it. Not only was it done, it was done nearly 60 years ago, proving you are either dishonest or uninformed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Someday we will fully solve the abiogenesis mystery, the way we solve all of them. Just because we haven't yet doesn't mean anything, just like before we knew what caused lightning some people thought it was Zeus' weapon.

Do you think lightning is Zeus' weapon?

The Miller-Ulrey experiment proves life is most likely very common in the Universe. In fact there was almost certainly life on Mars when Mars had a warm climate, an atmosphere like ours, a large ocean and many rivers. It is doubtful, however, that Mars had time to develop intelligent life. With no magnetic North Pole to protect the atmosphere, solar wind has been blowing the Martian atmosphere away for billions of years. It is extremely doubtful that any life exists on Mars any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like Billy Graham or the Pope are notorious Christians???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the soul just disappears when the brain’s on propofol, where could the soul possibly be when the brain’s dead?

Answer: there is no soul. Consciousness ("soul") stops with brain activity.

Consciousness =/= soul

What is the definition of a soul then??
NP

In addition to this I'm curious if animals have souls.
Do they all get a chance to go to heaven too?
What is the difference between a human soul and an animal soul?

[Anonymous]

I'm not a scientist, but I consider myself agnostic or atheist. Really probably the latter. I do take solace in what someone else wrote above, and I have thought myself, that energy never dies. It is a constant. In that way, if a person has a "soul" it has touched many other people and things in this world. That vibration continues. The world is forever different because they lived. Now that they are dead, their soul does not exist, but its impact remains and reverberates forever -- more so if they really did a lot when they were alive, good or bad. One thing that living has taught me -- heaven and hell are on Earth, and it's pretty random which one you get to experience. Enjoy life and try to make things better for people stuck in hell. Also, luck changes and is random, so carpe diem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like Billy Graham or the Pope are notorious Christians???

Ok. I should have said "well known atheist." You got me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are wrong!

Not life per se, but the building blocks of it. Not only was it done, it was done nearly 60 years ago, proving you are either dishonest or uninformed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Someday we will fully solve the abiogenesis mystery, the way we solve all of them. Just because we haven't yet doesn't mean anything, just like before we knew what caused lightning some people thought it was Zeus' weapon.

Do you think lightning is Zeus' weapon?

"Not life"

"Not life"

No. Not life.

Liquid Braggs has amino acids in it. But not a life, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a mathematician and now computer scientist so I’m not sure if I qualify but I believe Energy never dies and we have energy. It’s neither created nor does it die.

I don’t think I can explain my thoughts so I found this article that somewhat explains my thoughts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/the-physics-of-death/amp

Thanks! The article is a great read: https://futurism.com/the-physics-of-death

Do you believe that consciousness continues after death?

I believe consciousness and our spirit (energy/“light”) are different. I think most people think of spirit (energy/“light”) and soul the same.

Our consciousness is human and is aware of our body and our thought. Those that meditate (or pray or whatever) are conscious of their spirit. Some prophets are more connected to their spirit than they are to their human body/thoughts/consciousness.

Our body goes back into the earth and our energy/spirit/light/soul does not “die”/disappear/end.

We don’t have language that can describe it or advancements that can detect/prove this.

I don’t think it will be proved by “science” as we know it. It will be revealed. Those that “realize it” won’t be able to prove it to others, they will need to “realize it” themselves. This is by design, so everyone has to work towards the realization.

Where does the energy go when we die? Idk, does it find another host on earth? Does it go to a realm that we can imagine?

I don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Can’t imagine*

[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.

Of course not. But it also doesn’t mean one has to give ithe hypothesis any credence. Maybe there is an as yet unmeasured quantity that is what passes between life and death unchanged. It doesn’t fit into our current construct of the fundamental forces of the universe, but all things are possible. I can tell you this though - it is not energy the way we think about energy because we can measure that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a scientist, but I consider myself agnostic or atheist. Really probably the latter. I do take solace in what someone else wrote above, and I have thought myself, that energy never dies. It is a constant. In that way, if a person has a "soul" it has touched many other people and things in this world. That vibration continues. The world is forever different because they lived. Now that they are dead, their soul does not exist, but its impact remains and reverberates forever -- more so if they really did a lot when they were alive, good or bad. One thing that living has taught me -- heaven and hell are on Earth, and it's pretty random which one you get to experience. Enjoy life and try to make things better for people stuck in hell. Also, luck changes and is random, so carpe diem.

Allegedly, my grandfather was trying to solve some equation or variable maybe for "life" leading up to his death, and I don't have his papers. Does that mean anything to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a scientist, but I consider myself agnostic or atheist. Really probably the latter. I do take solace in what someone else wrote above, and I have thought myself, that energy never dies. It is a constant. In that way, if a person has a "soul" it has touched many other people and things in this world. That vibration continues. The world is forever different because they lived. Now that they are dead, their soul does not exist, but its impact remains and reverberates forever -- more so if they really did a lot when they were alive, good or bad. One thing that living has taught me -- heaven and hell are on Earth, and it's pretty random which one you get to experience. Enjoy life and try to make things better for people stuck in hell. Also, luck changes and is random, so carpe diem.

Allegedly, my grandfather was trying to solve some equation or variable maybe for "life" leading up to his death, and I don't have his papers. Does that mean anything to you?

^^ oops I meant this for the math or scientist poster

[Anonymous]

You are all forgetting about string theory and the idea of parallel dimensions and even the fact of black holes. Some of the most interesting research on these issues and the concept of heaven is actually done by scientist theologians.