Anonymous wrote:Those "some" human are over 51% of the world's population and 9/10 of Americans that believe in an afterlife. And all acknowledge that there is a Creator far superior to them who they will have to answer to upon death for their actions in life. Doesn't sound egotistical at all to me. Such reverence towards God is actually humility, something atheists seem unable or unwilling to have. Now that is egotistical.

Anonymous wrote:Right, and the world's opinion was changed because of the simple observation of shadows by one man. Observation.

Anonymous wrote:That isn't the point. The point is the catalyst for change came by way of simple observation.

Anonymous wrote:The point is that a Greek man first theorized the curvature of the earth, going against universal existing belief of a flat earth, and relying, in part, on faith because gravity had yet to be fully understood at the time. For all he knew, ships could be falling off the edge of a flat sea, but he trusted based only on a simple observation. I have been reading the other threads on NDE and clearly NDE'ers are similarly relying on their own observation and, also, in part, faith.

Anonymous wrote:The point is that a Greek man first theorized the curvature of the earth, going against universal existing belief of a flat earth, and relying, in part, on faith because gravity had yet to be fully understood at the time. For all he knew, ships could be falling off the edge of a flat sea, but he trusted based only on a simple observation. I have been reading the other threads on NDE and clearly NDE'ers are similarly relying on their own observation and, also, in part, faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that a Greek man first theorized the curvature of the earth, going against universal existing belief of a flat earth, and relying, in part, on faith because gravity had yet to be fully understood at the time. For all he knew, ships could be falling off the edge of a flat sea, but he trusted based only on a simple observation. I have been reading the other threads on NDE and clearly NDE'ers are similarly relying on their own observation and, also, in part, faith.

So if someday science can provide imperial evidence for NDEs then we will know they are a natural phenomenon and not proof of an afterlife in a supernatural realm, just as gravity was eventually proved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that a Greek man first theorized the curvature of the earth, going against universal existing belief of a flat earth, and relying, in part, on faith because gravity had yet to be fully understood at the time. For all he knew, ships could be falling off the edge of a flat sea, but he trusted based only on a simple observation. I have been reading the other threads on NDE and clearly NDE'ers are similarly relying on their own observation and, also, in part, faith.

So if someday science can provide imperial evidence for NDEs then we will know they are a natural phenomenon and not proof of an afterlife in a supernatural realm, just as gravity was eventually proved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that a Greek man first theorized the curvature of the earth, going against universal existing belief of a flat earth, and relying, in part, on faith because gravity had yet to be fully understood at the time. For all he knew, ships could be falling off the edge of a flat sea, but he trusted based only on a simple observation. I have been reading the other threads on NDE and clearly NDE'ers are similarly relying on their own observation and, also, in part, faith.

So if someday science can provide imperial evidence for NDEs then we will know they are a natural phenomenon and not proof of an afterlife in a supernatural realm, just as gravity was eventually proved.

I don't quite know that gravity has been "proved". People always knew that things fall down. Over the centuries, from Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, we got better and better mathematical information about how this phenomenon works. But I don't think any of this goes beyond how it works to why it is there or what its essence is. Maybe gravity is the will of God holding his Creation together and controlling its motions. I'm an atheist, but I see nothing intellectually inconsistent in a scientist believing in God and pursuing science because he or she wants to understand the rules by which the Creator ordered Creation.

For me, the universe IS, and it is possible to learn more about how it works, so that we can predict, and even affect, what will happen, and create tools and machines that use the laws of nature. WHY it is, that's a question that I don't think it is possible to know, and it's a matter of how each of us sees the world whether, like me, you leave it at "We just don't know that" or whether you feel there has to be a reason and you ascribe to a religion or some other belief structure that provides an answer.

Anonymous wrote:Possibly more religious people are not responding because they have nothing to say, or think the premise is not strong. Maybe they just like believing in heaven and are not interested in trying to overlay a scientific explanation on it.

After all, faith is faith and is not dependent on evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that a Greek man first theorized the curvature of the earth, going against universal existing belief of a flat earth, and relying, in part, on faith because gravity had yet to be fully understood at the time. For all he knew, ships could be falling off the edge of a flat sea, but he trusted based only on a simple observation. I have been reading the other threads on NDE and clearly NDE'ers are similarly relying on their own observation and, also, in part, faith.

So if someday science can provide imperial evidence for NDEs then we will know they are a natural phenomenon and not proof of an afterlife in a supernatural realm, just as gravity was eventually proved.

I don't quite know that gravity has been "proved". People always knew that things fall down. Over the centuries, from Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, we got better and better mathematical information about how this phenomenon works. But I don't think any of this goes beyond how it works to why it is there or what its essence is. Maybe gravity is the will of God holding his Creation together and controlling its motions. I'm an atheist, but I see nothing intellectually inconsistent in a scientist believing in God and pursuing science because he or she wants to understand the rules by which the Creator ordered Creation.

For me, the universe IS, and it is possible to learn more about how it works, so that we can predict, and even affect, what will happen, and create tools and machines that use the laws of nature. WHY it is, that's a question that I don't think it is possible to know, and it's a matter of how each of us sees the world whether, like me, you leave it at "We just don't know that" or whether you feel there has to be a reason and you ascribe to a religion or some other belief structure that provides an answer.

That scientist would be a deist -- a creator god only -- not the god of the Bible who has a whole back story and set up a bunch of rules for people to follow thousands of years ago and hasn't been back since.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that a Greek man first theorized the curvature of the earth, going against universal existing belief of a flat earth, and relying, in part, on faith because gravity had yet to be fully understood at the time. For all he knew, ships could be falling off the edge of a flat sea, but he trusted based only on a simple observation. I have been reading the other threads on NDE and clearly NDE'ers are similarly relying on their own observation and, also, in part, faith.

So if someday science can provide imperial evidence for NDEs then we will know they are a natural phenomenon and not proof of an afterlife in a supernatural realm, just as gravity was eventually proved.

I don't quite know that gravity has been "proved". People always knew that things fall down. Over the centuries, from Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, we got better and better mathematical information about how this phenomenon works. But I don't think any of this goes beyond how it works to why it is there or what its essence is. Maybe gravity is the will of God holding his Creation together and controlling its motions. I'm an atheist, but I see nothing intellectually inconsistent in a scientist believing in God and pursuing science because he or she wants to understand the rules by which the Creator ordered Creation.

For me, the universe IS, and it is possible to learn more about how it works, so that we can predict, and even affect, what will happen, and create tools and machines that use the laws of nature. WHY it is, that's a question that I don't think it is possible to know, and it's a matter of how each of us sees the world whether, like me, you leave it at "We just don't know that" or whether you feel there has to be a reason and you ascribe to a religion or some other belief structure that provides an answer.

That scientist would be a deist -- a creator god only -- not the god of the Bible who has a whole back story and set up a bunch of rules for people to follow thousands of years ago and hasn't been back since.

NP. I am a religious person and I agree with the PP who said, "] I see nothing intellectually inconsistent in a scientist believing in God and pursuing science because he or she wants to understand the rules by which the Creator ordered Creation"

That said, the "god of the Bible" that is being described above is not quite accurate.

Science is a bunch of rules for people to follow. For people and all of creation to follow. Like God, science also has a back story. Last, the God of the bible never left. Most all religious people believe that God is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent.