Clinical Death and the Afterlife

Cris said:
lg,

Not when you understand science. I assume you have never studied science and perhaps never took science classes at school, correct? Try taking at least a biology class and some basic chemistry and then we'll chat again.
Click to expand...

seems like you are relying on your empirical knowledge (imperfect senses) again

that and also making an appeal to authority, although I don't know why?
(would it make you feel better if your arguments were defeated by someone who doesn't have a foundation in science?)
:D
 
What? You have taken some science? What happened after that - amnesia or something?
 
Cris said:
What? You have taken some science? What happened after that - amnesia or something?
Click to expand...

you are contending that it is impossible for a person who studies science to contend the findings of science with science?

Does that mean you accept science as dogma?
 
More of your illogical gibberish again.

If you understood biology you wouldn't be asking such bizarre basic questions and or making such distorted assertions.
 
lightgigantic said:
metabolism is a symptom of consciousness not the cause - if metabolism (mechanistic proceedures of energy transformation in the gross body) was the cause it would be possible to invest life in dead matter
Click to expand...

That might be possible. That is hasn't been done is not proof that it can't be done.
 
Cris

]More of your illogical gibberish again.
Click to expand...
You don't think that the conclusive findings of science are refined or altered by scientists?
What are you reading in the name of history?

If you understood biology you wouldn't be asking such bizarre basic questions and or making such distorted assertions.
Click to expand...
If you understood biology outside of the ideology of dawkins it could help widen your scientific scope

Try reading

John Eccles (Nobel Laureate PhD in Neurology),
Werner Arber (Nobel Laureate and Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology),
Charles Townes (Nobel Laureate in Physics)
Karl Pribram (Cognitive science and psychology Emeritus Professor GU Washington)

there are numerous others of course.
Of course you probably won't read such things because your interest in science is severely influenced by your atheistic value system
 
spidergoat said:
Yeah, let us know when you find evidence for God.
Click to expand...

That raises the epistemological question of whether you are prepared to apply yourself to the process of acquiring such knowledge
;)

(unlike the life comes form matter idea, there is no process you can advocate to enable one direct vision of such a conclusion)
 
Unlike the God Theory, we can study the chemical processes that lead to the activity of the body.
 
lightgigantic said:
That raises the epistemological question of whether you are prepared to apply yourself to the process of acquiring such knowledge
Click to expand...

That is not an epistemological question. There is no special Epistemological Method for acquiring knowledge of any kind. In epistemology, one simply expresses a belief, then explains how he justifies it. I derive this simple fact from the definition of epistemology : the study of knowledge. The process of acquiring knowledge is called learning, not epistemology.

Months have passed now, and you are still misusing your favorite word. Truly the mark of insanity is to nonetheless expect to make sense this time around.
 
If you are going to say that metabolism is the cause of life it is expected that you can display its effect (ie life) in the absence of its cause (ie metabolism) - in other words it is expected that you could invest life in dull matter (abiogenesis) - can you do that? (outside of saying "in theory" or "sometime in the future when we have more knowledge")
 
LG, what is your conclusion from our current lack of scientific consensus on abiogenesis. As always, you seem coy when offering alternative explanations. Your job seems to find things science can not yet explain, and I just wonder why...
 
Fire said:
LG, what is your conclusion from our current lack of scientific consensus on abiogenesis. As always, you seem coy when offering alternative explanations. Your job seems to find things science can not yet explain, and I just wonder why...
Click to expand...

Don't wonder too much. He's probably either compensating for his insecurities or otherwise trying to feel good about himself.
 
Fire said:
LG, what is your conclusion from our current lack of scientific consensus on abiogenesis. As always, you seem coy when offering alternative explanations. Your job seems to find things science can not yet explain, and I just wonder why...
Click to expand...

Well the first point is that there is no authority for statements like this ....

I think the afterlife is one of the most irrational of religious beliefs.

It exists purely because of wishful thinking, but when you think about it rationally, there is nothing to fear. I compare it to before I was born, and that wasn't all too traumatic, was it? In fact oblivion will be good restbite from peeing my pants when I'm an old man.

Seriously though, an afterlife is so unlikely that it is safe to consider it impossible - god or no god.

... on the strength of scientific (reductionist) evidence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top