That's what I meant by nothing.
That isn't "nothing", it's been disproven. Therefore we KNOW it's impossible, at least, without the aid of technology.
UFOlogists find what they call evidence, which doesn't stand up when examined by science.
Evidence is evidence; they find videos, materials, etc
That's evidence, it's just not evidence to suggest alien craft. Just evidence that something is there. Not all UFOlogists believe that the UFO's are alien craft; some are skeptics.
Tch, too much grabage to trawl through considering the first 30-odd turned out to factually incorrect.
Not at all. Group NDE's and the ability to recall facts disproves your hallucination theory.
So conclude consciousness is an emergent property of living material at certain level of complexity...
That doesn't make sense; non conscious material, no matter the level of complexity, can't form a conscious mind. I believe that our soul acts through our brain, in order for us to be conscious in this reality. And this can be supported with certain quantum consciousness theories.
For instance, certain psychologists believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the universe, not of the brain. Therefore the mind can exist independent of the brain.
Like the fact that DMT is known to be created in the brain under extreme stress for one.
Like the fact that other psychedelics can give more or less the same overall effects...
It accords with the known data without postulating extra, unproven, phenomena like souls...
See above. Please note, when I say "soul" I am referring to our consciousness, our minds.
And again, NDE's can occur in all sorts of people, sometimes with multiple people at once.
I most sincerely hope not.
I hope I stay true to myself and the evidence.
Why not?
ID is a religious concept. That when you say the word god you mean.. something other than god is neither here nor there to that fact. Once again though, you could set up an "its possible" class and fill students heads with all kinds of possibilities. It is still not science.
ID isn't religious. Imagine that there is no such thing as religion. Nobody has a clue what "religion" means. And then say that a scientist suggests that our universe might have been created. In such a situation, in which you would not have any sort of bias, you likely would, while not necessarily believing the theory, give it more attention. Also, science class would be the best class to teach a scientific concept; after all, if we can teach nonsense like the big bang, surely we can teach ID?
Your concept isn't history so no, don't teach it in history class. Your concept isn't language so no, don't teach it in language class. Your concept isn't science... work the rest out for yourself.
It falls under science, because it attempts to explain the world.
Even if I give you this one, the answer would still be no given that there's nothing to teach - you've already made it abundantly clear that there are no details and can't be any details. There's simply nothing to talk about.
The concept is enough to talk about.
Now it's "life on earth"? A minute ago it was the entire universe. Please, get your thoughts in order first.
ID is both a theory for Human origins and Universal origins. It is a logical enough possibility for both situations, although for the former, we (as you said) have "proven" evolution. I still think there is a likeliness that our own evolution might have been guided.
To answer the question, I find it completely baseless. There is nothing to suggest that the universe was created by some form of alien, god, marshmallow man or anything else you would care to call "intelligent". Do note that I don't find the notion itself ridiculous, just worthless. This applies to many things including the Loch Ness monster. I don't find the concept ridiculous - some big creature that swims in water, it happens. Without so much as a shred of evidence and without so much as any basic details there is simply nothing to discuss on the matter.
The problem is we are dealing with the origins of the universe, so of course we can't have much in the way of evidence (whether ID or natural beginning). Also, you say "nothing to suggest"? We exist in this universe; that is what it is based on. The question is, why, and how do we exist in this universe?
And it is most certainly not baseless; I've already explained, it's quite natural to suppose that our universe was intentionally created, as much as it is to suppose that it was not. Frankly, we don't know, and both are real and equal possibilities.
Non-living material didn't suddenly develop consciousness. It was a gradual process of development, re: evolution.
If something is truly unknowable, then stop claiming to know it (that the afterlife and the soul exist).
I'm not, it's YOU that said "there is no afterlife". Have you died? No? OK.
I also simply don't think complexity leads to consciousness. Because no amount of complexity is going to create a "self".
I think the brain is complex, but something (the "soul) perceives and uses the complexity, in order to be sensually aware.
i.e, the soul perceives the brain.
