belief in an afterlife
- Thread starter euphrosene
- Start date
To begin with it raises the question how you can determine that metabolism (currently understood mechanistic pathways of energy transformation) is the cause of life in the living entity, since by any stretch of the definition, that doesn't seem to be the case (there's insufficient evidence to support your claim - you cannot cause life by inducing metabolism in a dead body)
Once again, you appear to be relying on incompete/imperfect empirical examinations as a platform for establishing an absolute view
and of course when this is brought to your attention you retreat to
Science does not claim that it can explain everything.
until it appears that the issue is forgotten.
Kind of like an atheist who boldly proclaims that there is no god, yet retreats to the neutral ground of agnostocism when their general premises are reviewed
To quote benjamin wooley
"Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything."
lg,
You idiot. Good grief - pay attention - metabolism only operates in living things. If something is dead it is dead. No one has suggested we can bring back the dead. Stop inventing these stupid ideas.
And again you completely avoid the issue and make no attempt to support your claim that life is caused by the supernatural.
Stay on topic and stop spouting idiotic BS.
Put up or shut up.
You idiot. Good grief - pay attention - metabolism only operates in living things. If something is dead it is dead. No one has suggested we can bring back the dead. Stop inventing these stupid ideas.
And again you completely avoid the issue and make no attempt to support your claim that life is caused by the supernatural.
Stay on topic and stop spouting idiotic BS.
Put up or shut up.
Cris:
Is it a good idea for a moderator to ad hominem a member?
Is it a good idea for a moderator to ad hominem a member?
Cris:
Calling someone an idiot is an ad hominem. Calling someone's ideas stupid and idiotic? Also ad hominem.
Calling someone an idiot is an ad hominem. Calling someone's ideas stupid and idiotic? Also ad hominem.
Cris
(or to but it in philosophical terms, if you advocate you get an effect (in this instance life) from a cause (in this case metabolism) you should be able to illustrate how the cause leads to effect - at the moment you are attempting to establish the cause (metabolism) in something that already bears witness to metabolism (a living entity) - logic requires that you establish the cause (metabolism) in something that is bereft of the effect (ie a dead body)
- good luck
That is correct, which is why I originally advocated
To begin with it raises the question how you can determine that metabolism (currently understood mechanistic pathways of energy transformation) is the cause of life in the living entity, since by any stretch of the definition, that doesn't seem to be the case (there's insufficient evidence to support your claim - you cannot cause life by inducing metabolism in a dead body)
And if you want to advocate that metabolsims is the cause of life, you should be able to indicate how by inducing metabolism one can reinvest life in a dead body
(or to but it in philosophical terms, if you advocate you get an effect (in this instance life) from a cause (in this case metabolism) you should be able to illustrate how the cause leads to effect - at the moment you are attempting to establish the cause (metabolism) in something that already bears witness to metabolism (a living entity) - logic requires that you establish the cause (metabolism) in something that is bereft of the effect (ie a dead body)
Therefore the practical application of your ideas would be to apply the "cause" of life as you advocate it - metabolism
- good luck
That is correct, which is why I originally advocated
To begin with it raises the question how you can determine that metabolism (currently understood mechanistic pathways of energy transformation) is the cause of life in the living entity, since by any stretch of the definition, that doesn't seem to be the case (there's insufficient evidence to support your claim - you cannot cause life by inducing metabolism in a dead body)
I am just beginning by establishing that by material defintions as they are currently understood, it is not caused by something material either
you should review the logic between cause and effect and re-examine what you are advocating
calm down and be introspective
lg,
And you continue to avoid making an effort to support your claim that life is caused by something supernatural. If an afterlife exists then this is a requirement.
Can you support your claim or can’t you? Please stop trying to change the topic.
And you continue to avoid making an effort to support your claim that life is caused by something supernatural. If an afterlife exists then this is a requirement.
Can you support your claim or can’t you? Please stop trying to change the topic.
Why are you that specific person you are?
Why are you not c7?
Seriously, what prevented you from being born as me?
Or anyone else of the billions of people on this planet?
What doesn't make sense to me is that there are supposed to be billions of conscious people on this planet and I just happen to be this one particular one named c7. Why the heck would my consciousness be tied to this person and not to anyone else? What is the mechanism that ties my consciousness to this one particular body?
Really, you can't know if other people are conscious like you are. You can't know that there are other consciousnesses. What if all these people that you're perceiving aren't really conscious at all? Maybe it's like in your dreams, that everything is just your thoughts.
0/infinity=1...
One consciuosness... experiencing itself through all perspectives... at the same time...
Because... there is no center in infinity, the center (I am, consciousness) is everywhere.
You only see evidence for what you believe in.
Why are you not c7?
Seriously, what prevented you from being born as me?
Or anyone else of the billions of people on this planet?
What doesn't make sense to me is that there are supposed to be billions of conscious people on this planet and I just happen to be this one particular one named c7. Why the heck would my consciousness be tied to this person and not to anyone else? What is the mechanism that ties my consciousness to this one particular body?
Really, you can't know if other people are conscious like you are. You can't know that there are other consciousnesses. What if all these people that you're perceiving aren't really conscious at all? Maybe it's like in your dreams, that everything is just your thoughts.
0/infinity=1...
One consciuosness... experiencing itself through all perspectives... at the same time...
Because... there is no center in infinity, the center (I am, consciousness) is everywhere.
SkinWalker said:
You only see evidence for what you believe in.
Last edited:
Its quite obvious that the cause is "supernatural" because the "natural" definitions (courtesy of reductionism of course) cannot establish the cause of life.
As for changing the topic, I think pointing out the flaws in your presentation that mechanistic processes are the cause of life is the chief way of establishing the topic
However on a side issue ......
Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
-"substance and shadow"
Last edited:
Again, just because we don't yet know, and can not yet explain, does not mean the cause is "supernatural".
We can not explain every phenomena in the natural world - so according to you the cause is "supernatural"?? LOL!
Again, just because we don't yet know, and can not yet explain, does not mean the cause is "supernatural".
We can not explain every phenomena in the natural world - so according to you the cause is "supernatural"?? LOL!
well if you take what exists as the "natural" laws and determine that they are insufficient to determine the existing phenomena, it would make more sense to call it "supernatural" rather than turning a blind eye and trying to cram phenomena that doesn't fit within existing frameworks of knowledge (like saying metabolism causes life)
At least one would have the possibility of working towards uncovering the "mystery" rather than falsely assuming that it is already understood.
And therein lies your erroneous assumption.
Noone has yet claimed to know all the laws, and to be able to explain every thing that has, or will, or could happen.
It could well be impossible to get anywhere near knowing many things.
But that should not be a reason to jump on the "supernatural" band wagon.
Everything is natural. We just don't know the detail.
Science says "We don't yet know, but a current theory that fits the observed data is...."
LG says "Science doesn't know - therefore it's supernatural!"
He has not learned anything from history, and the growth of scientific knowledge which disproved a host of commonly held supernatural assumptions of the day, which we now hold as natural.
Conciousness, abiogenesis are things (amongst many others) that may one day be well understood, meaning there won't be people like LG clinging onto his god of the gaps... In the meantime, assuming a supernatural basis behind conciousness and abiogenesis is still a long shot.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
'clinging onto the his god of the gaps' you've got that right! He clings to god and the 'supernatural' no matter the discussion exposing the dogma he is completely unaware of.
Sarkus I admire your patience.
Sarkus I admire your patience.
Your making the flawed assumption that somehow human consciousness is special in the universe. It's like saying, "I wonder what force holds my computer's memory to my computer..."
Also, 0/infinity is NOT 1. 0 x infinity = 1
Although this isn't the math's forum - please note that infinity is NOT a real number, and 0 x infinity is "undefined".
It most certainly does NOT equal 1.
And if you think infinity is a real number - please write down just the very first digit.
Last edited:
First of all, I only wrote that down to educate someone from a grossly wrong belief to an only minor wrong belief. Like telling someone that the Earth isn't flat, it's a perfect sphere.
Secondly, numbers aren't defined by digits. Digits themselves are simply powers of some base. I challenge you to write down the first digit of i.
My post was edited prior to you writing this, for clarification.