Does life after death necessarily involve a creator?

''Does life after death necessarily involve a creator god?'' .......................................................................................... What would you say to someone playing a video game believing there was no game designer involved.... and then asks if there is a bonus level at the end of the game? ...That is my answer.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

''Does life after death necessarily involve a creator god?'' .........................................................................................................................What would you say to someone playing a video game believing there was no game designer involved.... and then asks if there is a bonus level at the end of the game? ...That is my answer.

Wow. That's almost like no answer at all. Par for you, Skorp.

reply to post by droid56


Simple answer...Creation requires a Creator. Soul-life is a creation, therefore it has a Creator.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

Simple answer...Creation requires a Creator. Soul-life is a creation, therefore it has a Creator.

Hmm...science requires that any fact be falsifiable in order to be considered a fact. That is to say, it can be disproven, and is therefore testable. So is your statement a scientific fact?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Science is man's limited observation of his environment. It has been rewritten multiple times.

Consciousness is an immaterial phenomenon that does not cease at physical death. If you can think, you have a soul. If you have a soul, it is because it was created just like the rest of our environment.

Electricity is equally as mysterious as soul-life. We inadeqetly define it as being the flow of electrons, but that is a gross over simplification. Electricity is actually the unknown force that causes the flow (DC) and vibration (AC) of electrons.

So by the Laws that we call science, electricity cant be proven to actually exist, but it does.

We can observer the movement of electron, therefore we assume electricity is factual.

In the same way, we can observe, record and measure the movement of thought, so a soul must be real.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

Consciousness is an immaterial phenomenon that does not cease at physical death. If you can think, you have a soul. If you have a soul, it is because it was created just like the rest of our environment.

I'd love to see some scientifically established peer-reviewed documentation for those claims.

Electricity is equally as mysterious as soul-life. We inadeqetly define it as being the flow of electrons, but that is a gross over simplification. Electricity is actually the unknown force that causes the flow (DC) and vibration (AC) of electrons.

o by the Laws that we call science, electricity cant be prove to actually exist, but it does.

I believe if you check the Wikipedia article on electricity, you'll find it's not quite as mysterious and obscure as you're making it out to be. Ergo, very poor example.

Electric charge is a property of certain subatomic particles, which gives rise to and interacts with the electromagnetic force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature. Charge originates in the atom, in which its most familiar carriers are the electron and proton. It is a conserved quantity, that is, the net charge within an isolated system will always remain constant regardless of any changes taking place within that system. Within the system, charge may be transferred between bodies, either by direct contact, or by passing along a conducting material, such as a wire. The informal term static electricity refers to the net presence (or 'imbalance') of charge on a body, usually caused when dissimilar materials are rubbed together, transferring charge from one to the other. A clear glass dome has an external electrode which connects through the glass to a pair of gold leaves. A charged rod touches the external electrode and makes the leaves repel.

Charge on a gold-leaf electroscope causes the leaves to visibly repel each other. The presence of charge gives rise to the electromagnetic force: charges exert a force on each other, an effect that was known, though not understood, in antiquity. A lightweight ball suspended from a string can be charged by touching it with a glass rod that has itself been charged by rubbing with a cloth. If a similar ball is charged by the same glass rod, it is found to repel the first: the charge acts to force the two balls apart. Two balls that are charged with a rubbed amber rod also repel each other. However, if one ball is charged by the glass rod, and the other by an amber rod, the two balls are found to attract each other. These phenomena were investigated in the late eighteenth century by Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, who deduced that charge manifests itself in two opposing forms. This discovery led to the well-known axiom: like-charged objects repel and opposite-charged objects attract.

Does that sound in any way uncertain, vague, or incomplete to you? Then how does it qualify as "mysterious"?

Now, to avoid going off topic, let's compare the two. The Wikipedia explanation for electricity, versus your explanation of consciousness and how it proves the existence of a creator god. Let's play Spot The Differences, shall we? For instance, visit the page and count the number of citations on the article, as opposed to the sources for your claims. Hmm, not very promising. Looks like you need to study the scientific method some more.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well, there is this article:

www.popsci.com...

Then, there is this quotation from "Basic Electricity" Published by The U.S. Naval Personnel and Staff of Research and Education Division in 2012, copyright 2002. Chapter 2, page 11, paragraph 1:

["What is electricity?" This question is still unanswered. Though electricity might be defined as "that force which moves electrons," this would be the same as defining an engine as "that force which moves an automobile". The effect has been described, not the force.]

This book is an introductory book for Naval electricians and electrical engineering students. I think that trumps anything Wikipedia can crank out.

Thats not to say that your wiki citation was wrong, but it only describes observations of static charges, it doesnt explain the true nature of electricity.

Without going further off topic, my point is that our understanding of science is still very subjective. We wire our homes to utilize a force we dont even fully comprehend. So science can not rule out the eternal soul anymore than it can rule out electricity.

I wouldnt expect to find too many peer reviewed papers on the human soul, as the whole idea is a bit too taboo for the "iknow-it-alls" of modern science. But, I would urge you to read "'___': The Spirit Molecule", by Dr.Rick Strassman. He raises alot of hard to ignore questions on the subject of an afterlife.

Ps, you see the like. Electric brain :: mysterious nature of the soul.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest


Cool stuff. Now remind me how they made these discoveries? How did they verify these findings?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


By using the scientific method ofcourse.

Im not knocking the scientific method. Instead, Im simply acknowledging that it can not prove and disprove everything, but only the things that we can observe within our four measurable dimensions (height, length, width, and time).

We thought we understood static electricity before we reallized that static charges are not always uniform, and therefore there are no real constants on the fundamental level, just fundamental trends.

In my eyes that is scientific observation of God's direct intervention. The constants change because divine intellegence manipulates them. So, all cycles have a starting point.

Who or what planted the first seed? At which point did Earth begin to orbit the Sun? When did our axis begin to tilt to initiate the equinox cycle? Surely, it wasnt always that way.

All things within the Four measurable dimensions have a beginning and end. But, if God existed, exists, and will continue to exist outside of time, then the 5D rules can be fudamentally different than the 4D rules.

What if God is eternal (5D), and He created us in the 4D simulation to train us for the 5D afterlife. If we can find happines in this limited realm, then how much more would we be able to enjoy eternity?

I feel this is a more humble and scientific approach to the afterlife then to write it off because its too taboo for our current observational checklist.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

By using the scientific method ofcourse.

And where do you see that in this sentence?

Simple answer...Creation requires a Creator. Soul-life is a creation, therefore it has a Creator.

A question that can be answered to its questioner Objectively as the Phases of Life and Death within Existence are experienced...

NAMASTE*******

i've had a small NDE and enough OOBEs to see evidence of life w/o the body.
i have never met a/the creator.

reply to post by droid56


Well , the " Who Came First , the Chicken or the Egg " Debate comes to mind here . Also , Order from Chaos , how did that ever happen without a Catalyst Created by " Something " ? I would have to assume a " Creative Intelligence " was behind both , no ?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

 

By using the scientific method ofcourse.

And where do you see that in this sentence?

Simple answer...Creation requires a Creator. Soul-life is a creation, therefore it has a Creator.

So what if I didnt announce my rationale as scientific methodology? It still can be supported via the scientific method.

I used purely empirical observation.

1. All cycles and circuitry have a starting point no matter how old.
2. All things lose energy as they are recycled by nature according to thermodynamics. Circuits loose energy over distance.
3. Therefore, all things that exist must have been created.
4. Therefore, all created things must have a Creator.

I think all of my posts on this particular thread can co-exist and even resonate in one way or another with the scientific method however crude or simplistic they may be.

What point are you trying to make?

That somehow my assertions are less scientifically valid then yours?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by droid56

 

The simple answer is: no. No, it does not.

It seems that you have failed to reference the scientific method as well.

winofiend

Someone told you about thie creator, you didn't wake up with him in your mind. You're falling for someones lies... nothing more.

Some of us (a lot of us, actually) have experienced this "phenomenon" directly. We're not "falling for" anything, haven't been "convinced by" anyone, and aren't basing our knowledge of the eternal on anything other than our own personal experiences.

That's where the whole "if you have to ask, you'll never know" cliche comes from. It's a cliche because it's true, and I think that pisses a lot of atheists off. They're angry because they don't have, and never have had, experiences which inform them of a transcendent reality that science is fundamentally incapable of explaining (or even describing).

And they'll never have such experiences if they can't open themselves up to them. They can call us all crazy, if it makes them feel better, but I think most atheists know that's not the case. And that really pisses them off.

NthOther

winofiend

Someone told you about thie creator, you didn't wake up with him in your mind. You're falling for someones lies... nothing more.

Some of us (a lot of us, actually) have experienced this "phenomenon" directly. We're not "falling for" anything, haven't been "convinced by" anyone, and aren't basing our knowledge of the eternal on anything other than our own personal experiences.

That's where the whole "if you have to ask, you'll never know" cliche comes from. It's a cliche because it's true, and I think that pisses a lot of atheists off. They're angry because they don't have, and never have had, experiences which inform them of a transcendent reality that science is fundamentally incapable of explaining (or even describing).

And they'll never have such experiences if they can't open themselves up to them. They can call us all crazy, if it makes them feel better, but I think most atheists know that's not the case. And that really pisses them off.

edit on 10/29/13 by NthOther because: (no reason given)

If science cannot explain it, now or ever, it is scientifically incompatible. Ergo impossible. And you know what pisses me off? People pretending their scientifically illiterate frame of reference makes them superior. Your poop still stinks whether you are dreaming or not.

Who know's...

I am a firm believer in much more than our lives here on earth. I do believe we 'go on' .. Where? Who? Why?... nobody will ever know until 'it' happens.

I was born and raised a Catholic, and still consider myself one today. I don't believe it to be so clear cut as Religion would have you think.. Whatever 'it' is, i'm sure it's going to be worth it

(it bloody better be. If this is it, what's the point)

AfterInfinity

NthOther

winofiend

Someone told you about thie creator, you didn't wake up with him in your mind. You're falling for someones lies... nothing more.

Some of us (a lot of us, actually) have experienced this "phenomenon" directly. We're not "falling for" anything, haven't been "convinced by" anyone, and aren't basing our knowledge of the eternal on anything other than our own personal experiences.

That's where the whole "if you have to ask, you'll never know" cliche comes from. It's a cliche because it's true, and I think that pisses a lot of atheists off. They're angry because they don't have, and never have had, experiences which inform them of a transcendent reality that science is fundamentally incapable of explaining (or even describing).

And they'll never have such experiences if they can't open themselves up to them. They can call us all crazy, if it makes them feel better, but I think most atheists know that's not the case. And that really pisses them off.

edit on 10/29/13 by NthOther because: (no reason given)

If science cannot explain it, now or ever, it is scientifically incompatible. Ergo impossible. And you know what pisses me off? People pretending their scientifically illiterate frame of reference makes them superior. Your poop still stinks whether you are dreaming or not.

edit on 29-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Im sorry, but this is a very closed minded statement.

Science is nothing more than man's limited observation and understanding of his existing environment.

What you are postulating, is that because man is presently incapable of scientifically explaining God, eternity, afterlife, etc, then none of these things are real.

There are multiple theories proposed about the creation of the universe, including big bang, EU, and string theory. None of them can be proven correct as of yet. So does that mean, that because we cant prove the universe came into existance, that we simply dont exist???

So every individual can arrive to three logical conclusions based on limited scientific observation:

1. I choose to believe God exists
2. I choose not to believe God exists
3. I choose not to care

There is no room to definitively say that God cannot scientifically exist.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

Im sorry, but this is a very closed minded statement.

Science is nothing more than man's limited observation and understanding of his existing environment.

Say that to your computer, your car, your phone, your electricity, your gas, your water, your plumbing, your house, your driveway, your coffee, your medicine, your fridge, your television...

Might as well head for the hills and start making leaves into clothes. After all, you don't appreciate science, so why use it?

What you are postulating, is that because man is presently incapable of scientifically explaining God, eternity, afterlife, etc, then none of these things are real.

No. Man is presently incapable of scientifically IDENTIFYING God. We haven't even gotten to the explaining part yet. There has to be something to explain, after all. And by your own statement, science and God are incompatible. Which makes God impossible. There is no other logical conclusion.

There are multiple theories proposed about the creation of the universe, including big bang, EU, and string theory. None of them can be proven correct as of yet. So does that mean, that because we cant prove the universe came into existance, that we simply dont exist???

That is a possibility as well.

So every individual can arrive to three logical conclusions based on limited scientific observation:

1. I choose to believe God exists
2. I choose not to believe God exists
3. I choose not to care

There is no room to definitively say that God cannot scientifically exist.

Really? Then why did you say this:

They're angry because they don't have, and never have had, experiences which inform them of a transcendent reality that science is fundamentally incapable of explaining (or even describing).

No backpedaling now. I'll catch you if you do.