T W A U ... The Chase....todays...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
If the 'afterlife' (heaven, nirvana,summerland, etc) is so good
38 Answers
Then why dont we congratulate people who have got terminal illnesses..."congratulations, im so glad to hear your good news.Your cancer (aids,heart condition,brain tumour or whatever)means that you are going straight to a perfect place where there is no more pain,suffering or sorrow.I'm so pleased for you"?
Maybe its because we all ,deep down, know that its a pile of cr@p ...
Maybe its because we all ,deep down, know that its a pile of cr@p ...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wizard69. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland - How, precisely, does God fit the bill? Which God? What observable evidence is there for the Judeo Christian Gods existence? ( I'll give you a hint... none)
That last comment of yours was just an " I give up" statement.
You may just as well point all around us and say "The Unicorn Done it", or Aliens, or the "celestial teapot ", or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster "!
There is not a jot of evidence that proves the existence of a Deity.
As to how many scientists have had their faith reinforced by God............ (not that this would be a particularly meaningful)statistic, since belief through subjective experience is hardly objective evidence of anything), I would hazard a guess and say very few.
A more meaningful statistic would be how many scientists believe in a theistic explanation of the Universe A recent opinion poll in the US suggested that belief in God was prevelant amongst your average joe public, but the further up the scientific food chain you went, the less likely it was that you would meet a believer. In the US National Academy of Sciences ( PhDs, Nobel Prize Winners etc), the % was 7% or less.
Be staggered, awed, amazed and in a state of wonderment at the complexity, diversity and sheer beauty of life and the universe, yes by all means.... but to treat any of that as evidence for divinity in the absence of any proof , no way jose.
That last comment of yours was just an " I give up" statement.
You may just as well point all around us and say "The Unicorn Done it", or Aliens, or the "celestial teapot ", or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster "!
There is not a jot of evidence that proves the existence of a Deity.
As to how many scientists have had their faith reinforced by God............ (not that this would be a particularly meaningful)statistic, since belief through subjective experience is hardly objective evidence of anything), I would hazard a guess and say very few.
A more meaningful statistic would be how many scientists believe in a theistic explanation of the Universe A recent opinion poll in the US suggested that belief in God was prevelant amongst your average joe public, but the further up the scientific food chain you went, the less likely it was that you would meet a believer. In the US National Academy of Sciences ( PhDs, Nobel Prize Winners etc), the % was 7% or less.
Be staggered, awed, amazed and in a state of wonderment at the complexity, diversity and sheer beauty of life and the universe, yes by all means.... but to treat any of that as evidence for divinity in the absence of any proof , no way jose.
Theland, back to the point of my question, if you knew someone that was dying of cancer, would you be pleased for them, would you congratulate them for their good fortune because they were going to a better place? I doubt it.You know deep down that this is the only life that you can be sure of.Can you honestly tell me that if you found out that one of your kids were dying that you would be overjoyed for them? Because if you honestly believed what you were saying, then you should be...
Wizard69 - I love life. No, I don't want it to end just yet, and I grieve when bereaved, all too often, just like you or anybody else.
I'm selfish enough to want my loved ones to be with me, not to lose them with a, "We'll meet again," attitude. That's the way I'm made.
I am filled with awe, at the thought of one day standing before the almighty God, to give acount of myself, even though I know my sins are forgiven.
When it comes to what I feel deep down, (and that is a most excellent point by the way), I have to say this. Deep down, I feel, I know, that there is the living God. To deny Him would be worse than denying my love, friendship and loyalty to my family, or a truly devoted friend.
I'm selfish enough to want my loved ones to be with me, not to lose them with a, "We'll meet again," attitude. That's the way I'm made.
I am filled with awe, at the thought of one day standing before the almighty God, to give acount of myself, even though I know my sins are forgiven.
When it comes to what I feel deep down, (and that is a most excellent point by the way), I have to say this. Deep down, I feel, I know, that there is the living God. To deny Him would be worse than denying my love, friendship and loyalty to my family, or a truly devoted friend.
With the greatest of respect, I am obliged to listen to all sides of the arguments, as well as expressing my own beliefs.
Not only are there other believers like myself, but many in all sorts of different scientific fields, can come up with reasons to evidentially debunk the atheist view. One example below.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i 4/electron.asp
Not only are there other believers like myself, but many in all sorts of different scientific fields, can come up with reasons to evidentially debunk the atheist view. One example below.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i 4/electron.asp
Theland, your link takes us to a page of speculation from a creationist PhD.
His speculation is based upon personal hypothesis only, with not one jot of evidential objective evidence to support it.For his hypotheses to be correct, certain basic laws of physics would have to be changed or ignored, such as the constant of the speed of light, or that planetary magnetic fields can reverse in a matter of minutes or hours. In the article you link to, there is no reference in the text to any objective, peer reviewed science... rather to personal quotations or to papers which have been thoroughly debunked by mainstream scientists.
I repeat my original assertion that there is no objective, peer reviewed, objective science that support the existence of a deity or that the creationist view of origin is at all plausible.
If you wish to believe in God, and in the creation story then you are of course at liberty to do so.... but be aware that the pillar that the edifice rests upon is built of one thing only.... faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence.
What irritates me most about these debates is when pseudoscience is presented as some sort of credible solution for creation. The hypotheses put forward always twist existing data, make unwarranted assumptions, ignore error rates, or use imaginary equations or constants to support them.Much of the so called science presented is nothing more than a form of intellectual dishonesty a crime in scientific circles, and surely a sin in religious ones!
I am unsure what level of scientific training or education you have had Theland, but these hypotheses only sound good to people with little understanding of the scientific method. Your scientific understanding might be improved tremendously if you took a look at the Talk Origins website, where all of the creationist pseudoscience is addressed, the errors, sins of omission, and outright false claims are
His speculation is based upon personal hypothesis only, with not one jot of evidential objective evidence to support it.For his hypotheses to be correct, certain basic laws of physics would have to be changed or ignored, such as the constant of the speed of light, or that planetary magnetic fields can reverse in a matter of minutes or hours. In the article you link to, there is no reference in the text to any objective, peer reviewed science... rather to personal quotations or to papers which have been thoroughly debunked by mainstream scientists.
I repeat my original assertion that there is no objective, peer reviewed, objective science that support the existence of a deity or that the creationist view of origin is at all plausible.
If you wish to believe in God, and in the creation story then you are of course at liberty to do so.... but be aware that the pillar that the edifice rests upon is built of one thing only.... faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence.
What irritates me most about these debates is when pseudoscience is presented as some sort of credible solution for creation. The hypotheses put forward always twist existing data, make unwarranted assumptions, ignore error rates, or use imaginary equations or constants to support them.Much of the so called science presented is nothing more than a form of intellectual dishonesty a crime in scientific circles, and surely a sin in religious ones!
I am unsure what level of scientific training or education you have had Theland, but these hypotheses only sound good to people with little understanding of the scientific method. Your scientific understanding might be improved tremendously if you took a look at the Talk Origins website, where all of the creationist pseudoscience is addressed, the errors, sins of omission, and outright false claims are
LazyGun - Fair enough, you have led me to a site that is very impressive, and if there was no alternative site to challenge the claims made on Talk Origins, then certainly, for my own inquisitiveness, and desire for the truth, I would stidy it intently.
However, I couldn't imagine Christian scientists not challenging Talk Origins, and sure enough, there is a site doing precisely that.
http://www.trueorigin.org/
I have not studied either site in detail, but I hope to, as I am not afraid of my faith being challenged, but only desire my faith to be strengthened. That can only happen of course, in the pursuit of truth.
You must have some sympathy for Christians who are not scientifically orientated, like me, who need time to work through the morass of information.
I must say that I really do admire your passion and tenacity.
However, I couldn't imagine Christian scientists not challenging Talk Origins, and sure enough, there is a site doing precisely that.
http://www.trueorigin.org/
I have not studied either site in detail, but I hope to, as I am not afraid of my faith being challenged, but only desire my faith to be strengthened. That can only happen of course, in the pursuit of truth.
You must have some sympathy for Christians who are not scientifically orientated, like me, who need time to work through the morass of information.
I must say that I really do admire your passion and tenacity.
Theland, there are plenty of christian ( and, I would imagine, plenty of muslim and jewish) scientists who are entirely comfortable with current mainstream scientific theories of origin, be it of the universe or of life on earth.
They, as with the established churches, tend to take the view that the holy books are a collection of stories with a moral or perhaps metaphysical message for believers. They do not ascribe to the view that the holy books contain the literal innerrant world of God as to how creation occurred.
Only those religious faithheads with an evangelical or fundamental view of God and religion are uncomfortable with the science, and of those, there are several quite well funded organisations that seek to rewrite the scientific cannon to support their belief.
None of these attempts, I might add, are afforded any merit by accredited experts in the relevant fields... nor have they published any peer reviewed, objective evidence in support of their views.
This was recently demonstrated quite convincingly at the Dover Trial, where the school board attempted to bring in "Intelligent Design" to science lessons as a genuine alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Michael Behe, IDs main proponent, was comprehensively shot down by the mountains of evidence in support of evolution, the testimony of a range of expert witnesses, and the lack of any credible evidence presented by those supporters of ID.
Their is no genuine science supporting creationism , young earth creationism especially... only opinion, obfuscation, misdirection and sometimes downright lies.
They, as with the established churches, tend to take the view that the holy books are a collection of stories with a moral or perhaps metaphysical message for believers. They do not ascribe to the view that the holy books contain the literal innerrant world of God as to how creation occurred.
Only those religious faithheads with an evangelical or fundamental view of God and religion are uncomfortable with the science, and of those, there are several quite well funded organisations that seek to rewrite the scientific cannon to support their belief.
None of these attempts, I might add, are afforded any merit by accredited experts in the relevant fields... nor have they published any peer reviewed, objective evidence in support of their views.
This was recently demonstrated quite convincingly at the Dover Trial, where the school board attempted to bring in "Intelligent Design" to science lessons as a genuine alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Michael Behe, IDs main proponent, was comprehensively shot down by the mountains of evidence in support of evolution, the testimony of a range of expert witnesses, and the lack of any credible evidence presented by those supporters of ID.
Their is no genuine science supporting creationism , young earth creationism especially... only opinion, obfuscation, misdirection and sometimes downright lies.
When a person dies, their life support system (lungs, heart, liver etc) stops functioning. What is left is what is so graphically discribed as 'the remains'. What cannot be argued is that life, as we know it, has stopped. I believe, note the use of the word 'believe' (as in 'belief') that I have had conversations with my dead Grandmother, my Mother and my Father. I cannot prove any of these claims as I was alone on both occasions and the conversations took place in my head. The time with my Grandmother was on the only occasion that I visited her grave and I sat there on my own and my head was crowded with questions coming so fast that I couldn't form a response quickly enough. My conversation with my parents was on the day that my Mother was cremated following 10 years of being bedridden with paralysis following several strokes. She talked with me and demonstrated, by opening and closing her hand, that her paralysis had now gone. Father was with her and said that he had been waiting a long time for her. Nothing will shake my belief that this happened. As far as I am concerned, there is a form of 'life' after death. Can science prove otherwise? Just to nail my colours to the mast, I do not believe in a diety, no matter what name it might go by.
-- answer removed --
Interesting post, Dunwerkin.
No, I don't think science can prove conclusively that life after death does not occur.... although I think that science would argue from all sorts of disciplines that is extremely improbable occurence.
As an individual, you are of course entitled to have faith in anything you wish... it would be a mistake though, to use personal experience of something unquantifiable as objective, credible evidence of a particular phenomena.
No, I don't think science can prove conclusively that life after death does not occur.... although I think that science would argue from all sorts of disciplines that is extremely improbable occurence.
As an individual, you are of course entitled to have faith in anything you wish... it would be a mistake though, to use personal experience of something unquantifiable as objective, credible evidence of a particular phenomena.
Is it not arrogant to presume that our three dimensional universe is the only one that exists, because that is all we experience every day? Mathematicians refer to many more dimensions whilst doing their sums do they not? So, what if other dimensions exist, that are only occasionally experienced by some people? If they can't be disected in a lab, this has no bearing on the question of their existence surely?
So, supposing the spiritual realm could be expressed as another, or several other dimensions?
So, supposing the spiritual realm could be expressed as another, or several other dimensions?
Theland, we all make millions of decisions a day based upon the physical laws as we know them ... or rather our body does, each time we reach out to grab an implement, or catch a ball, or walk/run/jump..... is this arrogance?
No credible mathematician or scientist will ever state that a phenomenom absolutely is... but you can have confidence that something will happen based upon repeated confirmations from observed experience that it will likely occur.
The idea of multiverses is one posited by various theoreticians true.... but it is purely hypothetical, since there is no evidence of such things....and as it happens, the idea of a multiverse is one often suggested as a means of explaining the anthropic principle of this universe.... if there were such things as multiverses, for instance, then the fact that the natural laws of this universe are organised in such a way that life can exist makes the need for divine interference even less likely.
As to how we may interact with such things... If we were to interact with such things... why only a few people, and only isolated times? Where is the thinking to explain how such interaction could occur? It is an extraordinary claim, Theland, and requires extraordinary proofs and a viable hypothesis as to mechanism, otherwise it is just fantasy... and the experiences, understandings of the universe that we currently have and our knowledge of what we as humans are capable of all militate against such an occurence.
No credible mathematician or scientist will ever state that a phenomenom absolutely is... but you can have confidence that something will happen based upon repeated confirmations from observed experience that it will likely occur.
The idea of multiverses is one posited by various theoreticians true.... but it is purely hypothetical, since there is no evidence of such things....and as it happens, the idea of a multiverse is one often suggested as a means of explaining the anthropic principle of this universe.... if there were such things as multiverses, for instance, then the fact that the natural laws of this universe are organised in such a way that life can exist makes the need for divine interference even less likely.
As to how we may interact with such things... If we were to interact with such things... why only a few people, and only isolated times? Where is the thinking to explain how such interaction could occur? It is an extraordinary claim, Theland, and requires extraordinary proofs and a viable hypothesis as to mechanism, otherwise it is just fantasy... and the experiences, understandings of the universe that we currently have and our knowledge of what we as humans are capable of all militate against such an occurence.
To answer the original question: a terminal illness involves suffering, so even if you believe in a perfect afterlife with no pain, suffering or sorrow, you would still be upset that the person is suffering and will continue to do so until they die. As one of the other posters has already added, you might also be upset for your own selfish reasons - i.e. you still want the person around to relieve your own suffering (e.g. loneliness)
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Home & Garden30 mins ago
Could The Conservatives Try To Change...
News33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.