Clinical Death and the Afterlife

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?)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What? You have taken some science? What happened after that - amnesia or something?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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

 

Cris

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 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

 

Well let us know when you do it - it will enable you to talk with authority of mechanistic processes of molecular reductionism being the cause of life

 

Yeah, let us know when you find evidence for God.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(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.

 

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.

 

I thank God he didn't try to use "axiom" again.

 

Such study of chemical processes does not lead to anything of value regarding the ultimate cause of life however .....

 

And WHY do you say this ?!?!

 

Because current understandings of metabolism (mechanistic processes of energy transformation) can not invest life in dull matter

 

Yes they can.

 

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...

 

Don't wonder too much. He's probably either compensating for his insecurities or otherwise trying to feel good about himself.

 

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