Heaven is real, says neurosurgeon

[Gravage]

It's because those hypotheses are not extraordinary. If one of them is true it will not falsify the basis of all of science.

If the hypothesis of the supernaturalists is true, it will falsify the basis of all of science, because it claims that the natural universe is not a closed system. If the natural universe is not a closed system, then all of the laws of nature become nearly meaningless because there are other forces that can affect its behavior.

This is why the Big Bang is just an interesting theory that may or may not turn out to be true, whereas religion is complete and utter bullshit. If there are gods, then everything we have learned about the universe is false. If there was a Big Bang, it changes almost nothing about the natural laws, it just enhances them and provides more detail to make them clearer. This is a very large and important difference.

True, when it comes to this religion is total BS (I didn't know such a language is allowed here).

Scientists are not breaking the rule, as I just explained. The Big Bang, dark matter, the Higgs boson, relativity, plate tectonics, evolution, none of the recent hypotheses of science are so extraordinary as to cause the entire canon of science to collapse. Moreover, these hypotheses do in fact have supporting evidence. Just because you can't understand the evidence doesn't mean it's not valid.

But they do break these rules, tachyon hypothesis is one example.

Not math, physics.

Still, physics does not rule out/exclude the existence of other energy forms, because we don't know everything (you really need to know everything about everything in the universe as well as being able to detect and measure everything, and everything what physics can calculate as well as its equations support it), the main question here how do you know when you know everything? And Higgs boson is still not 100% confirmed, we still need to wait for the last experiments to actually support that claim.

You keep confusing math with physics. You need to go back to the university and complete your education. You're in over your head here.

Well, without math you wouldn't have physics, it all started with math.

The problem with religions is that the people don't simply believe what they want. They also insist that everyone else has to believe what they do, and if they don't they start shooting them. The Jews, Christians and Muslims have been at war since those religions were founded. They're actually shooting each other over fucking cartoons and YouTube videos!

Interesting, the same can be said for scientists, just because you're right it doesn't mean you have the right to use violence or any other method to make the people believe that science is right, it doesn't mean who is right or who is wrong, the important thing is chill out man, let me live the way I want, not the way you or someone else wants, and I don't think this is something scientists respect at all.

Religious people seem to be born angry. That's why they're always shooting each other. As I've noted before, religion reinforces our Stone Age tribal instincts and reinforces our differences from each other. It has no place in modern civilization.

And scientists can be equally bad as religion, examples atom bombs and hydrogen bombs as well as working for multinational companies. Scientists were all doing good things for humanity until the middle of 20st century until they created nuclear weapons and stuff after that. The good part is medicine and prolonged lifespan, the bad thing is there are no more independent scientists.
Cheers.

 

[Gravage]

I'm sorry, what?
I asked for examples and you gave none. At least, you appear to have given none because you gave the Big Bang theory as an example, but said it should be considered a theory (Which is supported by strong evidence) and not 'other hypothesis." Hypothesis being the concept prior to finding evidence to support it.

So, you gave no examples of any scientific theory which lacks any evidence.

Point to note: Proof only exists in mathematics.

Actually you have many tachyon hypothesis is one example. Than there is cyclic universe hypothesis, than there multi-verse hypothesis, than string/super-string hypothesis there are plenty of them...

You made quite an assumption, there. You assume there is a lot out there that we cannot detect. Ever.
This is simply untrue.
In fact, we're amazingly good at detecting things, including Earth Like Planets around other stars!
The best example you've given is Dark Matter. One example. Just and only one. But for this, we'll say one is enough... Because if we cannot detect one thing, it's plausible we cannot detect other things. So let's go with it:
There's a flaw in the claim. We detect it indirectly- even if we haven't seen Dark Matter directly and are unsure as to what it really is- We've seen it's effect.
You're trying to claim there are things we cannot detect at all- by direct or indirect means. Once you make that claim, you can use that to support invisible elves or anything else. Anything. Literally, any single thing you invent off the top of your head, you can say, "Well, you just can't see it."
There comes a point where one must accept an irrationality as just that- irrational. It's too irrational to go hunting for the invisible elves.
Is it possible there are things out there that we cannot detect? Absolutely, it is possible. But everything has always been Mundane.
The Bible is full of stories of Wonder and Mystery, the Sun came down and touched the Earth. The Earth is Flat. So on and so on. Why should I take that book seriously when real life observations have shown it to be incredible as a source and real life observations have always been on target?
For reasons covered in this thread, we can easily see why a person would want to believe.
Why even the lack of any evidence could seem to support their belief (It is beyond detection- almighty).
One might wonder why a person would say that zero evidence supports a belief. And there is no solid answer other than that that believer wants to believe. They will fall back on the lack of detection as a comfort. Science can't disprove heaven.
As long as scientists can't see it through instruments and determine it's mundane, not magical, not special- then it's safe. Safe to be clung to.

Big deal we can detect planets, but can we detects all energy forms, all forces, I don't think so, and I mean on the particles, forces and energy forms that do not interact with the known matter at all (that includes hypothetical dark matter).

Perhaps, but what about the atheist? Atheists have faith in things, too. Quite a lot, actually and all of it definable.
Unanswered questions gives us a mystery to solve. Granted, every mystery so far has always had a real world, 'unmagical' explanation. Yet, we are not in it to find wonders and magic, but to understand the world, the universe and ourselves.
I do not think Unanswered Questions lead to faith for most people. I think many people do not want the questions answered. Because everytime we find answers, we do not find a God. And that frightens them.
Many religious people get angry with scientists for finding answers that they didn't want to hear.

And scientists can be equally bad as religion, examples atom bombs and hydrogen bombs as well as working for multinational companies. Scientists were all doing good things for humanity until the middle of 20st century until they created nuclear weapons and stuff after that. The good part is medicine and prolonged lifespan, the bad thing is there are no more independent scientists.
Just because you're right it doesn't mean you have the right to use violence or any other method to make the people believe that science is right, it doesn't mean who is right or who is wrong, the important thing is chill out man, let me live the way I want, not the way you or someone else wants and I don't think this is something scientists respect at all.
Cheers.

 

[Neverfly]

I trust science more despite being critical, science is clear here except some of the situations that even science cannot explain (post 175).

Can you provide clear cases that "science cannot explain?"

 

[Mazulu]

P.S. Here’s a clear scientific explanation of what happens after you die.

Has science concluded its exploration and assessment of reality? And concluded that there is no afterlife? Based on the premise that there is nothing more to learn?

OK, fine! If there's nothing more that science can earn, then cut the National Science Foundation's budget to zero. Why waste taxpayer money?

 

[Neverfly]

Has science concluded its exploration and assessment of reality? And concluded that there is no afterlife? Based on the premise that there is nothing more to learn?

OK, fine! If there's nothing more that science can earn, then cut the National Science Foundation's budget to zero. Why waste taxpayers money?

Really, dude? Get a grip.

Actually you have many tachyon hypothesis is one example. Than there is cyclic universe hypothesis, than there multi-verse hypothesis, than string/super-string hypothesis there are plenty of them...

Now see- you clarify here that many are hypothesized. Not theories. This is a crucial difference and scientists are NOT running around touting any of them as FACT like religion does, not daring people to prove that MMW doesn't exist and so on.
Now the String- you'll have to take that up with Alphanumeric- I'm not touching it.

Big deal we can detect planets, but can we detects all energy forms, all forces, I don't think so, and I mean on the particles, forces and energy forms that do not interact with the known matter at all (that includes hypothetical dark matter).

All that you just listed is detected indirectly- Heaven is not.
You speculate (wildly) that we cannot detect all energy, all forces, all matter. And you have no basis to believe such other than you hope it provides support for your "Missing Heaven Hypothesis."

And scientists can be equally bad as religion, examples atom bombs and hydrogen bombs as well as working for multinational companies. Scientists were all doing good things for humanity until the middle of 20st century until they created nuclear weapons and stuff after that. The good part is medicine and prolonged lifespan, the bad thing is there are no more independent scientists.
Just because you're right it doesn't mean you have the right to use violence or any other method to make the people believe that science is right, it doesn't mean who is right or who is wrong, the important thing is chill out man, let me live the way I want, not the way you or someone else wants and I don't think this is something scientists respect at all.
Cheers.

This seems as though you have a valid point but you really don't.
Think about it: Through science weapon capability increased. That's bad, right? Well- that's debatable because as long as there are people out there waging war- defense is as necessary as offense is abhorrent.
Whether scientists are telling you how to live: No, science educates people. Religions tell you how to live.
But the world requires education- think of the damage caused by ignorance.
So if some guy argues with you on the internet about Heaven existing or not- am I telling you how to live or am I trying to convince you to think rationally?

Face it, people have been telling you how to live all your life. Laws, religions, jobs- I'll support what little freedom we have left.
While I can say, "Yes, the belief factor is your choice" that doesn't mean I'll stand by idle and watch people promote ignorance and nonsense, either.

 

[Gravage]

Can you provide clear cases that "science cannot explain?"

How can a clinically dead patient know what doctor was doing, I'm talking about small things that patient has seen, while the patient couldn't see while he/she was awake.

 

[seagypsy]

I heard that before , but how do you explain the individual can see hinself on the operating table

I have already explained this earlier in the thread. But I will rephrase. An individual can see themselves on the operating table the same way a sleeping child can see a monster in their closet. Falling asleep scared can lead to dreams and/or hallucinations that confirm the fears.

 

[Neverfly]

How can a clinically dead patient know what doctor was doing, I'm talking about small things that patient has seen, while the patient couldn't see while he/she was awake.

NO.

Citations to medical journals, sources, verified cases of people describing details they could not have known but knew because they were outside of their body. Not you saying whatever.

"A man had an out of body experience and witnessed Armstrong waddling on the Moon." It's easy, anyone could do it. My leprechaun just typed that. Give us something solid.

 

[seagypsy]

And scientists can be equally bad as religion, examples atom bombs and hydrogen bombs as well as working for multinational companies. Scientists were all doing good things for humanity until the middle of 20st century until they created nuclear weapons and stuff after that. The good part is medicine and prolonged lifespan, the bad thing is there are no more independent scientists.
Cheers.

Unless I am mistaken, history was never my strong suit, those bombs you mention were created to end a war that started over someone trying to take away the right to live from a group of people identified by their faith. So those bombs were in affect defending a religion. I am open to correction from anyone better versed in history than myself.

 

[Mazulu]

I was of the impression that scientists disagreed about what the wave-function meant. Some scientists think that it represents the limit of information content of what the experimenter can know, or the very edge of what the physics model can predict for us or provide information about. Other scientists believe that the wave-function represents some kind of phenomenon of nature; or perhaps the very edge of reality itself. There was an episode of Ghost Hunters in which they chased a "Shadow" up the stairs of a light-tower, in which the doors were locked. The ca,era caught a glimpse of a shadow figure that moved like a human figure. But when the ghost hunters reached the top of the stairs, the door was locked and they found nothing. This gave me the idea that spirits could block light (thus creating a shadow).

Now we can all agree that there isn't enough hard evidence that the afterlife exists. But if the skeptics are 100% certain that an afterlife doesn't exist, based upon the premise that they know 100% of all possible knowledge, then by all means: you don't need anymore research money. Let's use that money to pay off the debt or give it back to the taxpayers. I could use a little more money.

We'll call it the "Science Knows Everything - Stop Wasting Money on Research" movement.

 

[Gravage]

Really, dude? Get a grip.


Now see- you clarify here that many are hypothesized. Not theories. This is a crucial difference and scientists are NOT running around touting any of them as FACT like religion does, not daring people to prove that MMW doesn't exist and so on.
Now the String- you'll have to take that up with Alphanumeric- I'm not touching it.

And yet scientists tend to believe in their unprovable hypotheses, from string hypothesis to tachyon hypothesis, scientists obviously have faith to, there are no proofs for their hypotheses...

All that you just listed is detected indirectly- Heaven is not.
You speculate (wildly) that we cannot detect all energy, all forces, all matter. And you have no basis to believe such other than you hope it provides support for your "Missing Heaven Hypothesis."

Interestingly enough I don't believe in heaven or hell for that matter, I don't believe anything what church says, The question of God's existence or afterlife has nothing with the church/religion, it was in human mentality from the very beginning of human species.

This seems as though you have a valid point but you really don't.
Think about it: Through science weapon capability increased. That's bad, right? Well- that's debatable because as long as there are people out there waging war- defense is as necessary as offense is abhorrent.
Whether scientists are telling you how to live: No, science educates people. Religions tell you how to live.
But the world requires education- think of the damage caused by ignorance.
So if some guy argues with you on the internet about Heaven existing or not- am I telling you how to live or am I trying to convince you to think rationally?

Again you with heaven and hell, I don't believe in them at all, but the problem with this is I simply cannot prove they don't exist. It's similar with scientific hypothesis, you cannot prove it if that and that hypotheses are correct or wrong, until they are proven/disproven. No doubt that the world requires education, but for an example, we don't need companies and biotechnology to tell us and order us what is allowed and what is forbidden to eat, let me decide what I want to eat from my garden and not be dependent on the high costs of questionable companies' products, food and etc. also the science in the hands of military another bad part of science etc., why do scientists even work for the war in the first place, they could end it by simply refusing to work for war leaders (one thing is to willingly work for war leader, politics and etc, the other thing is when they threat to yout family)-that's the bad side of science.

Face it, people have been telling you how to live all your life. Laws, religions, jobs- I'll support what little freedom we have left.
While I can say, "Yes, the belief factor is your choice" that doesn't mean I'll stand by idle and watch people promote ignorance and nonsense, either.

And that doesn't mean you can use "scientific violence" to prove your points and force people to think like you think.
Cheers.

 

[Neverfly]

Unless I am mistaken, history was never my strong suit, those bombs you mention were created to end a war that started over someone trying to take away the right to live from a group of people identified by their faith. So those bombs were in affect defending a religion. I am open to correction from anyone better versed in history than myself.

It was more of a race to build the bomb before Hitler developed one.

In the end, Hitler was defeated before either side had one developed.

But Japan was still going strong and we had a fat boy left over from the European front...

 

[Gravage]

Unless I am mistaken, history was never my strong suit, those bombs you mention were created to end a war that started over someone trying to take away the right to live from a group of people identified by their faith. So those bombs were in affect defending a religion. I am open to correction from anyone better versed in history than myself.

No doubt that the world requires education, but for an example, we don't need companies and biotechnology to tell us and order us what is allowed and what is forbidden to eat, let me decide what I want to eat from my garden and not be dependent on the high costs of questionable companies' products, food and etc. also the science in the hands of military another bad part of science etc., why do scientists even work for the war in the first place, they could end it by simply refusing to work for war leaders (one thing is to willingly work for war leader, politics and etc, the other thing is when they threat to yout family)-that's the bad side of science.
And that doesn't mean you can use "scientific violence" to prove your points and force people to think like you think.
Cheers.

 

[Neverfly]

And yet scientists tend to believe in their unprovable hypotheses, from string hypothesis to tachyon hypothesis, scientists obviously have faith to, there are no proofs for their hypotheses...

Wrong.
Scientists may well believe in their hypothesis.
This is why we use the Scientific Method- to sidestep that bias or belief.

The method is to find the evidence to support the hypothesis or the hypothesis ends up in the trashcan- not bound in scripture.

Interestingly enough I don't believe in heaven or hell for that matter, I don't believe anything what church says, The question of God's existence or afterlife has nothing with the church/religion, it was in human mentality from the very beginning of human species.

So, you admit it, then?

No doubt that the world requires education, but for an example, we don't need companies and biotechnology to tell us and order us what is allowed and what is forbidden to eat, let me decide what I want to eat from my garden and not be dependent on the high costs of questionable companies' products, food and etc.

Agreed- but that's not scientists- that's big government lawmakers- take it up with politicians. This is off topic.

also the science in the hands of military another bad part of science etc., why do scientists even work for the war in the first place, they could end it by simply refusing to work for war leaders (one thing is to willingly work for war leader, politics and etc, the other thing is when they threat to yout family)-that's the bad side of science.

Until those scientists are captured by crooked world leaders and either killed or forced to work on nukes by evil minded people. Frankly, they're better off defending their own nation and have some semblance of the illusion of freedom...

And that doesn't mean you can use "scientific violence" to prove your points and force people to think like you think.
Cheers.

What the HELL are you talking about?
Has someone come to your door and physically assaulted you here?

 

[Mazulu]

Unless I am mistaken, history was never my strong suit, those bombs you mention were created to end a war that started over someone trying to take away the right to live from a group of people identified by their faith. So those bombs were in affect defending a religion. I am open to correction from anyone better versed in history than myself.

Those bombs were dropped to end the war with Japan. It was the Nazis of Germany who were killing Jews. The Japanese were not killing the Jews.

 

[Neverfly]

I was of the impression that scientists disagreed about what the wave-function meant. Some scientists think that it represents the limit of information content of what the experimenter can know, or the very edge of what the physics model can predict for us or provide information about. Other scientists believe that the wave-function represents some kind of phenomenon of nature; or perhaps the very edge of reality itself. There was an episode of Ghost Hunters in which they chased a "Shadow" up the stairs of a light-tower, in which the doors were locked. The ca,era caught a glimpse of a shadow figure that moved like a human figure. But when the ghost hunters reached the top of the stairs, the door was locked and they found nothing. This gave me the idea that spirits could block light (thus creating a shadow).

Now we can all agree that there isn't enough hard evidence that the afterlife exists. But if the skeptics are 100% certain that an afterlife doesn't exist, based upon the premise that they know 100% of all possible knowledge, then by all means: you don't need anymore research money. Let's use that money to pay off the debt or give it back to the taxpayers. I could use a little more money.

We'll call it the "Science Knows Everything - Stop Wasting Money on Research" movement.

 

[seagypsy]

No doubt that the world requires education, but for an example, we don't need companies and biotechnology to tell us and order us what is allowed and what is forbidden to eat, let me decide what I want to eat from my garden and not be dependent on the high costs of questionable companies' products, food and etc.

Who is ordering you to eat as they tell you to? I have never had anyone tell me what I can and cannot eat. I have read plenty of pamphlets giving advice but nothing issuing orders. When i go to the store, I certainly can buy whatever I want. And I am free to grow and eat any food I like as well. What country are you living in that dictates what you are allowed to eat?

also the science in the hands of military another bad part of science etc., why do scientists even work for the war in the first place, they could end it by simply refusing to work for war leaders (one thing is to willingly work for war leader, politics and etc, the other thing is when they threat to yout family)-that's the bad side of science.
And that doesn't mean you can use "scientific violence" to prove your points and force people to think like you think.
Cheers.

emphasis mine

Why do you keep saying this. Do you have any examples of a situation when scientists violently forced their ideals onto people? I know of situations where people of faith have used science to force their religious ideologies on people. but I have never heard of any scientists saying they will kill all those who oppose science. Usually people who oppose science die of their own doing, check out Darwin awards for countless examples. Scientists don't force science on people, we are all subject to it like it or not. Otherwise, people of faith could deny gravity and go flying at will.

 

[Gravage]

Who is ordering you to eat as they tell you to? I have never had anyone tell me what I can and cannot eat. I have read plenty of pamphlets giving advice but nothing issuing orders. When i go to the store, I certainly can buy whatever I want. And I am free to grow and eat any food I like as well. What country are you living in that dictates what you are allowed to eat?

If you control the food and put the prices you want than it0s obviously something wrong about it, why wouldn't we have our own field where we could make our own food, why should we be dependent on the companies.

emphasis mine

Why do you keep saying this. Do you have any examples of a situation when scientists violently forced their ideals onto people? I know of situations where people of faith have used science to force their religious ideologies on people. but I have never heard of any scientists saying they will kill all those who oppose science. Usually people who oppose science die of their own doing, check out Darwin awards for countless examples. Scientists don't force science on people, we are all subject to it like it or not. Otherwise, people of faith could deny gravity and go flying at will.

I'm not talking about ideals but the science itself, if you say God doesn't exist, because science has disproven it or anything like this, and than you force him/her to that opinion, than this scientific violence, I've seen that a lot in life, however, I've also seen religion doing some really nasty, unexcusable things as well.

 

[Mazulu]

I was watching the video from #176. There was some guy who recognized the nurse who had taken his dentures out of his mouth during the time that he was unconscious. And of course the skeptics will routinely read that and pull some awkwardly stupid explanation out of there ass. Just so you know, it's called throwing out data.

 

[seagypsy]

Those bombs were dropped to end the war with Japan. It was the Nazis of Germany who were killing Jews. The Japanese were not killing the Jews.

But Japan was allied with Germany. Fighting one was fighting the other. At least that is how it was explained to me.