There’s no difference whatsoever. We can’t directly observe the atoms of water crystallizing either.
Guess you haven’t read any near death experiences or the research that has been and is being done concerning them?
I think I understand the God of the gaps you are talking about. However, I will continue to believe in the spiritual nature of man. I say the brain does not create the individual, the brain and the psyche, or spirit, are separate. When the body dies the spirit lives on. Now when I was only 20 some years old I thought I wanted to be a psychologist and majored in psychology in college. I was very troubled by the Journals of Psychiatry because they were predicting a complete cure for depression and all mental illnesses in a few short months. That was around the time the theory that the brain produces the individual came into being. There were even car bumpers stating “God is dead” popping up everywhere. Well it’s over 40 years later and no cures. So I am not very worried the “Gap” will close. God is safe.
I think we’re using the words to mean different things. Because I would characterize the universe as the latter. You seem to be using universe as the complete phenomenal movie out there. By universe, I mean All There Is alongwith its underlying basis. Now, your dichotomous partitioning is actually easier to handle, so I’ll adopt it. Now, what I want to know is how do you know that Reality can be analysed? How do you know that the insights you have, aren’t some other usually-hidden aspects of the universe?
If this “gravity” makes things whirl around in the heavens, we should be able to detect it.
If these “molecule” things comprise all matter, we should be able to detect them.
If these “electrons” determine behavior of all matter, we should be able to detect them.
OTOH,
If these “emotions” guide human behavior, we should be able to detect them.
:shrug:
Nope, it’s not absurd and unnecessary. I was pointing out that there’s no reason to assume the question “what happens when I die” makes any sense besides the “what happens to my body” part.
This question is just made up out of thin air. What happens when a piece of wood is shredded? When a rock is grinded? Why wouldn’t these question make exactly as much sense?
Merely asking this question is making an a-priori assumption (there must be something besides the body) that is not justified.
Science can’t give an answer to this question (in the sense you were thinking at) but pending any evidence that there’s something besides the body there’s no reason to even try to answer it. Actually, there’s no reason to even ask this question.
IOW, I strongly disagree with you using this question to exemplify the limits of science. I wouldn’t have diputed an example like “why is there something rather than nothing?”, for instance, because there are quite strong evidences that there is, indeed, something. While you must make a completely arbitrary assumption about the nature of the wolrd to even ask “what happens when I die?” and expect any other response than “your body rots”.
But we can. Pick up a rock. Drop it. Look! Gravity!
Sure, there’s no physical gravity particles or whatnot, but we can detect gravity by its effects on detectable physical objects. Were there some force physically connecting all things, then theoretically it is detectable by its effects on those physical objects.
Of course, that we haven’t detected it doesn’t mean it isn’t there to be detected. It could be subtle, it could have no physical effects, or its effects could be given a different scientific name, in the sense that science says that two objects will feel a force pulling them together dependent on their mass, but it is neutral on whether that is due to some supernatural “force” connecting the two.
Yes, I know.
ORIGINAL STATEMENT BY USERID:
Well let’s just cut to the quick then shall we? Here are the questions I would venture to guess are bugging the OP:
What is the meaning, purpose, objective of Life?
What happens when I die?
Science can’t address them. Thus Lib’s remark:
“Use science to examine the universe. Use spirituality to examine reality.”
06-17-2005 11:07 PM
(regarding question number two, clair the obscure then regaled us with her remarkable observations regarding rotting corpses, of which we were all blissfully unaware until she pointed them out.)
:smack:
In a brilliant expose of the pointlessness of all philosophical / theological pursuits in the history of mankind, we are then told:
:eek:
WE HAVE NO REASON TO WONDER ABOUT IT!
STOP THE PRESSES! END THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY!
This question is just made up out of thin air!! Science can’t answer it so there must not be an answer! So stop talking about it already, dammit!
First, what does ‘diputed’ mean?
And what the hell makes you think there is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’? I suppose you think there is some difference between ‘sense’ and ‘nonsense’ too! What is this ‘quite strong evidence?’ based on, your OWN arbitrary assumptions and biased observations? And who cares anyway? You are making that question up out of thin air! I am so sick of everyone making up questions out of thin air already, can’t you use some other more approved substance, like oh I don’t know, methane?
All the blather aside, I think everyone here should just break it up and go on about their business, since clair obscure has made everything so ‘clear’ for us. That OP had his nerve, questioning SCIENCE.
:dubious:
huh. Odd way of phrasing it, then.
There has to be something at play here greater than just rotting corpses. Yes, when you die, your body rots - but what is absent after death that was there before? Where did the consciousness go once the brain itself expired? What exactly is that consciousness, that seperates a human being from a piece of wood?
I see your point but please be realistic. The question might be more properly worded “does my consciousness survice the death of my body”, or "is there spirit or soul that survives the death of my body?’ but we understand that implication when the question is asked. That certainly isn’t the same as “what happens to a rock?”
This same type of questioning even in the face of a lack of testability is a nessecary part of what moves science forward. There is a lot of unscientific myth in religion but ultiamtely the spiritual quest and science are both the search for truth.
Years ago before I came to any spiritual experience I believed something about us was greater than just our bodies. Call it consciouosness or spirit or soul , it doesn’t matter. Dreams seem to be an example of how our inner self remains active when our physical bodies are not. If my mind can create scenarios and interact with people in any number of ways while my body is inactive, what might a universal mind create?
The universe cannot be eternal; otherwise, it would have no energy capable of doing work. Its entropy would be one-hundred percent. It cannot be essential; otherwise, it would not be amoral. It would be more conducive to good than evil, or vice-versa. And it cannot be necessary; otherwise, language and science would not be contingencies toward comprehending it. It would make itself known to us by revelation.
Nope. It’s not “science can’t answer it so there must not be an answer” . It’s “There’s not even a valid question here, so why should science be expected to answer it?”.
Once again, what are your evidences that there must be something to study besides what happens to the body when you die? You’re making a completely arbitrary assumption, and expect people to accept your assumption and accept your question as valid. I won’t. And science can’t study a phenomenon that for all we can tell exist only in your preconceived ideas and not in reality. Your statement is as valid as the following one :
“Scientists can’t even tell us what is the preferred food of the intelligent gasteropods living on Betelgeuse 5.”
The fat that many people made the same assumption with no objective basis to do so isn’t a proof of anything. Your comment about many philosophers or other people wondering the same is just a logical fallacy I forgot the english name of.
Nobody said anything about science being expected to answer it. {except you}
If I ask a question and it’s answer is only apparent to me, only meaningful to me, it’s still a valid question isn’t it?
I disagree with it being the same as stating “science can’t tell us what happens…etc…” because worded this way, there’s an underlying assuption that something must happen, and that science not being able to answer this made up question shows its limits.
As you word it here, it becomes a valid question. You don’t assume here that something does happen, in particular. It’s precisely the original assumption worded like it ought to be considered seriously by everybody (and the susbequent comments about my posts show to me that the poster apparently can’t conceive that one could seriously reject this assumption). Your question is still not a relevant one for science, given the lack of any observable phenomenon.
Are you sure it isn’t? Why should I assume that something particular happens when a human die (when a bacteria dies, and when a rock is grinded)? It’s certainly more important to us to know whether something happen when we die, but the questions are exactly the same and exactly as valid.
Why should I make the assumption there’s something special about humans dying? If I do, why couldn’t I make a similar assumption about rocks? Actually, the belief that a mere rock can have a sort of “soul” of its own, could be an entity, does exist in the endless realm of human beliefs.
Strangely enough, I, believed that was originally answering to the following statement :
But aybe l just dreamt this post.
What why would you expect other people to accept the meaning you’re giving to it. How could a statement “nobody is able to explain to me this phenomenon that I can’t even show exist” be used to judge the ability of science to answer question.
Let’s assume you just bought a new computer and without even trying to use it, you’re for some reason convinced it won’t work properly. You call a computer tech who tells you that everything seems to be fine. Can you then make a statement about the ability (or lack thereof) of computer techs to repair computers on this basis? It seems to be the same situation here.
The computer tech/ Science
can’t fix my computer’ problem/ can’t give an answer to the issue
I assume without any evidence exists
[QUOTE]
I see your point. Mine was that stated simply, “What happens when I die?” especially in the context of this thread rather than say a biology class, implies the questions I asked which you recognize as a valid question. I do see your point in the selection of words. “I know X is true even if science and atheists won’t accept it”, is a far different statement than, I’ve chosen to believe X for personnal reasons."
The statement “Science can’t address them” doesn’t have any expectations of science to do so. It’s just a recognition of the fact that since those questions remain untestable by science you’ll have to choose your beliefs without scientific evidence.
I think the question is relevant to science but only distantly, in the same way wondering if man could fly long before it became close to reality was relevant to the first flight. As I posted above, it is also relevant to the individual.
I suppose, but for the purpose of this thread and considering the OP, they are not the same questions.
That’s ridiculous. Science can’t answer whether 1+1=2. Is it an invalid question to ask whether 1+1=2?