(February 4, 2015 at 5:33 pm)Lek Wrote: How can science be completely against an afterlife when it has never studied it?

Are you seriously suggesting that some of our best minds and a significant amount of resources are employed trying to see the ends of the universe, the depths of the quantum realm, and everything in between, but somehow the entire enterprise is simply incredulous when it comes to the afterlife? You're being ridiculous. The reason science doesn't study the afterlife and leaves the occupation to women with moustaches, crystal balls, and Ouija boards is because there is absolutely nothing to study.

(February 4, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Cato Wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that some of our best minds and a significant amount of resources are employed trying to see the ends of the universe, the depths of the quantum realm, and everything in between, but somehow the entire enterprise is simply incredulous when it comes to the afterlife? You're being ridiculous. The reason science doesn't study the afterlife and leaves the occupation to women with moustaches, crystal balls, and Ouija boards is because there is absolutely nothing to study.

You're right. Science cannot study the afterlife. I wish science could tell what it is that would kick start that body that I proposed putting together.

(February 4, 2015 at 5:33 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 2:04 pm)Chas Wrote: An afterlife requires dualism. There is not only no evidence for dualism, the scientific evidence is completely against it.

Therefore, belief in an afterlife is not rational.

How can science be completely against an afterlife when it has never studied it? To me it seems very reasonable that the "life force" (for lack of a better word) is separate from the physical body.

To you, maybe, but not to scientists.

Quote:If we acquired all the materials that a human is made of and created all the organs, etc and put them together would we have a living human being? What would it take to start it up?

It's called embryology.

Quote:When a person dies, all of the material substance is still present; just the life is gone.

Because sufficient cells have died to render the machinery inoperative.

Quote:I see nothing illogical in remaining open to a non-material existence.

You go right ahead. The evidence is against you.

(February 4, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 5:33 pm)Lek Wrote: If we acquired all the materials that a human is made of and created all the organs, etc and put them together would we have a living human being? What would it take to start it up?

It's called embryology.

And have the embryologists determined how to start that body up?

(February 4, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 5:33 pm)Lek Wrote: If we acquired all the materials that a human is made of and created all the organs, etc and put them together would we have a living human being? What would it take to start it up?

It's called embryology.

And have the embryologists determined how to start that body up?

It never needed 'starting'. It was one cell, then two cells, then four cells, ...

(February 4, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Lek Wrote: I wish science could tell what it is that would kick start that body that I proposed putting together.

It's called fucking.

(February 4, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Lek Wrote: And have the embryologists determined how to start that body up?

It never needed 'starting'. It was one cell, then two cells, then four cells, ...

You mean that if we get all the materials and build a body one cell at a time, it will have life because the first cell automatically had life?

(February 4, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Chas Wrote: It never needed 'starting'. It was one cell, then two cells, then four cells, ...

You mean that if we get all the materials and build a body one cell at a time, it will have life because the first cell automatically had life?

If we put a fertilized egg (it is one cell) in the correct environment (the womb), it will usually result in a live human.
A lot can go wrong along the way.

(February 4, 2015 at 6:34 pm)Chas Wrote: If we put a fertilized egg (it is one cell) in the correct environment (the womb), it will usually result in a live human.
A lot can go wrong along the way.

The fertilized egg came from living beings. If you took the materials that the egg and sperm are made of and combined them you would not have life. What would be the difference between the fertilized egg, and an exact replica of a fertilized egg made from the exact same substances, obtained from non-living sources?

Nothing