(February 4, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Nothing

That's one reason that I conceive of the "life force" being something that is a non-material part of biological beings. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to be open to a continuation of life after the death of the physical body. I definitely couldn't make a 100% determination that I would just discontinue to exist in any way after death.

I'm back for an edit. I just realized that when you said "nothing", you meant that it would live. I'll hold my opinion on that until that is accomplished.

You conceive of the life force as being non-material because you think that the term "non-material" is a get-out-of-jail free card for absurdity.

It isn't.

btw, the "life force" has a name. Metabolism. Welcome to the 21st century.

(February 4, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Lek Wrote:

(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.

If you combined them to create a fertilized egg, you would have life.

Quote: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?

It would be a living fertilized egg.

---

(February 4, 2015 at 7:26 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Nothing

That's one reason that I conceive of the "life force" being something that is a non-material part of biological beings. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to be open to a continuation of life after the death of the physical body. I definitely couldn't make a 100% determination that I would just discontinue to exist in any way after death.

What is 'one reason'? I think you misunderstood Surgenator's answer.

(February 4, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Chas Wrote: It would be a living fertilized egg.

Why do you believe that since science has never shown that to be true?

Quote:What is 'one reason'? I think you misunderstood Surgenator's answer.

Yeah. Look back and you'll see I edited my reply.

---

(February 4, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You conceive of the life force as being non-material because you think that the term "non-material" is a get-out-of-jail free card for absurdity.

It isn't.

btw, the "life force" has a name. Metabolism. Welcome to the 21st century.

I believe it's non-material because science has never demonstrated how life can come about from a non-living source.

(February 4, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Chas Wrote: It would be a living fertilized egg.

Why do you believe that since science has never shown that to be true?

Quote:What is 'one reason'? I think you misunderstood Surgenator's answer.

Yeah. Look back and you'll see I edited my reply.

---

(February 4, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You conceive of the life force as being non-material because you think that the term "non-material" is a get-out-of-jail free card for absurdity.

It isn't.

btw, the "life force" has a name. Metabolism. Welcome to the 21st century.

I believe it's non-material because science has never demonstrated how life can come about from a non-living source.

You are making an argument from ignorance. Creating a cell from scratch is beyond our current technology.

Why do you think an identical copy of a living cell would not be living?

(February 4, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Lek Wrote: I believe it's non-material because science has never demonstrated how life can come about from a non-living source.

Human beings don't come from a non-living source, so I guess that means they don't need any of your magic? You're going to need more than "belief" btw, you'll need a hook for your pixiedust to interact with material stuff.

(February 4, 2015 at 7:44 pm)Chas Wrote: You are making an argument from ignorance. Creating a cell from scratch is beyond our current technology.

Why do you think an identical copy of a living cell would not be living?

I know it's beyond our capabilities. I meant a physical copy. Take the materials that a cell is composed of and put together a physical replica of a cell. Will it live and multiply? No. I am fairly ignorant of science, but one doesn't need to know much to be aware that scientists haven't been able to replicate the conditions that they theorize would be needed to create a living creature from non-living materials. We know what the body is made up of, but we don't know how non-living materials being living beings. Again, why should I not be open to the existence of a force or entity in us that is not physical and which lives on after death? If natural sciences can't explain what life is, why should I rely only on science to make my determinations regarding the afterlife?

---

(February 4, 2015 at 7:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Human beings don't come from a non-living source, so I guess that means they don't need any of your magic? You're going to need more than "belief" btw, you'll need a hook for your pixiedust to interact with material stuff.

Your words are meaningless Rhythm. Due to all the failed experiments, science has proven to me that life is non-material. No magic involved.

Wait. Do we actually have something that is unfaceable? Never knew.

(February 4, 2015 at 1:20 pm)Lek Wrote: Why do you not believe in an afterlife? How can you have any knowledge of the afterlife? It's a total unknown to you. You have absolutely no evidence to show that we don't exist in some form after this life. You should be just as open to the possibility of an afterlife as not. I think an atheist would view the afterlife as an unknown rather than a foregone conclusion that we simply don't exist after death.

Biological organisms live and then die. True, the existence of an afterlife is unknowable, as is the existence of Thor, Zeus, Poseidon, Allah, YHWH, or any other deity. I don't believe in any of them, and I assume you only believe in one, and an afterlife seems equally implausible. I'd note that there is no scientific evidence suggesting there is any possibility of life after death.

(February 4, 2015 at 1:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Waited a bit to post this...but....is it possible that these things being "unfaceable" is actually -part- of the indoctrination so many received?

The "first invent the disease" part of "then sell the cure"?

My first reaction to the OP was, "I don't face the unfaceable, nothings unfaceable". I don't have to find a second solution to a problem because I never bought the first solution -or- the problem to begin with. Alot of the implication here seems to surround death.....and this is only anecdotal, but I've seen people face death.......and it looks alot like the way they face life, identical, really...and I've never noticed anyone who stood out in this regard, nor have I ever seen an occasion where I could determine their underlying belief structure by the way they reacted.

It's cool; we all approach and think about things differently. I think that anyone who becomes old enough to contemplate mortality is horrified by the thought of death and non-existence - initially at least. Personally, I was, and I still don't like the idea to be honest. "Unfaceable" may have been a bit dramatic, but mortality is probably the cruelest fate we have to deal with and eventually accept or else buy into the delusion that we'll get to live forever in a better place later.

I truly think there is something to be said for people who just accept death for what it is, an essential and final step in life with nothing after. I guess the point I was really driving at was that we view life as finite and theists view it as infinite. Accepting a finite lifespan is a tougher pill to swallow than an infinite one.

I can understand what you're saying though, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on it.

(February 4, 2015 at 8:29 pm)Lek Wrote: Your words are meaningless Rhythm. Due to all the failed experiments, science has proven to me that life is non-material. No magic involved.

Are you seriously saying that based on empirical evidence you reject the existence of the real world? Or is it only the organic portion of the world whose existence you question?