RE: A little bit of a personal crisis
July 25, 2014 at 1:57 pm
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2014 at 1:59 pm by Simon Moon.)
(July 25, 2014 at 1:29 pm)SilentVex Wrote: Because at the same time I cannot think of a logical reason to disbelieve in it, and have not found one offered to me. At least, not one that I cannot explain with my own beliefs.
I guess I overestimated your grasp of logic.
Believing something that is unsupported with evidence because it has not been proven wrong is a logic 101 FAIL.
You are passing the burden of proof. The logical reason to disbelieve it is because it is not supported by evidence.
If you believe things until they are proven wrong, that puts in the position to believe all sorts of unsupported claims. It also puts you in the position where you are unable to criticize others unsupported beliefs if they believe them for the same reasons you believe yours.
Quote:For example one could argue that life i not comprised of such energy because science cannot discover it. However at the same time we do know that life is comprised of molecules and elements. And molecules are bonded together by energy are they not?
This energy bonding of atoms and molecules i supported by nuclear fission and fusion, both of which involve the separation or bonding of atoms and elements, and produce large amounts of energy. So energy does exist in the universe between atoms and elements and molecules.
Saying then that there is energy connecting all living things together is not entirely far fetched, and that it would recycle itself into new life is just as plausible. And that it might exist on a more spiritual level is simply a feeling that, silly as it is to others, seems plausible to me. So then I believe.
TL;DR - Energy does scientifically exist in the world, so making aether plausible, so I don't find it illogical to believe.
Energy does exist. It continues on after we die. It is utilized by other organisms.
There is nothing plausible in the claim that our energy continues on in any conscious way.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.