Christianity Is The BEST Religion....

[LadyForCamus]

If life can exist after death of the body then is has to be some form of energy, you cannot say that life cannot exist after death because you don't know; but if life is energy then according to science it continues to exist...

Like I've said, it's funny how science seems to corroborate what the bible has been saying all along.

This is just a snippet of what science has to say on the subject of life after death. Not that I think you’re going to give the article a modicum of sincere consideration, seeing as it doesn’t contain any bible passages.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ly-be-you/

[Amarok]

If life is just chemistry, why can't we just chemically keep someone alive indefinitely? My cell phone can be powered indefinitely through chemistry, the human body... not so much.

1. No a cell phone cannot be powered forever it will die eventually 

2. You assume the because a process is chemical it can be done indefinitely . This is false. 

3. You cell phone does not go through the same chemical alteration as a living thing so the example fails .

4. Even if we could regen cells forever . How would that cause problems for christianity?

---

If something is real, it is fact. Abiogenesis is not fact therefor it is not real.

That is pure gibberish

[Mister Agenda]

But Huggs, isn't that what you believe too?  Unless you think God is a kind of life, i.e., biologically based being.

Nope, if God is light, that makes him energy, which makes life energy, which means that life has always existed. Does not the Bible state that before the world was even made the the sons of God shouted for joy?

And what is God supposed to have made life out of? If not other life, it's a form of abiogenesis, life from non-life.

[Ravenshire]

You're just butt-hurt because science has real answers, while you're stuck with a god who got blindsided by a Talking Snake™ three chapters into Genesis.  

Now be a good little god-bot and get to work on solving that "yes, no, maybe" prayer quality control problem.

I have no problems with God and Christianity, that would be you and no science doesn't have real answers all the time, astrophysics has moved into the realm of fairy tales big time they have come up with a thousand ways the earth will be destroyed and yet in the supposed 4 billion years of time for this planet none of them have happened, in four billion years by their telling the earth should have long been gone.

GC

---

The laws of physics do not preclude evolution.

At all.

Neither does the ultimate fate of the universe, whatever it may be, nullify what is happening right now in living organisms all over this planet.

So you're saying physics is junk science, how loyal of you.

GC

---

To all the rest who replied to my post I'm not going to get into a running battle with you there are to many wanting replies and I haven't the time so here is how it will stand. astrophysics has told so many contradicting stories about the universe on so many subjects and so many levels that it is a joke of science, The Scientist can't agree on anything so they all promote their own fairy tales and yes that's what they are because none of them can be proven and most of what they claim hasn't been seen to exist, So as you say to me the one making the claim has the responsibility to prove the claim. I'm guessing there isn't enough time for them to do this. They are even making up stories about killer particles that can destroy galaxies and even the whole universe, they couldn't possibly know of such a particle and live to tell about it, now how stupid is that and you all call me gullible.
 As for evolution, until someone can prove that new information can be added to DNA naturally then tho whole of evolution is dead, it has never been proven and it never will be, end of story. Write all you want I will not waste my time with trying to answer 10 or more people in the same thread and about the same post. Good night and sweet dreams.

GC

And, the willful ignorance of the overly arrogant continues without abatement.

HC, every time you go as low as I think it's possible for a human intellect to descend, you always manage to pulmonary out a shovel and sign a little deeper. Careful that well of willful ignorance you've dug doesn't fall in behind you.

[Huggy Bear]

Apparently you do hold beliefs in things that violate reality.

There is strong evidence that there was no biological life before the Hadean period. For much of the time before that, life as we know it would be impossible. Once life as we know it became possible, we see the beginnings of fossil evidence for single-celled organisms. Life began, somehow. How does that 'violate reality'?

No one is disputing the fact that "life began somehow", the dispute is on whether or not life arose from non-life. Life only comes from life, that IS the reality. You cannot find one example in nature that proves otherwise.

If life is just chemistry, why can't we just chemically keep someone alive indefinitely? My cell phone can be powered indefinitely through chemistry, the human body... not so much.

Your cell phone won't last forever, genius. If we find a way to retard aging indefinitely, how will that affect your religious beliefs? I suspect not at all and the 'keep someone alive indefinitely' is just a red herring.

If I kept my cellphone supplied with fresh batteries and parts, yes it would last forever. A dead human is a dead human, no matter how young, or regardless of replacing any parts... so much for humans simply being just "chemistry".

If something is real, it is fact. Abiogenesis is not fact therefor it is not real.

A fact is something known to be true. Not everything that is true is a fact. It is a fact that coelacanths still exist.

*emphasis mine*

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/true
true
1. In accordance with fact or reality.

It was true that they were real before we knew it for a fact.

Really? So you're saying something could be true without any evidence?

Abiogenesis in the biological sense is a hypothesis that is difficult to test. It meets all the requirements for a hypothesis in that it is a plausible explanation that fits what we already know to be true and there are no known mechanisms that would prevent it from being true.

But it is a fact that at one point there was no life on earth, that it must have started somehow, and the earliest detectable organisms were single-celled.

*emphasis mine*

That's a lie, because if there was nothing stopping abiogenesis from happening then it would happen...

[Mister Agenda]

There is strong evidence that there was no biological life before the Hadean period. For much of the time before that, life as we know it would be impossible. Once life as we know it became possible, we see the beginnings of fossil evidence for single-celled organisms. Life began, somehow. How does that 'violate reality'?

No one is disputing the fact that "life began somehow", the dispute is on whether or not life arose from non-life. Life only comes from life, that IS the reality. You cannot find one example in nature that proves otherwise.

If you're going by examples in nature, the adage specifically refers to biological life only coming from biological life. Are you saying God is a biological (based on organic chemistry) life form? Or are you just using whatever sayings you think support your position without any regard to what they actually mean? The life from life rule was derived from figuring out that current life forms don't spontaneously generate from inanimate matter. It has no implications for the ultimate beginning of life. There was obviously at least one exception to the rule, even in your own scenario, unless you think God was some guy in a lab coat.

If I kept my cellphone supplied with fresh batteries and parts, yes it would last forever. A dead human is a dead human, no matter how young, or regardless of replacing any parts... so much for humans simply being just "chemistry".

I've got an axe I'll sell you for $50. It used to belong to Abraham Lincoln, so it ought to be worth millions. We only changed out the axe head three times and the handle five times, but it's the same axe, honest.

A fact is something known to be true. Not everything that is true is a fact. It is a fact that coelacanths still exist.

*emphasis mine*

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/true
true
1. In accordance with fact or reality.

It was true that they were real before we knew it for a fact.

Really? So you're saying something could be true without any evidence?

Absolutely. There are doubtless untold numbers of things that are true that we don't have any facts about. But it would have been stupid to believe coelacanths were still around before there was evidence for it, wouldn't it? You could as easily have believed sea scorpions are still around somewhere. It's possible. But it's not a smart bet. There's very little you can't believe based on 'we can't be sure it's not true'.

Abiogenesis in the biological sense is a hypothesis that is difficult to test. It meets all the requirements for a hypothesis in that it is a plausible explanation that fits what we already know to be true and there are no known mechanisms that would prevent it from being true.

But it is a fact that at one point there was no life on earth, that it must have started somehow, and the earliest detectable organisms were single-celled.

*emphasis mine*

That's a lie, because if there was nothing stopping abiogenesis from happening then it would happen...

The bolded is an excellent reason to think it did happen. You're so smart!

[Huggy Bear]

If life can exist after death of the body then is has to be some form of energy, you cannot say that life cannot exist after death because you don't know; but if life is energy then according to science it continues to exist...

Like I've said, it's funny how science seems to corroborate what the bible has been saying all along.

This is just a snippet of what science has to say on the subject of life after death. Not that I think you’re going to give the article a modicum of sincere consideration, seeing as it doesn’t contain any bible passages.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ly-be-you/

First of all, it's clear that your article isn't objective.

Dr. Michael Shermer is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University where he teaches Skepticism 101.

Also from your link.

This idea is not too far afield from a real theory called quantum consciousness, proffered by a wide range of people, from physicist Roger Penrose to physician Deepak Chopra. Some versions hold that our mind is not strictly the product of our brain and that consciousness exists separately from material substance, so the death of your physical body is not the end of your conscious existence.

How does this disagree with what I've been saying?


Why a “genius” scientist thinks our consciousness originates at the quantum level

But there are some who think our attempts at understanding the nature of consciousness through neuroscience are doomed to fail unless quantum mechanics is involved. World-renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, for one, thinks that consciousness has quantum origins.

Together with noted anesthesiologist Stuart Hammeroff, who teaches at the University of Arizona, Penrose came up with the Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory of the mind. The theory is somewhat outlandish, but cannot be easily dismissed considering that Roger Penrose is regarded by many as one of the world’s most brilliant people for his contributions in cosmology and general relativity. He is known also for his prize-winning work with Stephen Hawking on black holes. Physicist Lee Smolin once remarked that Penrose is “one of the very few people I’ve met in my life who, without reservation, I call a genius.”

Penrose believes that consciousness is not computational. Our awareness is not simply a mechanistic byproduct, like something you can make a machine do. And to understand consciousness, you need to revolutionize our understanding of the physical world. In particular, Penrose thinks the answer to consciousness may lie in a deeper knowledge of quantum mechanics.

*emphasis mine*

[Astreja]

There is as of yet no definitive, experimentally-verified link between neurology and quantum physics.

I tried to read Penrose's book The Emperor's New Mind but gave up in disgust after a few chapters. A lot of what-ifs but not a hell of a lot of substance, despite the book's enormous size.

[Whateverist]

If life can exist after death of the body then is has to be some form of energy, you cannot say that life cannot exist after death because you don't know;

There is no basis for suggesting that life can continue after death, so there is no reason to raise that as a possibility.  Death just is the end of a life.  If it wasn't alive it can't die.  If it has died it is no longer alive.  You can't know that there is a supernatural zone where your supernatural soul-body will go when your flesh and blood body dies.  That is just a fantasy that has been told so long by so many that it seems like something you can say publicly to other adults and get agreement.  But for those of us lacking that crazy idea there is reason to give it the slightest consideration.  That part of what you believe is absolutely absurd.

but if life is energy then according to science it continues to exist...

Life requires energy just as many other things do.  Life itself is not energy.  A light bulb requires electricity to be lit, but the bulb itself is not electricity.  A gas powered car requires fuel to run, but the car itself is not fuel.  How do you come up with this rubbish?

Like I've said, it's funny how science seems to corroborate what the bible has been saying all along.

No, if you only want to use science to confirm those parts of your fable that haven't already run aground on reality, then you are obviously someone with no real appreciation for science or how it works.  Nobody hearing you proudly exclaiming how your fable fits with science will pay you any mind so long as they've already heard you dismiss science out of hand where it contradicts your non-negotiable beliefs.

[Huggy Bear]

If life can exist after death of the body then is has to be some form of energy, you cannot say that life cannot exist after death because you don't know;

There is no basis for suggesting that life can continue after death, so there is no reason to raise that as a possibility.  Death just is the end of a life.  If it wasn't alive it can't die.  If it has died it is no longer alive.  You can't know that there is a supernatural zone where your supernatural soul-body will go when your flesh and blood body dies.  That is just a fantasy that has been told so long by so many that it seems like something you can say publicly to other adults and get agreement.  But for those of us lacking that crazy idea there is reason to give it the slightest consideration.  That part of what you believe is absolutely absurd.

Apparently there is basis for the suggestion.
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-a-ge...ntum-level

But there are some who think our attempts at understanding the nature of consciousness through neuroscience are doomed to fail unless quantum mechanics is involved. World-renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, for one, thinks that consciousness has quantum origins.

but if life is energy then according to science it continues to exist...

Life requires energy just as many other things do.  Life itself is not energy.  A light bulb requires electricity to be lit, but the bulb itself is not electricity.  A gas powered car requires fuel to run, but the car itself is not fuel.  How do you come up with this rubbish?

So what you're saying is that just like a car or light bulb, we can bring the human body back to life if supplied with energy?

Like I've said, it's funny how science seems to corroborate what the bible has been saying all along.

No, if you only want to use science to confirm those parts of your fable that haven't already run aground on reality, then you are obviously someone with no real appreciation for science or how it works.  Nobody hearing you proudly exclaiming how your fable fits with science will pay you any mind so long as they've already heard you dismiss science out of hand where it contradicts your non-negotiable beliefs.

In case you forgot, I issued a challenge to anyone to show where science debunked the bible, not one of you could do it, so saying I dismiss science where It contradicts my beliefs is just an outright lie.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1641081

Name one thing in the Bible that scientific knowledge has debunked.

Now if any of you think scientific information was put forth that disproves anything in the bible, no filibustering, just provide the link to the post.