RootsBooster Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 But I am more interested in why people persist in such ideas, why they even find them comforting at all. Because it makes for a good thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Stop being silly. Dead cells didn't come to life. There are other possibilities than the ones that you have posted. You often post nonsense, but you have surpassed yourself this time. Perhaps, just perhaps, those cells arose by chance. That seems much more likely to me than the existence of a loving, but vengeful God. What do you think:cool: I think Grahame lives in a strange world all of his own, nothing he ever posts makes any sense, he spouts Christianity but has no compassion , he gets mardy and puts people on his ignore list,calls atheists names as though we're some sub species but doesn't like it when boots on other foot. He doesn't even accept that God and old testament are anything to do with christianity. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 *Awards Phanerothyme 50 "Free Thinker" points* Information can be stored/carried in many ways ie. light + sound pulses/frequencies - just because we can't concieve a reason for the data/information/soul/consciousness/personality to stay intact and not disappear/dissipate, doesn't mean it can't. And yet in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that it does, or even a coherent theory of how it could it becomes nothing more than an idea for a bad start trek episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 And yet in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that it does, or even a coherent theory of how it could it becomes nothing more than an idea for a bad start trek episode. Did you read the opening post?.... Assuming we discovered there IS evidence of what most would call an afterlife, and just open your mind to possibility for a moment, what scientific explainations or suggestions can you come up with that might sound even remotely plausible? The entire thread is just a "what if?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Did you read the opening post?.... yes, I did, and after reading it again, specifically this part: "what scientific explainations or suggestions can you come up with that might sound even remotely plausible" ...I think I can be forgiven for thinking that you were looking for scientific explanations which are plausible, rather than ideas for star trek fanfiction. Why not specify in what form this hypothetical evidence for an afterlife might take, and then you could try and build a theory to fit the hypothetical observation? I have absolutely nothing against 'what ifs' in general, I just have taken issue with your use of scientific language to frame it when it is completely not warranted. And incidentally, a lot of the things mentioned in this thread actually have already been the subject of bad soft sci-fi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Assuming we discovered there IS evidence of what most would call an afterlife, and just open your mind to possibility for a moment, what scientific explainations or suggestions can you come up with that might sound even remotely plausible? To answer this bit, absolutely none! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 yes, I did, and after reading it again, specifically this part: "what scientific explainations or suggestions can you come up with that might sound even remotely plausible" ...I think I can be forgiven for thinking that you were looking for scientific explanations which are plausible, rather than ideas for star trek fanfiction. Why not specify in what form this hypothetical evidence for an afterlife might take, and then you could try and build a theory to fit the hypothetical observation? I have absolutely nothing against 'what ifs' in general, I just have taken issue with your use of scientific language to frame it when it is completely not warranted. And incidentally, a lot of the things mentioned in this thread actually have already been the subject of bad soft sci-fi. To answer this bit, absolutely none! See the last line of post #80 and lighten up a bit. You might even want to try and contribute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Well, I'm a mere worker bee with little edumecation and couldn't think of the right word to use, so I used "scientific". Also the thread title didn't have enough characters for me to put it into other words But I wasn't going on the thread title, I was going on the 'other words' you used to describe it in the original post. And I did contribute, pages ago, with what I thought was the only 'scientifically plausible' way there could be an afterlife (which admittedly, also could probably be a bad star trek episode). The only possible explanation for life after death that I can think of that doesn't involve ridiculous impossible concepts like 'souls' or similar is a sort of matrix style 'this isn't the real reality' kind of thing. Like, when you finally die, you just wake up and realise your whole life has been a dream, like its an M. Night Shyamalan film or something, and really you're just a floating brain in a jar, on a rack with millions of other floating brains in jars. Stretching off for miles and miles as the camera pans up and it fades out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 But I wasn't going on the thread title, I was going on the 'other words' you used to describe it in the original post. And I did contribute, pages ago, with what I thought was the only 'scientifically plausible' way there could be an afterlife (which admittedly, also could probably be a bad star trek episode). The only possible explanation for life after death that I can think of that doesn't involve ridiculous impossible concepts like 'souls' or similar is a sort of matrix style 'this isn't the real reality' kind of thing. Like, when you finally die, you just wake up and realise your whole life has been a dream, like its an M. Night Shyamalan film or something, and really you're just a floating brain in a jar, on a rack with millions of other floating brains in jars. Stretching off for miles and miles as the camera pans up and it fades out. Is your real name Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr, or maybe Dr. Alfred Necessiter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 And yet in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that it does, or even a coherent theory of how it could it becomes nothing more than an idea for a bad start trek episode. It's true, the results from the gravity wave detector are arguable at best - but remember it was "unwanted noise" in the Horn Antenna at Bell labs that led to the comparatively recent discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, and that discovery itself led to confirmation of the big bang theory. Hogan, the man at Fermilab who proposed that the noise characteristics of the results coming out of the GEO600 gravitational observatory indicated that spacetime has noticeable granularity, was probably a bit too quick off the mark, it turns out. But he was only claiming experimental evidence of recent theories in physics and the confirmation of the holographic principle as advanced by Susskind and others at Stanford. Reality is always stranger than fiction - for a good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.