And yet police departments in America and all over the world routinely consult psychics: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/01/illinois_police_consult_with_p.php http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7847202.html http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...-police-admit-they-are-consulting-psychics.do http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553119/Portuguese-police-consult-clairvoyants.html There must be something to it. My advice would be to keep an open mind...free thinker. Also, the reason one might postulate the existence of God is to know what happens after mortal death. You never responded to my take on the law of conservation of energy so let me postulate again that it proves existence beyond death. Your argument against?
This is good, but still relies on your definitions of "truth" and "evidence". I still say those concepts are arbitrary.
you seem to think that feelings are a reliable substitute for evidence based science. punch in alternative cancer cure in google. you will get over 2.5 million hits. somebody "feels" that every quack cure is real. we know that virtually all are worthless. how do you propose we separate the incorrect "feelings" for the onces that may have merit? do we come up with a "feelings" test?
come on. get real. every psychic has been debunked under examination. i dont have a problem with the concept of existence beyond death. but it has nothing to do with anything supernatural. One of the most rudimentary laws of physics is that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. Since we're all composed of matter and energy, would that scientific principle lend credibility to a belief in eternal life? In an extremely esoteric sense, yes it does; but not in the Christian sense that your "soul" will live forever in Heaven or Hell. It's quite accurate to say that the atoms composing your body will survive your death and may someday be incorporated into other lifeforms or inanimate objects. In THAT sense, you might live forever. But when most people use the phrase 'eternal life, " they generally mean "eternal consciousness" - i.e., that your current 'self' or 'ego' or "soul" will exist forever intact and will be conscious of its existence. Such a belief is in no way bolstered by the law of conservation of mass-energy.
"Reliable" is a related word for true, or evidence. Edit: the rest of your thought goes back to what I've been saying all along, the scientific worldview can only claim to be the most practical (we get to define that too, by the way, so watch out, it's not settled yet), not the most true.
You can prove this? So you believe there is potentially existence beyond death. That is a very curious stand for an avowed atheist (unless I misunderstand your leanings). I do not consider myself a "Christian", nor do I believe in heaven or hell. Now, let's explore consciousness shall we, where is the human consciousness located?
science cant concern itself with the millions of superstious feelings in the world. it is only concerned with using reason to determine truth. if i gave you an assignment to determine which" feeling" is true how would you do it?
you are digging up crap that most creationists have long since abandoned. at least come up with something original. come up with something more that "pratts". POINTS REFUTED A THOUSAND TIMES.