Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you believe in life after death?

110 Comments
© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

110 Comments
Login to comment

I say no because once you are dead that is the end of it. And if there is reincarnation, what is the point of it if you don't remember what happen in your previous life. To me that makes no sense. I also don't believe there is a heaven because, of many reasons but it would be too long for this post lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People hope for something more meaningful. It's very difficult to reconcile to the fact that we only exist to reproduce. Belief in the afterlife is a naively comforting way of dealing with the ultimate pointless of existence. Let them have their sop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would like to believe that there is something after death, though so far I've seen nothing concrete to indicate that there is.

Imagine if there were reincarnation...How many times would you have to come back as a cockroach or microorganism before you got to be a mammal again?

And wouldn't it be great if all the 'only weak sentimentalists worry about animal welfare' types came back as lab rats, or mink, or broiler chickens? Or dogs in China?

Moderator: Please do not attempt to turn this discussion into an animal welfare debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe that we are indeed reincarnated as people and face trials which we faced in our previous lives but failed to overcome. Sort of like a make-up test. Except for vegans who come back as heads of lettuce.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course there is life after death - for your genes, assuming you had children, for your works - assuming that you accomplished something that lasts, for memories of you - assuming that you have left a lasting impression on someone. But certainly not for your body, a soul, or any other non physical aspect of your being.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How anyone can have a strong opinion on this question either way is simply beyond me. I can understand hope, and faith to an extent, but conviction about things we obviously know little about mystifies me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is like asking a plant if it 'believes' in photosynthesis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Open mind = Empty mind

There is no peer reviewed evidence to support an afterlife.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Been there - Been Dead. Seen it. Came back. I'm in no hurry to be dead again since nearly everyone I know is still alive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fair enough. yes it's true. I have died 3 times already. I am right, everyone who disagrees is wrong. that's that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Life after death? like TJrandom said: it's called children and passing on your genes or it's called fame where your memory lives on in the minds of other. Believing in self aware existential life on this plane or another one is human arrogance. Life after death is a pastime for the insecure to console and comfort themselves with the hope that there is something else while alive. There is no 'something else' it's a case of WYSIWYG.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My answer is yes, there´s life after life. To know if there´s or not life, one must study deeply this subject. Our daily experiences are too shallow to show us the phenomena involved. I suggest two lines of study for those who want to discover the right, or wrong, answer: For those scientifically inclined, any book on Einsteian quantum physics and its other dimensions still unanswered mysteries. For those scientifically and spiritually inclined, if you read only English any book on NDE, if you read other languages try Kardecism - preferably in original French.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reason Beauty Truth - Reason cannot come from no reason. Then what? Believe in our own or someone else's thought up explanation? Revelation - The author of life is reflected in Nature and is a person as well and has spoken. That I can believe and trust. Yes we live on because it is reasonable and is promised by the one who is. Love is the reason and the reason is love (Trinity).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no evidence, but sounds cool to have something more. I think that the idea of afterlife is not only for make people dont worrie to much about death, but also for have an excuse for ask people to behave well. Hmm... I guess that we can try to live to the fullest, be nice and pray to go to heaven just in case, but is to much work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you believe in life after death?

I dunno.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i don't even believe in life before death

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have never died before so I don't know. I would assume death means end of life, finito. If it weren't, we would not call it death.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think there's something after death but maybe I won't be there to realize it, in my conscience.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reincarnations, yes this happens. The human soul never dies, it can reincarnate into souls of babies of future.

If we desire a human body,when we die,we will get a reincarnation on earth. The earth is callled the planet of death,some day every one will enter the jaws of death. No one is immortal in our mortal planet.

We have learn more and more about our soul,while we live.

Do not gain the whole world,but yet do not know about the soul's immortality . We all need to fulfill our inner demand and everyone's inner demands. We need to fulfill inner demands,by which we will touch the heavens,cover the earth and other planets too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Physically not but your soul can stay alive in this world for as long as your want. For that purpose you have to dig deep within side yourself. For example, Islam`s Allah is alive for the last 1400 years. Isnt it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, just not mine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why not ask whether we believe in Jell-o after death?

I'd really like there to be, but there's as much support for Jello-o after death as for life after death. You'll excuse me if I don't "keep an open mind" to either of these absurdities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If death is the end, nothing more, just blackness, like pulling the power cord from a PC, then how do you know that you haven't already died?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Been dead. Nothing there.

"Life after death" makes no sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Live for now not an after li(f)e.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If death is the end, nothing more, just blackness, like pulling the power cord from a PC, then how do you know that you haven't already died?

It's unknowable, and therefore not useful to speculate about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Crikey, what Century are some posters in? 'Human Soul'? Life after death?? LOL. Wow.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of life after death (sic); because, if there be one, it must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find life after my death to be much more plausible then no life after my death. After I die I am pretty sure there will still be life abounding everywhere. Myself, an afterlife? Rubbish.

As for myself when I am gone that is it. No spirit or soul will continue. It will be over and I am grateful for the life I have had. It was a good run and anything else from here on out is just icing on the cake.

I have no problem with being an insignificant assembly of particles in a vast universe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just came back to see any posts and noticed that the post of 06:46 pm didn't post with quote marks or the author of said quote. It was Thomas Jefferson.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If atheism is so noble and its truths so readily verifiable why have its modern proponents stooped to (been reduced to?) imitating the sort of evangelical fruitcakes we have so many of in the States?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollonarte

Who are these modern proponents of atheism of whom you speak?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rollon: Thomas Jefferson was born in the 18th Century. You're branding it 'noble', why, when all it is is; and only that. You live, you die. Scary for you? Well, start living.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A quote from the outstanding Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast sums it all up for me: "And the soul still burns".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Valhalla is real and is awaiting all vigilant warriors!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Astonishing to learn that the majority voted "yes" when there is no evidence at all of life on the other side - if there is one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People are afraid of death. Believing in life after death is a reasonable coping mechanism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a dilemma, with my head I voted no, but with my heart I hope there is something beyond the grave because over the years I have seen so many of friends/people die/be killed. As such, I hope for their sakes that there is something waiting on the other side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparantly those that don't believe in an "afterlife" of sorts don't seem comprehend that there is no proven record that conciesness may be able to exist beyond the physical body.

I guess they just never experienced un-natural things in their life that don't follow our current scientific facts... in spite of the other scientific theories that exist out there that have yet to be negated or proven.

Yes there is an afterlife, and no, you don't have to fear death to believe in an afterlife.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's definitely death after life, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Death is a happy place after living in this hell on earth that mankind is dermined to inflict on each other whether its necessary or not. The only reason there is suffering on this planet is mostly because of the harm people inflict on people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe in a concept of "God."

But I do not believe in an afterlife.

I think that death is something we already know, deep in our minds.

I believe that death is like before we were born. Return to non-existence.

The "energy" that powers us, the mysterious force of like, it might move on. But this human life will end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is NO afterlife for you as what you are now. None. A continuation of cycles, such as the carbon one, yes. Consciousness? 'Self'? No. Live for now not an afterli(f)e. Plus, god is well and truly dead. The age of the supernatural is no longer relevant to modern minds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A person who believes in life after death is not capable of truly appreciating the life they are living for the unique miracle that it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unique, perhaps, miracle, no.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, this life is all ya get. One shot at it and it's Game Over. People should really stop wasting their time on fairy tales of some afterlife.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why do those who don't believe insult or belittle the faith of those who do believe. Case in point: Unagidon. I can't prove there is an afterlife. I just hope there is. I look at the wonder of nature and the order of it and know that man has nothing to do with it.

In any case, I'd bet my bank account that if they have time to prepare for their death, most non-believers do wonder to themselves if there is life after death, whether or not they'll admit here or elsewhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't prove there is an afterlife. I just hope there is.

Exactly, a fairy tale.

I look at the wonder of nature and the order of it and know that man has nothing to do with it.

Exactly, man has nothing to do with nature and neither does man's creation, aka God. The universe just happened, there's wonder and beauty but there's nothing after our little journeys here end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I look at the wonder of nature and the order of it and know that man has nothing to do with it

Is this knowledge based on evidence of hope?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why do those who don't believe insult or belittle the faith of those who do believe.

If you say you believe in unicorns but can't prove it, it's not belitting that faith for me to point out the fancifulness and wishfulness of your thinking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

evidence OR hope?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everyone has the right to believe in an afterlife, however irrational that may seem. The problem comes when people commit irrational acts upon others based on that belief

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is it folks, enjoy the ride and make of it what you can, give yourself meaning by being, not by what you won't be. Let the gullible diminish in number ASAP so that maybe as a species we'll sort out the problems of living.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

unusual topic.. do I think there is 50 virgins waiting on the otherside? no, not a bit

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since the whole issue of life after death, with imagined possibilities ranging from an existential terminus to the traditional notions of afterlife or even rebirth, can basically be thought of as a spectrum of belief, I'd have to say it's not a yes or no answer so much as it the degree of certainty expressed that most interests me.

Agnostics admit of their doubts and uncertainty. Holy rollers too often seem to work out theirs on other people. But I find the absolutism of atheists to be the intellectually laziest, solipsistic, and most tiresome of all.

At least with holy rollers you get private or even public admission of their failure to live up to or practice what they preach.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At least with holy rollers you get private or even public admission of their failure to live up to or practice what they preach.

Yes indeed, the holy rollers are sinners (at least in their own eyes).

But the atheists I know are not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because I want there to be me and lots of virgins on one side and lots of people I killed on the other side doesn't make it so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rollonarte: "But I find the absolutism of atheists to be the intellectually laziest, solipsistic, and most tiresome of all."

I broadly understand what you mean (and previously shared the opinion, to an extent). After all, if you cannot know that there is not a God, how can one intellectually be arrogant enough to class oneself as an atheist?

This argument presumes a roughly even chance of God existing - you flip the coin and God is either there or he is not. In reality an atheist is more likely to say that he finds it very, very unlikely that there is a God based on evidence of lack of it.

As an analogy, beneath my back-garden could be the world's largest untapped reserves of oil and gold, just waiting for me to get my spade out and dig. I am not entirely closed to the possiblility. In fact I have occasionally day dreamed on this point. However, in reality I am pretty sure that this is not the case, to the extent that I could be an "athiest" on the idea. However, the fact that I believe that I do not own gold and oil reserves does not make me intellectually lazy, solipsistic, and most tiresome.

If this view is intellectually valid on gold and oil reserves, could it not be so about God?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is there a life before death?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only if you're a cat and you're on your first to eighth life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reincarnation makes more sense than anything else that I've heard. Here's a news program from ABC news; (copy & paste) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA&feature=related

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah_So: You are describing a person who is "strongly agnostic". People are often mislabeled as "Atheist", when in fact they accept the possibility, though not probability, of a God.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah_So: You are describing a person who is "strongly agnostic". People are often mislabeled as "Atheist", when in fact they accept the possibility, though not probability, of a God.

Quite, but "strongly agnostic" is basically an atheist - the difference is little more than semantics, or possibly cowardice. I am also "strongly agnostic" on the topic of goblins living in the shed at the end of my garden, but I would not tick, "Don't know" if polled on my belief in the existence of goblins living in sheds. Of course there are no goblins - they are mythical beings...

In other words, I reject the concept of one being "strongly agnostic" - accepting the minute possibility that something exists does not make you uncertain. Intellectually I find it weak and perhaps fraudulent - an expression for people who are frightened of the label "atheist".

This topic is actually on life after death, but the answer is the same whatever way you look at it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The difference is more than semantics

An agnostic's mind is "open" to the possibility, but would need a lot of evidence to be convinced. This is science.

An athiests's mind is "closed" to the possibility, regardless of the evidence. This is religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An athiests's mind is "closed" to the possibility, regardless of the evidence.

Mmm, no, the atheist has looked at the evidence. That's why s/he's an atheist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am an atheist because I have looked at and seen NO evidence. If there is a god... what or who made that? No. The evolution of the Universe is what you now see, it didn't just 'pop' into existence... and neither did we. Read up on some natural selection. No god input in the equation. No supernatural nonsense... just time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The evolution of the Universe is what you now see, it didn't just 'pop' into existence

No 'pop' but a possible 'bang' into existence. Since it can not be proven(yet) where the original energy for evolution came from, the only valid answer to where did life begin that doesn't involve some sort of belief in something, is I don't know. God or a mysterious possibly multidimensional enegry source that exists outside of the concept of time and conventional science are both essetianal requiring a certain amount of faith(one more then the other).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, The Bang started it on its journey to where it is now, the bang didn't see it become what it is now in 'an instance'. That's my point, evolution and time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bang violates the concept of time and conventional science. It's origin and by extension the origins of the primordial ooze requires almost as much faith as believing in god does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most human ashes can be tranformed into Plants. If the body is underground that can be transformed to micro organism and soil. Plant has a life although not like living creatures. Life after death means different form of life. Not as a human.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bang violates the concept of time and conventional science. It's origin and by extension the origins of the primordial ooze requires almost as much faith as believing in god does.

Incorrect. The "Big Bang" theory is derived from modern physics, and is supported by a large body of evidence: redshift of galaxies, cosmic microwave background.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reincarnation makes more sense than anything else that I've heard. Here's a news program from ABC news; (copy & paste) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA&feature=related

Save it for April 1, Redmango.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah_So: You are describing a person who is "strongly agnostic". People are often mislabeled as "Atheist", when in fact they accept the possibility, though not probability, of a God.

Check this out. Someone who is strongly convinced but not completely certain about the non-existence of gods is a weak athiest, but still an athiest and not an agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the answer to this question is; the impossibility of death in the mind of living. it's impossible for a living person to imagine death, so we imagine there must be an afterlife.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By very definition, Jonny, imagination allows for anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem with evolution is in essence you believe that something comes from nothing. Something comes from nothing. The question is, can we really conceive an idea of nothing? We may think of the darkness of space, or the inside of a pressuriezed vacumme, but still matter is present when we think of that. The human mind is only capable of envisioning creating something from something, not nothing. No mere person has ever created something from nothing. It becomes a statistical fallacy to try and prove matter just appeared in time and then evolved into the existence we know of as today. Evolution allows for more wishful thinking than most people would like to admit. The belief in a grand Creator or "Master Designer" of our universe offers a more reasonable response to this world than one might initially think.

It also stands that to make an absolute statement such as "There is no life after death, or there is no God" means that the person making it would have to have absolute knowledge. And I don't know of anyone who claims to know everything about every square inch of our cosmos. It is a self-defeating statement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem with evolution is in essence you believe that something comes from nothing.

Incorrect. Complex life forms develope from simple molecules over a very long period of time.

can we really conceive an idea of nothing?

Clearly you can't, but many of us can.

matter just appeared in time

Incorrect. Time and matter are inextricably linked. Neither existed before the other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Theo: What a load of theological nonsense. You are responding to an 'end product' you see what you see now and stand in wonder, you're asking the wrong questions, concluding without process as to what brought us here. There is no designer. It is completely unreasonable to conclude with leaps of faith. There is no life after death, no god and the onus, now believe this, is on you to prove otherwise. There is nothing more UNreasonable than having the supernatural tie you to a core life style.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can omniscient god, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change their future mind? Be free to believe in fairies at the bottom of your bed, life after death, dualism and virgin births because the Universe, as I, do not care. God is not an explanation of anything, it's a shrug of the shoulders and an 'I dunno' dressed up in ritual and the supernatural.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

here is what I think about god:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Epicurus

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

And with that I say that after death in nonexistence. It sure would be great if there was a after life, but that is not the reality of things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just the Facts: "Incorrect. Complex life forms develope from simple molecules over a very long period of time." Can you tell me where the molecules came from then?

"Incorrect. Time and matter are inextricably linked. Neither existed before the other." Did Time and matter have a beginning?

YangYong: "You are responding to an 'end product' you see what you see now and stand in wonder, you're asking the wrong questions, concluding without process as to what brought us here." Please expand, what wrong questions am I asking?

"There is no designer." Really!? I guess you are the first person I've met to have absolute knowledge about all of existence. That is a self-refuting statement my friend. I'm sorry but you don't have the knowledge of tomorrow or every instance of the past. You cannot know with absolute certainty whether you will still be alive tomorrow night or live for the next five decades.

"There is no life after death, no god and the onus, now believe this, is on you to prove otherwise." So would you say you are 100% confident in the fact that you believe there is no God? There is not a single doubt buried within your conscience (if you claim to have one)?

"Can omniscient god, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change their future mind?" Why would he have to? A Sovereign being who can forsee the future can tailor every single nano second as we experience it in time to occur just as it will be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did Time and matter have a beginning? Can you tell me where the molecules came from then?

Yes! Using logic and evidence, experiments like the LHC at CERN, will help us understand the fundementals of matter, and the time at the very beginning of the Big Bang

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Theo: as I've stated you are free to keep the mind of say, the 15 Century, just as we are free to not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I found a verse from the Bhagavad Gita thats talks about this - "As the embodied soul continuously passes in this body from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at the time of death. A wise person is not bewildered by this change"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think you people should not take sides so fiercely on this matter. People believe or not. One´s opinion will depend on individual factors: books, friends, places, family etc...the background is what makes one non-believer or not. I do believe in life after life. I have seances in my house every Wednesdays with a close friend, and the phenomena are clearly out of our reality. I have seen dead people who say that the real life is not what we perceive, but what we will experience after death. I have heard that death is not at all what we think, the process involved is not of a ¨final moment¨, but of a ¨final libertation. I have double projections, which only the initiated can understand its deep beauty and sometimes fright. And I came to realize that this different world that our eyes can not catch is only possible because of something greater than everything we know, God. But I don´t try to convince people of this, and I don´t expect they would be convinced even if I tried hard. And I know a sceptic would never convince me of his point of view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lost: Don't presume to label us 'sceptics', we are not. We are decided. You, in turn, may wait for John Frum and relish in the supernatural, one's opinion can also depend on scientific fact, that's too big a dependence you leave from your list. There is no god, no life after death, no dualism or importance attributed to us but that which we give ourselves. And back to Theo: If god is omniscient, they must already know how they are going to intervene to change the course of history using their omnipotence. BUT that means they can't change their mind about the intervention, which QED, means they are not omnipotent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nicely said! 'found' Nagoya!

I agree. What I think of after death, is my choice, and what somebody else decides for themself, is theirs. The crunch comes when my viewpoint is cause for argument with anothers, or vice versa. Like, if someone starts saying you are reincarnated from****. Id have to really consider what they were trying to say. Or if someones says this is the finality here and now, I might have to start avoiding some people, or win or something. So the questions take us to not what we think, but what others think. Confused? I am. So Ill just keep an open mind I think, and play my cards by rule of thumb, and stick with things like Love.......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...and avoid clichés like the plague, aye Sayit? We love too, love friends family, friends and life. It's part of the human experience. Just as death is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If god is omniscient, they must already know how they are going to intervene to change the course of history using their omnipotence..."

This is taken directly from Richard Dawkins.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, is there a problem with using example? You should read his work. I've read the one you base your life on and well, the supernatural just doesn't sit well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparently, atheists don't even believe in themselves.

How else to explain why they can't admit it when they take another's thought and try to represent it as their own?.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And your thoughts are solely yours? You base argument on your readings as do I. It's called knowledge. Thomas Jefferson to Einstein have also influenced my philosophy... and? Am I to clearly demonstrate each and every one in debate? No, of course not. So, it is not lack of admittance, and it's nice to see the heat of you reaction as it exposes the fallacy of god. The 'quote' I believe is misrepresented anyway, because on 'googlin' Mr Dawkins uses the personal pronoun 'he' and no 'QED'. So, some originality AT least in mine.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Theophilus -

Please expand, what wrong questions am I asking?

Or rather, what important questions are you not asking. If 'The problem with evolution is in essence you believe that something comes from nothing' and that therefore there must be a 'grand Creator or "Master Designer"', - where did the grand Creator come from? Nothing? How can belief that some omnipotent, omniscient master being was 'always there' or just popped out of nothing, be a 'more reasonable response' than surmising that the original bunch of chaotic molecules was 'always there' or just popped out of nothing and over an unimaginable period of time organised themselves merely by obeying the observable laws of science?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the end, this all comes down to evidence.

This is NO peer reviewed evidence for an afterlife or God.

Those who chose to ignore this fact, remember that you are typing on one of the pinacles of scientific achievement: computer -> Transistor -> Quantum mechanics. The modern world is built on logic and evidence (aka science).

If you disagree with the scientific method, feel free to turn off your computer, TV, lights, mobile phone, give up flying and turn down that life extending medical treatment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is NO peer reviewed evidence for an afterlife or God.

There is no evidence against either.

All sorts of discoveries are still possible. It is unscientific to set limits without having proof. There is none for and none against.

The only way to be scientific about this debate is to say what I have said and then either repeat or remain silent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no evidence against either

Lack of evidence is not evidence!

It is unscientific to set limits without having proof.

No limits have been set. Science will consider all theories with evidence to support them. Theories without evidence that are not derived from logic and previously discovered truths, will be left to religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry JustTheFacts, but I took your post as implying there was no God and no afterlife because there no hard proof of either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To the contary. Absolute certainty is a fool's gold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To the contary. Absolute certainty is a fool's gold.

I agree. I would offer you a high five, but I am not absolutely certain you are really there, and I do not want to be embarrassed later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll take an absolute from science over the supernatural, metaphysical high fives or not.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The problem with evolution is in essence you believe that something comes from nothing.

I don't quite follow you. Something comes from whatever was before it. It sounds like you're saying, "How can a lake freeze into ice? There was no ice before." Well, ice reflects a change in the form and nature of matter. Life also reflects a change in the form and nature of matter. And please don't bring up the nonsequitur of chaos. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply locally. Order can arise spontaneously. That's not the same as saying something came from nothing.

http://www.asktheatheist.com/question/thermodynamics_stump_ya

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We all come from the original matter that created the universe. That very matter that was scattered during the big bang, then through the minuscle force of gravity fell back upon itself as gas balls. Gas balls who through the expanse of time that we cannot even comprehend became so heavy as to ignite a nuclear furnace inside and created light and blew out ever more matter as the newly born star began life. That matter eventually also settled around the new born star and became planets and those who were born in the goldilocks zone in their orbits began the process that created life. Millions of those planets were life found a foothold, some developed lifeforms that became self aware and began asking the hard questions, "Why am I here?" "What happens when I die?".

There also millions of new stars forming and planets being created. when our sun goes supernova our matter will once again be blown out into space, captured by another gravity well pulled into another gas ball being compressed into a nuclear furnance, starting the whole creation cycle once more in the never ending cycle of death and rebirth that is our universe.

Is there life after after death? Yes, we marvel at it everytime we look up into the night sky and understand that cycle. Our matter will become part of the universe again and just maybe, maybe a hundred billion years from now one or two of those stray atoms that once made me "me" will be the one that tips the balance in a newly formed planet around a common yellow star to spark the seed of intelligent life there so they can ask the same questions we are asking now.

There is life in the universe other than ours and it all come from the same basic star stuff that we all are made of and will return to again.

I marvel at that. Some call it God behind it, some call it cold science, I call it humbling myself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Or rather, what important questions are you not asking. If 'The problem with evolution is in essence you believe that something comes from nothing' and that therefore there must be a 'grand Creator or "Master Designer"', - where did the grand Creator come from? Nothing? How can belief that some omnipotent, omniscient master being was 'always there' or just popped out of nothing, be a 'more reasonable response' than surmising that the original bunch of chaotic molecules was 'always there' or just popped out of nothing and over an unimaginable period of time organised themselves merely by obeying the observable laws of science?"

Because the order, majesty, beauty and design of our universe makes a statement of order, such as that it is the design of someone not just random occurences. Just look at where our Earth is located in relation to the sun, if it's orbit were closer or more far off it would not be in a position to support life.

Surmising that the original bunch of chaotic molecules was 'always there' goes well for someone who does not want there to be a God who orchestrated creation. Or for someone who's idea of God does not fit into a man-made set of scientific evaluation data. But the molecules had to come from somewhere, the fact that we have a universe beckons us to ask the question where did it come from. It is a bit of a stretch to try and grasp the infinite with a finite mind don't you think?

Interesting responses...but I am saddened that some of you are looking to science to explain all of life. Can one scientifically explain the depths of the heart? Can science explain the problem of pain and suffering, wars and genocide, hate and love?

Atheism provides no hope, no chance for fulfilling happiness. Just the world as it is now...pain and sorrow and then in the end, nothing. The bible offers hope and promises fulfilled, it offers eternal life in Christ Jesus. It offeres freedom from the power of Sin (Sin if you look into can explain the problems and stuggles of life). Most importantly it offers you ultimate satisfaction in the search for lasting joy, all other happiness fades, but the God of the Bible offers everlasting peace and increasing joy in God's presence.

I know that some of you may just disregard this or call it out as a "fallacy," but for others I ask that you at least look into what the Bible has to say as well as research both sides of the creation/evolution debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because the order, majesty, beauty and design of our universe makes a statement of order, such as that it is the design of someone not just random occurences. Just look at where our Earth is located in relation to the sun, if it's orbit were closer or more far off it would not be in a position to support life.

Read up on the anthropic fallacy, Theo.

But the molecules had to come from somewhere

So your argument is that something can't come from nothing because something had to come from something. I hope you recognize that this is hardly a logical tour de force.

Can one scientifically explain the depths of the heart? Can science explain the problem of pain and suffering, wars and genocide, hate and love?

When these are posed as scientific questions, then yes, science can explain them. But by calling them problems, you tip your hand. Why do you assume that they're problems. Why can't they just be the way things are? It's assigning purpose where there may not be purpose. Why does it rain? Because the grass wants it to rain? I don't think so.

Most importantly it offers you ultimate satisfaction in the search for lasting joy, all other happiness fades, but the God of the Bible offers everlasting peace and increasing joy in God's presence. I know that some of you may just disregard this or call it out as a "fallacy," but for others I ask that you at least look into what the Bible has to say as well as research both sides of the creation/evolution debate.

Not just a fallacy. A fallacy based on wishful thinking. Truth claims cannot be based on wishful thinking. And from your posts above, I would say that I'm probably a bit better versed in both sides of what you call the creation/evolution debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Theophilus -

You still haven't answered the question, If there has to be a Creator because the universe couldn't come into being without one, where did the Creator come from? Who or what created it? How is it easier to believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful being was 'always there' than it is to believe that the atoms and molecules were 'always there'?

the order, majesty, beauty and design of our universe makes a statement of order, such as that it is the design of someone not just random occurences.

The order comes from the observable laws of science. Majesty, beauty and design are all in the mind of the beholder and can be said not to exist outside of human emotion.

Just look at where our Earth is located in relation to the sun, if it's orbit were closer or more far off it would not be in a position to support life.

See Nessie and the anthropic fallacy.

There are conceivably an infinite number of star systems with planets in different goldilocks zones, that could well support different kinds of life. And an infinite number of star systems with planets incapable of supporting any kind of life, or affecting our lives in any way whatsoever. What are they? God just doodling? Having a bad day? Cosmic graffiti? And what's with all the space debris flying around and crashing into things, making craters? God playing bowls? Poor design? Stuff He forgot to clear away after He'd finished playing? Or could it be...just the way things are?

Atheism provides no hope, no chance for fulfilling happiness.

I don't agree.

The bible offers hope ... it offers eternal life ...It offeres freedom ... Most importantly it offers you ultimate satisfaction

Last week I had a lady on my doorstep offering me 10% per month interest on an investment of 50 man. I didn't believe her, either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At the very least, Theo should acknowledge, based on posters like Cleo, that there are plenty of people who have arrived at conclusions different from his but certainly not for want of thought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no life after death. No god. Just what we make of who and what we are.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hedge your bets. You can believe there is no life after death but better to live like there is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By definition 'faith' is belief in things unseen or unknowable... God, your 'significant other's' professed (physical) love for you and only you... Well, you know how that last one went.

Heh, heh...

Science that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whether there is life after death or not, God or no god, re-incarnation or no re-incarnation etc, i recon you live this life and stop thinking about what will happen after you die, cause you'll find out eventually lol live for today not for tomorrow ;]

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You can believe there is no life afer death but better to live like there is"

If only more people did that...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites