Are we conscious after death? If we don't understand why and how consciousness exsist now, how do we know it doesn't continue after death? Can consciousness survive the death of the body? If consciousness is seperate from the body, shouldn't it survive the body? Could this second level of consciousness be a sort of heaven or hell? Is it possible that negative energy weigh on our conscious, and if we have too much negativity on our conscious, our second level for consciousness will be negative. Could the results be having to spend your second level of consciousness as a rock or animal, since you abused your gift of being the most intelligent creature in the universe. Could this cycle continue until the earth is filled with people of good karma. Could this be paradise earth? Or is our second consciousness on another planet or in another universe?
Space Madness
JoinedPosts by Space Madness
-
65
Life after death OR Consciousness after death?
by Space Madness inare we conscious after death?
if we don't understand why and how consciousness exsist now, how do we know it doesn't continue after death?
can consciousness survive the death of the body?
-
-
-
56
I hate being ugly!
by Space Madness ini finally came to the realization that i am ugly.
i'm 28 years old and never had a girlfriend.
women pay me absolutely no attention when i'm in public.
-
-
Space Madness
I'm pleasently suprised at how nice you guys are. I just want to clarify that when I mentioned drugs I wasn't talking crack, meth, herion, or any hard drug. I tried ecstasy for the first time a few days ago and it was absolutely amazing. I never felt so happy in my life. All my worries, stress, and sadness were completely gone and I was in a complete state of pure bliss. Now I know why they call it the love drug. Just knowing that happiness is just one pill away helps me deal with my situatuion. I once heard someone say in order to have a sucessful relationship you have to not only learn how to love but also learn how to be loved. Since my grandmother was the only person who ever loved me, I neither know how to love or be loved. But I'm not worried about it anymore. Drugs such as LSD, marijuanna, mushrooms, and x has helped me come to terms with my life. I literally feel no pain when I use drugs. Prior to using drugs I was extremely sucidical (not going to go into details but I had an unbelievably bad childhood), now I'm at peace. It's suck that it had to come to this, but it has help me tremendously.
-
56
I hate being ugly!
by Space Madness ini finally came to the realization that i am ugly.
i'm 28 years old and never had a girlfriend.
women pay me absolutely no attention when i'm in public.
-
-
Space Madness
LOL! You guys are funny. I actually don't feel so bad now. Thanks!
-
56
I hate being ugly!
by Space Madness ini finally came to the realization that i am ugly.
i'm 28 years old and never had a girlfriend.
women pay me absolutely no attention when i'm in public.
-
-
Space Madness
I finally came to the realization that I am ugly. I'm 28 years old and never had a girlfriend. Women pay me absolutely no attention when I'm in public. This explain why people always treated me so badly and why I never had friends. Nobody wants to have an ugly friend, it reflects poorly on them. My own mom called me ugly when I was 17. I'm not really complaining because I've turned to drugs to fill the void but being ugly does make life Very difficult.
-
38
Are we alone?
by Xanthippe inthe title of this thread is the title of a chapter in the book by richard dawkins that i'm really enjoying in spite of or perhaps because of it having been written for young people.
i thought i would share a couple of paragraphs on his theories of the kind of bodies aliens on other planets might have :-.
'let's exercise our imaginations a bit more.
-
-
Space Madness
"This exchange made me chuckle...."
Perhaps you should explain what you found funny? He asked for a source and I suggested a book by a well known astronomer who is a former assistant of Dr. Hubble, the very man who proposed the Big Bang theory. Where's the humor?
Also this is your second post of you stating nonsense with no attempt to point out any flaw in my logic or an attempt make any type of sensible argument. I have no interest in trolls and will be ignoring you from here on.
-
38
Are we alone?
by Xanthippe inthe title of this thread is the title of a chapter in the book by richard dawkins that i'm really enjoying in spite of or perhaps because of it having been written for young people.
i thought i would share a couple of paragraphs on his theories of the kind of bodies aliens on other planets might have :-.
'let's exercise our imaginations a bit more.
-
-
Space Madness
Ignoring his appaling knowlege of science, amazingly as a chemistry major....chemistry being the science of stoms...space madness says we are yet to even see an atom.... This one really takes the biscuit lol....come on spacemadness, tellthe truth who are you really? You obviously are a forum member who set up a new account in order to insert some weird objections and ideas.....
Atoms are signifactly smaller than a wavelenght of light which makes them impossible to see.
Not only have we seen atoms we can see the bonds between them now too!
See the bonds? Atoms are connected due to overlapping orbitals or electron clouds. You seem to be implying that atoms are bonded via straight lines which couldn't be more false.That should of clued you in that the image you posted was a computer model of an molecule, not an actual molecule.
You can google thousands of images of atoms.......we have evene arranged atoms to write words etc for advertising in photographs such as the famous IBM image from ......32 years ago!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/IBM_in_atoms.gif
Every image you see on google is a computer model of an atom, not an actual atom. These models are created by measuring electrical charge and creating an image based on that data or bouncning electrical currents of an object and mapping its shape. They are all 3D models and none of them are actual pictures of atoms. In the case of IBM they used a scanning tunneling microscope. A snippet from wikipedia about how a scanning tunneling microscope works: "First, a voltagebias is applied and the tip is brought close to the sample by coarse sample-to-tip control, which is turned off when the tip and sample are sufficiently close.....In this situation, the voltage bias will cause electrons to tunnel between the tip and sample, creating a current that can be measured. Once tunneling is established, the tip's bias and position with respect to the sample can be varied (with the details of this variation depending on the experiment) and data are obtained from the resulting changes in current." As you can see the image of the atoms is nothing more than a model based on the measurements of electrical currents.
Also feel free to addrress the image in my previous post concerning the alleged relationship between redshifts and distance.
-
38
Are we alone?
by Xanthippe inthe title of this thread is the title of a chapter in the book by richard dawkins that i'm really enjoying in spite of or perhaps because of it having been written for young people.
i thought i would share a couple of paragraphs on his theories of the kind of bodies aliens on other planets might have :-.
'let's exercise our imaginations a bit more.
-
-
Space Madness
you are trying to make it personal And deviate from the issue, you said the big bang had been refuted. Site your paper and journal.....
I cited a book in a previous post. Again, "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp, the best I seen thus far but there are plenty of others.
It is a bit of an embarassment on your part, the telescopes mission was to photograph the radiation from the big bang, which it did. I really don't want to be unkind, but what other way is there to say what you said is just oxymoronic.... It dissporved the big bang by photographing the big bangs radiation?
I never told you what image I was reffering to so how could you possibly know what the images show and that i was wrong? Also your using circular logic, your saying the image you saw proves the big bang happened because it shows radiation that came from the big bang.
This observation of the quasar(Redshift z= 2.11) between the galaxy(Redshift = 0.0025) and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy. This is one of many examples that shows that Hubble's theory that objects with higher redshifts are a farther distance from the earth is incorrect. This false theory was the foundation of the big bang theory.
Ok so laws of chemistry and physics, wow you shocked me here. This is science 101 and certainly chemistry 101. I assume you know the laws of chemistry are based on the laws of physics? Have you heard of the laws of thermodynamics? They shpuld have been chapter one in your chemistry book.
That is not correct. Chemistry has been practiced since the the 17th century while quantam physics didn't start until the 20th century. And as wikipedia states "Chemistry is a branch of physical science but distinct from physics." I'll assume the last sentence was a joke, as thermodynaics isn't even convered in the first semester of general chemistry.
As for evidence, you do appreciate what evidence is right? For example long before we saw an atom we had established they existed and even attempted tomanipulate them.
No one has ever seen an atom.
You say there is no evidence, there is! If you were watching the universe from the outside looking in and I said is there possibly life in this universe and you said "i dont know" and then you looked a little longer and saw earth .....then said "yes look there is life" if i then said is it possible there is life elsewhere that likewise arose in this universe .... how could you deny that the planet you have already found teaming with life was not evidence of it being possible elsewhere?
As I said in my previous post, it is of course possible for some form of life to exsist on one of a billion planets. But that's just an opinon based on feeling. Every form of test has showed no signs of life. I will side with evidence over feeling.
-
38
Are we alone?
by Xanthippe inthe title of this thread is the title of a chapter in the book by richard dawkins that i'm really enjoying in spite of or perhaps because of it having been written for young people.
i thought i would share a couple of paragraphs on his theories of the kind of bodies aliens on other planets might have :-.
'let's exercise our imaginations a bit more.
-
-
Space Madness
The big bang has not at all been refuted. Forgive me but I think you are a little ...muddled up. I think you are refering to the recent discovery that the red shift is speeding up and not slowing down as expected, but this has been explained by the recent explinations concerning the universe expanding into dark energy. Have you read Dr Krauss?
I don't know what your age is but you sound like an oldschool scientist. They treat science like a religion and indiviuals such as Einstein, Newton, and Darwin are promoted to sainthood. Anyone who dares to disagree with them is banish from the community, literally. That's exactly why happened to Halton Arp when he started questioning the idea of an expanding universe based on his research. He literally had to leave the United States and continue his research in a different country. Anytime evidence surface that suggest a theory proposed by a former saint may been incorrect, new theories are created just as a way to save face, such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc. I'm a new breed who have no emotional attachment to theories of the past and therefore aren't willing to except or defend longheld beliefs that have little evidence to back them up. And no I have not read anything from Dr. Krauss, but I'll look into it.
As for evidence for extraterrestrial life, I assume you know the universe is huge, I assume you know that atoms are formed in stars, I assume you know that in the right enviroment these atoms can form simple nucleic acids, the building blocks of life, for dna or rna from simply the enviroment around them (the miller experiment). I assume you agree that the further we dig down in the planet the further we go back in time and with that with NO exceptions, as we dig diwn the simpler the remains of lifeforms get. So we know the majority of the story right now despite only a hundred years or so of good science and only 20 years or so with computed science... Yet we have the science of abiogenesis, and it is exploring how we can get from acids to functioning unicellular life, despite being a new science we have learned much already. Being a chemistry major I am sure you know much of this already.
I know what can happen, may happen, should happen, could happen, but I know there is zero evidence to show that it has happened, and since I base all my beliefs on evidence, as far as I'm concerned it hasn't happened.
All of the above can take place anywhere in the universe, so evidence for ET life does exist in that there is an observable suggestion of its probability, i.e. Life on our planet. what law of physics, biology or chemistry do you know.of that prevents life evolving elsewhere too?
You assume the law of physics and chemistry is the same throughout the universe. Just like this planet has different conditions such as desert, jungle, forest, artic, tropic, etc. that's not sutible for all form of life, the universe could behave in the same way. (Not the best anology but I think you get the point.)
Why on earth would you conclude the alternative? That there is 100% no life outside of earth! A chemistry major making such an outstanding claim Is a shock to me.
While we both may share a deep interest in science, the fundamental difference between you and me is that your comfortable basing a certain amount of your beliefs on assumptions and popular theory. I understand that the odds of some form of bacteria, virus, of fungus being present on at least one of the billion other planets in the universe is pretty high, but that is just an opinon. I'm interested in evidence only, not opinons or feelings. When you start basing your theories on opinons and feelings rather than evidence, you end up with nonsense like dark matter, blackholes, wormholes, and gravitons.
-
38
Are we alone?
by Xanthippe inthe title of this thread is the title of a chapter in the book by richard dawkins that i'm really enjoying in spite of or perhaps because of it having been written for young people.
i thought i would share a couple of paragraphs on his theories of the kind of bodies aliens on other planets might have :-.
'let's exercise our imaginations a bit more.
-
-
Space Madness
The probability of life elsewhere based on the evidence and colaborated knowledge we have is significant,
Would you mind sharing some of this evidence with us? As far as I know there no evidence for the existence of life anywhere in the universe.
The prospect of a god is bot based in evidence but a story in a scroll that one has the right to believe or not. If you don't see the difference, then I can only humbly and as politely as possible suggest that maybe you don't appreciate the science or evidence being discussed.
I stated in my post that there is no evidence for the existence of God, just like there is no evidence for the existence of life. There is no contradiction in my logic. Also your assumption about me not appreciating science couldn't be more wrong, as I am a chemistry major in college and have read many books in my free time on a wide range of scientific topics.
How can we begin to test for or observe your god?
You make another incorrect assumption, as i am agnostic and don't believe in God or the Bible, Koran, or any other text or religion.
God's and the supernatural are not observable, only the observable can be examined and tested by science. So your question doesnt even make sense.
Life outside of earth has never been observed and therefore there isn't anything to test, the same can be said for God. Also there is currently no evidence that suggest life exsist outside of earth, their is also no evidence for the existence of God. I fail to see where my comparison does not make sense.
ET life is probable based on an equation, Real science and math.....N = R* • f p • n e • f l • f i • f c • L
There many things wrong with this equation, all your varibles equal zero except for "R" and "fp". Also I find it odd that you refer to using abstract varibles with subjective meanings as "real science and math".
A JW asked me why I believed in something akin to the big bang, so I gave a brief answer. He then laughed at my answer and said 'well the big bang just makes no sense to me!
The big bang has been disproven. The big bang was based on the assumption that redshifts implies distant and hence the universe was expanding due to and intial bang. Recent images from telescopes show however that galaxies and quasars with higher redshifts than other galaxies are closer to our galaxy. The fact that redshifts are no indication of a galaxies position in the universe destroys the foundation of the big bang theory. There are many books that point out the many errors of the big bang theory, one that I just finished reading is entitled "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp, another good book on the fallacies of the big bang is "The Electric Universe" by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott.
With no evidence, no means of observing a god, no means of testing their existence or actions, no means of pursuing the idea further than a Jewish, Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Roman, English, Egyptian ...text (depending which god you want science to hypothesise on) , how exactly do you want science to go about observing them?
I don't. The point of my post which you completely missed is that concerning life on other planets we have nothing to observe, no data to test, and not the slightless bit evidence to even form a hypothesis, coming up with theories about how aliens look or behave is as fruitless as coming up with theories about how God look or behave. If you believe it is possible for intelligent life to exsist in the distant universe, I see no reason why "God" couldn't exsist somewhere in the distance universe.
-
38
Are we alone?
by Xanthippe inthe title of this thread is the title of a chapter in the book by richard dawkins that i'm really enjoying in spite of or perhaps because of it having been written for young people.
i thought i would share a couple of paragraphs on his theories of the kind of bodies aliens on other planets might have :-.
'let's exercise our imaginations a bit more.
-
-
Space Madness
What's the difference between theorizing the existence of aliens, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that suggest aliens exsist, and theorizing the existence of God, despite the lack of evidence?
