Scientific/spiritual question?

The main problem is that people think that the two methods of obtaining knowledge can even be compared. It's like asking a scientist to decide either particle or wave. It depends on the question being asked, as to which model is required. This is what's known as a false choice in critical thinking, a form of the perfectionist fallacy - where some try to require people to say "either/or", instead of some other possibility. It's also known as the 'Black and White fallacy - when really there are thousands of shades of grey in between, but people insist that the answer must be either black OR white!

Science wants to explain things in accordance with nature (naturally); therefore, why would people debate things that are "supernatural" on natural grounds. Anyone trying to discuss things in this way are speaking 'right past each other' (known as 'incommensurability' [Kuhn] in the philosophy of science)

To comment on some other responses - Unfortunately, 'eri' errs in assuming that we can utilize the methods of science to provide evidence of God: "If there is ever any evidence for god or life after death, we can examine it using the methods of science". Seeking to PROVE something supernatural through natural means makes no sense, sorry. That would be like proving something 'Meta'(beyond)-physical through physical (empirical data) means. Sadly, many people with PhD's forget what the 'Ph' stands for; concurrent classes in critical thinking, of a deeply philosophical nature, would quell these misconceptions.

'Amanda', too, makes the same mistake: "In my opinion. i think there's enough scientific evidence to prove that there is probably not a 'God'. I believe in the theory of evolution mostly because there's not really any evidence to prove that there's a god." Wait, she believes there IS no God because she cannot find scientific evidence that God exists? Do you see how misleading this is?

The irony is that I completely believe in evolution, but also believe strongly in God. [In fact, my final paper was called "Ethics THROUGH Evolution"]. Nothing about science says, "No God!" Who (or what) do you think created evolution? At least Amanda is wise enough to state that this is her "opinion".

Even Immanuel Kant had to logically admit that "there must necessarily be a non-contingent being in the Universe" - something that wasn't created by something else. It's called 'the Antinomy' (4 postulates that are logically necessary). Why would the creator of space and time be subjected to the strictures of space and time? The more you understand cosmogony and the Big Bang; E=mc2, and how much matter (and expressed energy) actually exists in the Universe; combined with notions of "Inflation" [see Guth] and the "Superforce" [Davies], the more you realize that to simply posit that the answer: "It just happened", not only violates the 'Principle of sufficient reason', but begs the question, 'WHAT could possibly produce such unfathomable energy?' (given the conservation of energy laws)

Can I PROVE this scientifically? Of course not. That's why God gave us evolution, so that no matter what corner of the Universe life sprang up, we would necessarily develop a bio-supercomputer to be able to figure these things out. Science is great...for nature! However, once it is realized that the creation of nature is (quite literally) supernatural, the argument becomes moot. Comparing science and spirituality isn't like comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing apples and rocks!

Grady

Einstein's theories proved matter is neither created nor destroyed. Obviously, your body simply decays into nutrients for organisms and the Earth to feed off of, which is then turned into waste, energy, etc.

As far as your "soul" or "spirit", that's a question of faith. The beauty of Faith for those that are crazy is that it can never be proven nor unproven.

Agnostics have the best view on this whole subject, true agnostics at least. In a nutshell, it means you don't deny the POSSIBILITY of the existence of a "Creator", but you don't necessarily believe in it either, without proof. The best quote actually comes from the man that coined the term: "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

At the end of the day, it's INTELLECTUALLY the best approach to this age old question and debate. Religious people can sound intellect about the Bible being true or not, but it's simply a book about events that have never repeated themselves (i.e. talking, burning bush, etc). They're just accepting it's a guide of which to live by with no basis of truth. Again, not the TRUE intellectual approach to the world that these religious people claim to have. (i.e. proof versus believing something just to believe it...?)

Again, at the end of the day, whatever your religion or belief is, it's whatever makes life a little easier that's best.

If there is ever any evidence for god or life after death, we can examine it using the methods of science. But since people have been making claims of both for probably a million years without ever producing either, chances are good they don't exist. Quantum mechanics isn't talking about you viewing something, it's talking about a measurement any instrument could make - and that's only one of the 11 formulations of quantum mechanics that work equally well, the others don't depend on probabilities or wave functions. That's just the formulation that caught on. The others are equally valid. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with spirituality. It's solid science, but since most people don't actually take classes in it, it's often claimed to say something it doesn't.

I, for one, cannot think a true afterlife (like heaven) can be proven. However, something as simple as a cell phone could not even be imagined a few hundred years ago. So technology could be created that as of right now is out of our mental reach. Through quantum mechanics/physics (can't remember which) the idea of a "soul" has some what been discovered. After one had died, energy was left behind. This is just my idea on this topic. I would love to see an experts answer to this question.

In my opinion. i think there's enough scientific evidence to prove that there is probably not a "God". I believe in the theory of evolution mostly because there's not really any evidence to prove that there's a god. Then again, you don't know what to expect when you die but i think there is a such thing as a second life, kind of like where ur body and the person who you were dies but your soul is reborn into a totally different life and I think that explains deja-vu sometimes but everyone has their own beliefs so yea

Religion is silly. There is no reason to examine it or attempt to justify the bald belief in gods. It is a waste of time.

Maybe in 100 to 200 years we will have brain implants allowing everyone to have what today would be above average intelligence and then "proof" that god doesn't exist will simply be that no one believes anymore.

It is impossible for the souls that are still alive, and those who haven't been saved by the Grace Of Jesus, to detect the living God, technology is a tiny dead cricket to the powers of the Great God, only those who are with Him know, and those who believe in the Trinity. The Father, the Son ,and the Holy Ghost. God cannot be detected by souls on Earth, and will never be. God is Almighty, and no one can stand before Him and not be afraid, nobody can find him unless God wants them too.

Well there is no evidence of a god, a heaven, etc. The closest we can get is ectoplasm. Ectoplasm is a legitimate substance has has been known two attract electromagnetic forces, such as ghosts. Yes ghosts have been partially been scientifically proven to exist. However there is no evidence suggesting a god, soul, heaven, hell, purgatory, devil, demons, or angels. Its is all about belief, I assume your conscience, which as you said still is active after death, so your religious aspects will place you in a "heaven" simulated by your conscience.

Any evidence, let alone proof, would have to include experiments that could be consistently repeated in a controlled environment. I don't think you could capture God and run tests on him in a laboratory. Possibly a ghost, but that would depend on what ghosts actually are, if they exist at all.

Anything is possible with technology to some extent. Scientists usually do not like to dwell on such volatile matters, but I believe that science and spirituality will eventually coincide. Our technology grows exponentially, not linearly, so it might grow much faster than we think. Just look at computers now. Computer hardware can be outdated in a year or two.