Why does your god give cancer to children
-
filmflaneur — 2 years ago(January 13, 2024 11:57 AM)
Einstein said, "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another". This first law of thermodynamics which also known as Law of Conservation of Energy works in all sphere of life. So yes.
As for consciousness however, science usually considers this a manifestation of the physical brain, arguably an evolutionary stratagem of sophisticated organisms to better survive through co ordination. But when we die so does our consciousness since it is only a property of the brain. So no. What form does it change into at this point otherwise, from whence does it spring at that point and what is the evidence?
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that. -
MagneticMonopole — 2 years ago(January 13, 2024 02:21 PM)
There is nothing going on in the science of consciousness that is overturning what has been already solidly established science for decades–that the nervous system is responsible for consciousness.
Where do you get this bogus information from, anyway? Or do you just enjoy making up New Age bullshit, thinking people better informed than you won't catch you in the act? -
MagneticMonopole — 2 years ago(January 13, 2024 02:42 PM)
We have solid outlines of how brain processes create consciousness, and those have been pretty well established since the 1990's, but it is true that there is no consensus which fills in the details.
In my opinion this is mostly due to philosophical confusion about the nature of what consciousness is and what counts as an explanation for it. -
/. — 2 years ago(January 13, 2024 03:03 PM)
Both religion and non-religious explanations for existence fail at the crucial point of explaining how something came from nothing. The only logical explanation is we aren't actually here.
My password is password -
filmflaneur — 2 years ago(January 13, 2024 09:20 PM)
There are two views here: one is that yes, the universe has a cause. But if one can accept that it is possible that a necessary supernatural entity created everything, then one can also quite reasonably think in the same way that that there could instead be a wholly natural cause, something also permanent, but natural, which eventually given enough tries, provokes everything else that lasts. ie a stable universe(s). The advantage of the latter suggestion
pace
Occam is that it does not involve a whole new level of reality.
The second view is that, logically, there is no reason why there cannot be infinite cause and effect other than it first seems counter intuitive. This is particularly more striking if we consider that, before the universe began, there
was no time
. Or to put it another way, the universe is both infinite cause and effect simultaneously.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.