Posted: Nov 17, 2010 4:49 pm
by darwin2
Rubicon wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
Rubicon wrote:What arguments, other than emotional attachment to the idea, do you have that your claim about the possibility that consciousness may persist after death is less absurd than the possibility of invisible blue baboons on Saturn, or purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What, other than your personal opinion on what does or what doesn't constitute an absurd claim, do you have to offer?


I stand by the post you seem to be so irritable about,

Science is using testable data that is organized so as to explain the natural world and make predictions on how it works. I also look upon science as the study of energy and matter and how they interact. If it turns out that consciousness continues after death, then science will study this after death state in the same manner it does in this physical world

Are you deliberately being obtuse here? This doesn't answer my question at all. I asked why you think your proposed claim about consciousness persisting after death is less absurd than the ones about invisible blue baboons on Saturn and purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What objective criteria do you use to determine that your claim is less absurd, and should therefore be considered more worthy as an area of scientific investigation? What do you have to offer, other than your opinion and your emotional attachment to your idea?


I suggest you read my reply to SafeAs Milk on page 8 of this thread made at 8:27am.