Wow Aun you managed to misconstrue or ignore all of my questions that can't be addressed by science. You must be a real scientist!
With all of your talk of cells and evolution you failed to come to grips with what I was actually asking: What is it that makes a living cell move and a dead one decay into entropy? Where is "life," exactly? Is it, say, an electrical impulse, and if so where does it originate?
I believe in evolution. That doesn't mean I don't also believe in what Grephaun called recycling, which is in fact the best likely explanation using science, as I said.
Hard Aun said:
Excuse me, we do have the technology to detect 'the spark of life'. You are locked into thinking at a body level, but the actual 'life' functions go on at a cellular level. Think of a factory that produces widgets - it's actually the human workers who do all the work, although we are used to thinking of the company as an entity in its own right.
Where is the "life" located in a cell? What is it made of?
Hard Aun said:
Bollocks
Do some reading of physics and cellular biology books, even spend an afternoon on Wikipedia before you lay claim to 'a truly scientific viewpoint'; everything else is romantic fantasy and wishful thinking. And stop going on about "The most likely explanation" - this one is already cut, dried and hung with a nail.
Bollocks? Well that is a, er, salty way to express your disagreement

I'm not talking about the results of science but it's method of truth-gathering itself, which is what we must address if we are to talk metaphysics. The mechanics of physics and such are totally irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Try reading
What is this thing called science? by Alan Chalmers. It's a basic 1st year university text book on the nature and history of the scientific method. Likewise, I suggest you read that before you start talking to me about a true scientific viewpoint.
For clarity I had better give you my definition of "science" as most likely we are talking about two different things. "Science" is the use of induction (a form of empiricism) to make predictions about the universe and record the results of experiments designed to "prove" or disprove" those predictions. I am talking about science the method. You seem (I could be wrong, please correct me if I am) to be using "science" to mean "the accumulated data gathered using the scientific method." The crux of it is this; science is one among many epistemologies. I will assume you know what an epistemology is, being a scientist, but for any younger members who may not have encountered the word before epistemology is the study of how human beings acquire knowledge of all kinds.
Science is limited to statements only about the physical world. There are long and involved logical proofs of this that I won't go into here, but read Kant if you are interested. Metaphysics (such as the discussions of life after death) is beyond science in every way, inherently and totally.
What I have done is recognize this, and applied the scientific method (which I recognize is a valuable epistemology) to metaphysical questions. Therefore I assume that "life" which cannot at present be located physically is a form of energy. I base this on inductive reasoning, as other things that cannot be detected physically yet clearly exist such as magnetism and kinetic energy are held to be forms of energy. I therefore further posit that "life" would behave like energy, i.e. it will recycle and change rather than be created or destroyed. I am attempting to use induction to explain something that is so far inexplicable, which is what science is.
What you have done is said "anything that cannot be detected by science obviously doesn't exist and therefore is a lie." This is dogmatism. This is why I said I am being truly scientific whereas you, ironically, are being more religious in your outlook.
Remember Aun that out of everyone who replied to this thread with their personal feelings and beliefs about life after death it was you, the scientist who was the first to assume an intellectual high ground and claim that anyone who held a different belief from yours was gullible, and anyone who put forward a different belief was a fraud with an ulterior motive. All I have done is point out that the ground you are standing on does not exist in this case, not for science, not for anyone.
Hard Aun said:
Who else do we have as legitimate arbiters of truth? And why paint them as power hungry ("bow to scientists")? We live in dangerous times in this modern world, when religious fanatics seek power and strive to suppress individual thought. We need clarity of thought like never before. If you buy into some wishful religious or supernatural dream, then you have effectively surrendered your intellect to people who want to
A: take your money from you
B: take away your (and your childrens) ability to resist mind control
Spoken like a true representative of the status quo. I am not trying to villify scientists, merely point out that they sometimes wrongly try to answer the same metaphysical questions as priests used to, with just as little actual justification. I wouldn't have argued with you had you said something like "this is as far as science can see so this is as far as I am willing to make concrete assertions." But you went a step further and claimed with authority that there is nothing beyond the limits of scientific enquiry. This is a false claim.
Hard Aun said:
I do. I don't "surrender my intellect" to anyone or anything, including science.