You're mixing up the field of science with the scientific method. While religion doesn't abide by the scientific method, it can coexist as long as that religion hasn't been explicitly disproven by scientific findings, such as Greek gods.

[quote]disproven [/quote]There's no positive evidence for a negative. There's not evidence that something doesn't exist, only evidence that something does exist.

No, that's completely wrong. I have ample evidence for the assertion that no elephant exists within my bedroom, for example.

Maybe it [i]does[/i] exist, but you just like to pretend it isn't there.

And that should answer the question. If God falls under logical obversion, then that doesn't mean it can't coexist with science. They're both independent of each other.

[quote]If God falls under logical obversion[/quote]But he doesn't. There has been zero observations of God outside of those recorded in the Bible, which have conflicting reports.

Proof? Funny I can always ask the question "where did that come form?" I can keep asking that until science runs out of answers. Now you can also do the same with religion. But that's the point.

Knowing what produced something is completely inessential to knowing that it exists.

Ok so last I hard science says that the big band was caused by a "god particle." Where did that "god particle" come from? What created it? See those questions can be asked about everything. Until you eventually take it by faith.

Except the difference is that the answers that science doesn't have, they're actually working to find out.

But they never will. Because the question "where did that come from/ what created that?" can always be asked. Eventually they will come to the reality that something always was. And at that point people will say "then why can't God always be?" Science and religion are one and the same. They explain each other and one can not exist with out the other.

[quote]But they never will.[/quote]We can't say that with any certainty. [quote] Eventually they will come to the reality that something always was.[/quote]There's no evidence that supports such a claim that something always existed. [quote]Science and religion are one and the same.[/quote]No, they're not. [quote]one can not exist with out the other.[/quote]Both are independent and can exist without the other.

Well I see you have no understanding of what I just said. Its like talking to wall.

Well, I can't say I didn't try to have a civil discussion with you. It's a shame you have to be condescending about it.

>know you're turning off and your proof that our consciousness slips into a void of nothingness? I don't think we "know" much about the sensation of death until it's too late don't you think?

While I do agree that he's being a bit too "certain" with his presumptions about death, the hypothesis that you effectively cease all consciousness and enter a state similar to the one before your birth is a fairly sound and reasonable one.

Yeah as sound and reasonable as reincarnation or an afterlife. Most things in this Universe are cyclical, that's the reasoning behind my hypothesis.

I really don't think that's true. With the hypothesis that life ends how it began, there is actual reasoning and evidence. You didn't experience anything before you were born, and because death will bring about a biological state identical to the one before it (None), you can make the fewest assumptions by arguing it's most likely death ends with nothing. Simply because certain things are cyclical (And let's be clear, a lot of things aren't) does [i]not[/i] give you the right to arbitrarily slap the same nature onto something else without legitimate and coherent logic. So no, I heavily disagree with the idea that the three concepts are on-par.

[quote]I really don't think that's true[/quote] That's where you should've stopped. Just admit that we humans don't actually know what the hell happens to our consciousness when we die. When we can prove it slips into a void, I'll believe it, but for now we can't, and I truly believe we will never be able to. So we can make up whatever hypothesis we want cause it really doesn't matter. But since we seem to have a decent discussion here I'll continue: There are also many things that don't end in the same state that started. We start off as a sperm and an egg and die as a rotting incapable old man/woman. Energy will eventually die out (heat death). But then again for now there is a water cycle, we orbit the Sun, as long as the Sun exists that is lol. Death is going to be the only thing we will ever be uncertain about. We will never know when it will happen, what happens to our consciousness, the feeling, if it will feel good or bad, and all the things we will miss out on because of it. It's why we fear it so damn much and most of wouldn't wish it to happen to the people we love, but will enact it to the people we hate the most. >you didn't experience anything before you were born Maybe cause we can't remember it? If somebody flashes a laser across your eyes and you lose all memory from your past and you wake up on a beach, you wouldn't freak out. You'd experience being born again, minus the crying and coming out of a vagina part. Did you not exist before the Men In Black indecent? To you? Not at all. It's like the old question:[quote]If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?[/quote] We really can't prove it made a sound can we? No we couldn't. For all we know it could have fell so softly that it didn't make an audible sound. Or came crashing down and a booming crash. Same with our consciousness.

[quote]That's where you should've stopped. Just admit that we humans don't actually know what the hell happens to our consciousness when we die. When we can prove it slips into a void, I'll believe it, but for now we can't, and I truly believe we will never be able to. So we can make up whatever hypothesis we want cause it really doesn't matter. But since we seem to have a decent discussion here I'll continue:[/quote] There was never any indication that I was arguing a certainty here, you're fully aware of that. Just because it is an inherently unknowable concept because it is beyond the reach of comprehension doesn't mean it isn't possible for individuals to come together and make informed predictions about it. [quote]There are also many things that don't end in the same state that started. We start off as a sperm and an egg and die as a rotting incapable old man/woman. Energy will eventually die out (heat death). But then again for now there is a water cycle, we orbit the Sun, as long as the Sun exists that is lol. Death is going to be the only thing we will ever be uncertain about. We will never know when it will happen, what happens to our consciousness, the feeling, if it will feel good or bad, and all the things we will miss out on because of it. It's why we fear it so damn much and most of wouldn't wish it to happen to the people we love, but will enact it to the people we hate the most.[/quote] What was the point of this entire paragraph? [quote]Maybe cause we can't remember it? If somebody flashes a laser across your eyes and you lose all memory from your past and you wake up on a beach, you wouldn't freak out. You'd experience being born again, minus the crying and coming out of a vagina part. Did you not exist before the Men In Black indecent?[/quote] Except there is no reason to argue that my lack of remembrance is due to some past existential state being wiped from my memory. You make the far fewest assumptions and use the most coherent logic by surmising that your ability to comprehend was simply a nonexistent construct that had to come together. [quote]We really can't prove it made a sound can we? No we couldn't. For all we know it could have fell so softly that it didn't make an audible sound. Or came crashing down and a booming crash. Same with our consciousness.[/quote] Again, [quote]There was never any indication that I was arguing a certainty here, you're fully aware of that.[/quote]