Rafi Amin


This conversation is closed.

Where do we come from & where do we go ?

I wanted to know what is the answer to this question from science prospective although some religion has some how answer to this question (we are created by god & given the opportunity to do good & bad & finally rewards for our actions after death either paradise or hell).

I could not explain the question in an efficient way but I hope you got what I,m trying to know.

  • thumb
    Nov 6 2011: Who is we?
    You came alone and you will leave alone.
    And as you came who were you?
    You had to be filled in and became you that you know.
    Yet some that get old forget what they knew and become what they were.
    The real being you are isn't the one that you know, it is and ever will be.
    It is experiencing life after life, creating more life in ever more splendor to live and to love.
    • thumb
      Nov 6 2011: "Life begets life,
      energy creates energy,
      It is by spending oneself that one becomes rich."
      (Sarah Bernhardt)

      Another insightful comment Frans:>)
      Consider yourself thumbed up...I've apparently maxed out for you this week!
  • thumb
    Nov 5 2011: We are a microcosm of existence. We came into existence with a bang (happy birthday) and will go on expanding without end
    • thumb
      Nov 5 2011: This isn't the real answer?
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2011: Just a wild thought... As are the rest!!
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2011: Yeah. Nobody has so far given a convincing answer.
        • thumb
          Nov 7 2011: @Rafi: You cannot hope to solve a puzzle in one go. You can only piece the new pieces of the puzzle adjacent to old pieces and its a process not a revelaiton. Want an answer? Help speed up the process of solving the puzzle. Nobody knows what the final puzzle looks like and those who claim to have the guide books to the puzzle before the puzzle is close to complete are full of baloney.
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2011: You will choose, my friend Rafi, what is "real" for you. Continue to open your heart and mind to the possibilities...as you usually do:>)
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: @Colleen & Matthieu, Your thoughts are always a lesson for me. thanks
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: Dear Rafi,
        All of our thoughts, feelings, ideas, opinions and comments can be a lesson for ourselves and each other if we see them in that light. We are like mirrors reflecting information back and forth all the time. Opening the heart and mind to information is the first step to let in the light:>) Where we are coming from, and where we are going, may be significant at some point. Right now, we have only this moment, and it is the most precious time and experience:>)
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2011: Thank you Colleen. I always enjoy reading your comments.
  • Nov 2 2011: Science tells us that we evolved over millions of years from early life forms on the Earth.

    Where are we heading? That is a good question that science cannot (yet) answer. However looking at the progress of human kind in both technological and social sphere we might know the answers sooner than later (in a few thousand years?).

    I hope that we will discover our true purpose in this Universe thou it is possible that we do not have any great purpose at all. We could be just one piece of the Universe as a bee is in the Nature.
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2011: Though very late but I noticed your interesting comment today. thanks.
  • thumb
    Nov 7 2011: In the real phisic sense we are on a spheroid, so we can walk from this to there, but allways is a journey around. In the bio-chemical sense we are product from the elements...so ashes to ashes, dust to the dust. In the biological panorama we are just a for of life to reach death. In social landscape is a cheap play for the show. In psicological terms we are in search because we are lost. In economicl status allways is loos to loss. In technology we go to a very depaupering state full of gadgets. In our own human skills, we are going to be like zoombies combed. In time terms we are no more than a glimpse.

    So... we have to go somewhere?....Or its better to stay calm and quiet?
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2011: Jaime, It is never better to stay calm & quiet. There is a very popular quote (Even impossible has the word possible). There is an answer for every question, what we have to do is to find it out ?
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2011: No Rafi...the real thing is the question, not the answer.....is better the right question than the "right" answer. If you said that "is never better to stay calm and quite"....its ok...move.¡...or not?.
  • Nov 7 2011: jus wanted to say ( u guys know already),
    if you seek an answer for ur question/query,
    have ur mind wide open to all the possibilities and free of ur preconclusions.. =)
    keep smiling =)
  • thumb
    Nov 2 2011: We don't know yet the answer to where we come from.
    I mean, sure, we understand how life emerged and how it evolved. We have good theories about the solar system too. But we don't know yet where all of that came from.
    This is science, ever disapointing he who needs answers right away about the uniserse to solve the problems of his personal life.
    And of course, we don't know where we're going.
    Although if you mean afterlife, we think this is a contradiction in terms.
  • Nov 2 2011: So, the metaphor of ocean and raindrop is symbolically perfect, if these drops of water are individual human consciousness. And the ocean a greater sea of consciousness energy which all religions throughout time have called god by differing names. It is an energy we as humans have yet to comprehend, and moreover, I doubt will ever make empirical sense of. As relativity and uncertainty prove in science, a particle cannot be accurately placed in space and time, the mere act of observing changes the location, and often the particle or electrons themselves by our firing other particles or electrons at it to measure. There is something almost tangible in the room of someone as they leave this world, and the physical body seems completely different after the moment of death. It is as if this consciousness energy itself vacates the body or vessel of the individual as they die. I believe that all saints, prophets, whatever religion they are. Are able to have a special relationship with the sea of consciousness energy. It's as if they can channel it more effectively than others. Or the sea of consciousness energy, or god, whichever you prefer. Chooses a physical vessel, chosen for time or culture, and imbues these individuals, saints, prophets, Mohammed, Christ. With a packet of information, designed to further the spiritual evolution of that culture or religion. The message is designed for that time, place, people. So when time passes and cultures evolve, often these messages seem to lose some value. And often get horribly misconstrued or distorted as this tailored message passes from one to another, or forward in time. God speaks into these chosen individuals, we don't hear god speak, we hear him whisper, or affect our neurotransmitters. His word comes through the chosen prophets, and is substantially altered from it's passage from one mind to another. This consciousness energy is god, and we are only fully in it's presence when we are free of the limits of physical vessel
  • Nov 2 2011: We all have different answers. But only time will tell.
  • thumb
    Nov 1 2011: You come from a long unbroken line of ancestors all the way from the first self-replicating molecule to your parents. Every single one of your ancestors was evolutionary successful. If you consider that, each one of us is astoundingly lucky to exist given the number of ancestors who were the last of their line. Entire populations could have been born from a single ancestor at any time if that ancestor had been a little luckier in the game of life.

    Where do we go? Where all our ancestors have gone so far, back into nature. Still, at least we got to live, it's a wonderful thing.
    • thumb
      Nov 2 2011: Hi Matthieu,

      thank you & I was expecting to have your thoughts on the questions.

      quote (Entire populations could have been born from a single ancestor at any time if that ancestor had been a little luckier in the game of life.)

      Who might have created that single ancestor ? how come that single ancestor created two genders knowing that these gender will come together produce humans

      Don't you think this proves the existing of a creator like God ?
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2011: No. Can you think of anyone at any time that was convinced of God by that argument or is this something that those who already believe in God throw around? (rhetorical question)

        It seems fairly obvious to me that given that we are essentially constituted with the same materials as the rest of nature, we are just the emergence of self replicating molecules. This may be called life or not. The point is, the border between life and non-life is ambiguous at the get go. Obviously all living species are clearly alive today because they have 4,5 billion years behind them. Having said that, I think we do have a good example of the ambiguity of life today. Would you say a virus is alive or not? All a virus consists of is a shell with RNA inside which floats around aimlessly until it meets an organism where it uses the cell to replicate. Does that sound particularly alive to you?

        My turn. What kind of God creates a host of dead-end species who, after millions of years of success go extinct? The Permian great extinction saw almost 90% of the biosphere completely eradicated from the Earth over a short period of time. Evolution is by its very nature wasteful (Mutations are only positively selected for in their current environment, a species cannot predict future environments) and directionless. If God had us in mind, was it really necessary to create so many Homo species (Homo Sapiens was not the only one). Who is even the first man really? Again, the distinction between the first man and the last...whatever you'd call it...is hopelessly ambiguous given how evolution moves slowly. Think about it, you were once a child, now you're a man. But was there one single instant when you were a child and all of a sudden the next instant you were a man? Was there ever one instant when you were all of a sudden a man, not something else? Who was the first true man?

        God may have his mysterious ways, my point is that it takes no effort to imagine a Godless genesis of all life on Earth.
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2011: I wouldn't want to be accused of making an argument from authority, but I think this here is a point to think about:

        If the study of life, particularly its evolution, leads one almost inevitably to the conclusion that there must have been some creator, why is it that biologist in prestigious science academies tend to be on the whole less religious than their physicist and mathematician peers?

        Now I'd like to address a question directly to you which I think will be revealing. Are any of the rational arguments you would use to prove the existence of God at the base of your belief or did you first start believing for other reasons? You can answer whatever you like to me, but be honest to yourself when you firs answer it in your mind. I think you'll find in the answer to this the reason why you will not convince an atheist to believe in God, particularly those atheists who understand the full implications of evolution. You were not convinced of God's existence through rational thinking, but through faith, a faith that if one does not have to start with, one can't really have unless they make a random leap into it. That faith doesn't necessarily survive the assaults of reason either, otherwise I'd still be a Christian.
        • Nov 7 2011: Representing the "Man" here in your authority, eh? No, I don't get that feeling at all. You bring the light of pure reasoning to this topic. But, when trying to understand things by pure reasoning, all presumptions of a god do fall apart without science, empirical evidence, or a verifiable source like a physical form. I also lost my Christianity along my growing up and inquiring into these beliefs further. Like many, I was indoctrinated into even church. I had a feeling that I could not see or understand this concept of God. I have read the Christian bible throughout various points growing up. Around 18 when becoming deeper into science and needing more than just blind faith. I looked into other religions and their texts as well. I did not believe in god as a given when child, I was always skeptical. I remain as such. There is absolutely no hard evidence for a god. Yet, like your example of mathematicians and physicists. Something seems a bit perfect about physical reality existing as such, given things like random chance being responsible for all that is manifest. Especially our Earth, and ourselves, which, if any of hundreds of specific properties like gravity, the atmosphere, the electrical charges that bind molecules. If any one of so many necessary values, or physical properties of the molecules, composing our planet or us, were changed. None of this would exist. I suspect that they admit a chance of a creator, only when they learn enough science to see how improbable the existence of life is, much less sentient life. Compared to the nervous systems and governing physiology of other life forms on Earth. We see that we are in fact part of a larger process, especially now that we have the knowledge of genetics do find the actual variations in the same nucleic chains that mark the difference in a chimpanzee or a human being. Of which the human obviously went through evolutionary change to become us as we exist now. A divine creator needed time & changes to create
        • Nov 7 2011: So, I don't strictly believe in god, as the literal definition. I found my personal proof for god in seeing his creations, and moreover in my own consciousness. If something like the Biblical genesis were directly true.... Imagine two extremely perfect genetic forms embodied in these original two. Highly unlikely indeed. But knowing some of genetics, wouldn't this perfect set of original DNA, if actually only originating in Adam & Eve. Be horribly weakend and degraded through acts of inbreeding along one family populating the entire earth? I find the literal genesis story a beautiful thing to learn from, not direct truth. But, conversely, the life spans of figures in the bible were hundreds of years. Diet alone would not produce such drastic difference compared to modern human. Which might give some credence to the biblical version. Maybe they were a supreme pair of male and female genes to begin with, and by reproduction, populated a world. I find this so very hard to believe, but maybe there is ways to justify the creation story we know by these type of mental exercises. I personally feel the human actually arose in various stages, throughout 3 or 4 of the worlds most abundant regions. And each of these was less than homo sapiens or homo erectus, but the beginning formats to our genetics did perhaps spontaneously originate in multiple physical locations. And as they evolved, their use of technology & tools let these variations eventually cross paths. And in doing so, the more primitive genetic chains that had developed in differing regions, eventually interbred with those much different than where the individuals similar companions evolved. We shall likely never have proof either way, but I believe there was a creator, & our current attempts to understand are beautiful myths at best. But random chance doesn't explain us, nor does a genesis of 2 perfect genetic constituents. The organizing principle that integrates physical matter and electricity into life might be
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: Clint, to your comment about perfection, I would mention the anthropic principal and I'd also point out that we're perfect for our environment in the same way as billions of years ago, non-oxygen breathing bacteria were perfect for their non-oxygen environment (which they made as a byproduct). This in the same way as a puddle, if it were alive, would think that the hole it inhabits is perfectly fitted to its contours. In effect, we are suited to our environment rather than our environment suited to us. Who knows what kind of other wondrous forms of life would have developed had things been different? (Admittedly a hard sell when it comes to cosmological constants, but pretty convincing when it comes to the Earth supposed "perfectness"). Otherwise I enjoy the clarity and clear intelligence emanating from your posts.

        In my opinion, an unaffiliated God is a good place to go when you think rationally about the religion you were brought up with. It's certainly a more defensible God (partly though because its a vaguer God, but a vaguer God has the advantage of being less demanding and therefore more ameniable to a live and let live philosophy sourly needed on the part of organised religions)
        • Nov 9 2011: Beautiful response Mtthieu. I actually thought that perfect analogy of puddle was your own, before finding it to be Adams'. I could not argue the anthropic principle in any valid form. To be able to do so would require me to somehow be an outside observer to human life. Do you feel that conscious life would evolve on earth and perhaps myriad other planets, given enough time for adaption to that environment, however adverse? If we could have already proven the existence of other sentient life, this discussion could break free from the obvious truism of the anthropic principle. All life, and here I shall use human, does mutate, or evolve to better function within it's given environment. Even within a single life span, the human must change their mind, habits, thoughts, choices, to better execute a life that is prosperous or successful to their individual wants and needs. Albeit reverse anthropomorphism, I should seek to see the same relationship among other life forms. Like bacteria that have evolved to survive in the harshest environments of planet earth. Underwater in hot streams, in freezing temperatures life has evolved mechanisms that secrete chemicals analogous to anti freeze. Where there is any survivable niche, life can potentially evolve to fill that space. Our puddle is very well salubrious to human life on earth. Whether we took evolutionary millennia, or whether some intrinsic organizing principle guided us very slowly through eons of time. What I don't truly understand, is what exactly happened after the industrial revolution. Our technologies sought 2 better the life of man, & indeed replaced his callused hands at many forms of physical work. But why would a species so uniquely adapted 2 better survive it's given environment, make choices that would eventually ruin it's natural environment. Why would a creator if there is one, entrust the biblical "free will", 2 a hominid who is vastly governed by it's glands as much as his rational mind? Awaiting yours?
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: @Clint: It is Douglas Adams indeed. Finding life outside of Earth would indeed be considerably more instructive than turning to the anthropic principle. In that respect, it's a shame that SETI doesn't get enough funding these days. Extremophiles are interesting in the sense that they increase the number of potential places life could arise. Some of the satellites around Jupiter and Saturn have oceans that could potentially harbor life. Although there is the obstacle of first life. If extremophiles can exist, there is no guarantee that the first forms of life don't need a very particular environment due to their fragility (this could partly account for the rareness of life on other planets, should we never be able to find life on other planets).

        As for man in the industrial revolution, I would say that given the low life expectancy of the majority working class of that time, the environment was their last concern. Also one could not have fully grasped the finiteness of our world at such a time when the world wasn't as global as it is. Pictures like those brought by Apollo 8 a century later did more for our environmental consciousness than anything could have done during the industrial revolution. Only today with a globalized world which you can travel fast and a view from space can we have the luxury of finally caring for our environment.
        • Nov 10 2011: Love your comments Matthieu. The SETI is discouraging, we spend so much money as a government, but I feel it's actual use is not closely monitored as it's initially written off for this purpose or another. The end results of our budget as a nation, do not seem to meet up with the factual results of these expenditures. I in my strange mind, would think that finding another form of life outside of earth would be THE most exciting discovery since overturning geocentric and copernican constructs. It would do something similar to your observations of how radically the scope of our viewpoints, as human culture, were changed from seeing earth from space. And if we interpreted it correctly, maybe we would become more aware of how we use our resources as a planet. And then, people would hopefully abandon their illusory dividing lines of country, race, culture, etc.. And then collectively be those of Earth. I really doubt we would discover the chicken before the egg, in search for ETI. I imagine it could equally be as likely to find something akin to mycelium who through networking, would share in some larger organism. Or some sort of highly replicating bacteria that can withstand space. I doubt we would stumble across anything recognizable to us as life in our first encounter. So first life, I believe will remain outside our grasp, until it is complex enough for us to even perceive it. And life expectancy, how has so much been lost in these improvements we have made to our global society. We live drastically longer, yet people are much less erudite than in previous century. Look at common word usage for one. The authors of yesteryear used much larger vocabulary and were so much more succinct in their conveyance. We can ship goods all throughout the world, but yet disparity means half the world has trouble getting a full stomach before bed. Our technology does allow us this time, safety, and education to have such deeper thoughts. Why have we still been rapacious of resource
        • Nov 10 2011: I believe we have sadly put economic stimulus, the development of turning out ever more attractive consumer goods, & entertainment devoid of true substance. Much higher on our agenda, than genuinely improving the quality of life for all humans. The fresh water crisis, the production of plastic that shall never decompose within 500 tears. Hindsight is 20 20, but where is our planning for our grandchildren type of logic? I believe we as cultures should hope to leave a better planet, infrastructure, knowledge database, & collective understanding, 4 our children than we were given from those before. I recently stumbled upon this concept of cradle to grave engineering, why is this turned aside for cheaper production, more profit. This placement of generating money before collective futures? I would not exist without monies generated in the fields of petroleum engineering, and yet even I feel we are rapidly approaching a dangerous future on our supreme reliance on fossil fuels. Changing the taxes placed on gas, can alter the movement of goods across the US. I wish there was progress on any of the fields for practical applications of electric vehicles. We can make them well adapted to move humans where they need to go. But the movement of goods en masse, requires torque that only petroleum provides at this epoch. The US has let it's mass transportation systems fall far short of most other 1st world countries. Why does it seem like the existing state depends that people drive long distances to work or school, depending on gas alone. Why not more intelligent city zoning & construction, to facilitate people being able to get to work, buy groceries or goods, and home within distances able to be traveled on foot. Or electric trains running through major cities in such a way as to accommodate all daily tasks. The local business is disappearing. We have reached our ends, but at what consequences R our choice of means? Look at the grand creations of previous cultures, now ours?
  • Nov 1 2011: its not really scientific explanation: but i heard from a global heart.
    "We are like individual rain drops falling from the sky and returning to the ocean. We come from source, and to source we shall return- One and the same"(from a fb page:Project Earth)
    > no matter rain drop / ocean - everything is water and hence everyone is a fractal of source/GOD =)
    and yeah i hav a ques too, why do we come ?
    GOD Bless =)
    • thumb
      Nov 1 2011: I do agree. We were all made of dust and will soon return into dust. We come from our Creator and go back again to our Creator in Heaven. Whether one believes in God or not, it's such a nonsense if we were born just as a body, where did our spirits come from?

      Remember, we are not human experiencing spirit but sipirit experiencing human form. ;-)
      • thumb
        Nov 1 2011: "if we were born just as a body, where did our spirits come from?"

        Only those who believe in God or some sort of spiritual force more or less believe humans to have a spirit. So your question is loaded with an assumption that is not made by those who do not believe in God. There is as much evidence for a soul as there is for God, so one does not aid the existence of the other, since they are both entirely based on faith.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2011: Dear Matthieu,
          I do not agree with your statement..."only those who believe in God or some sort of spiritual force more or less believe humans to have a spirit".

          As I think you know by now, because of many conversations we've had, I do not believe in a god and I do believe that we are energy beings. In my perception, the words spirit, soul, god and energy can be easily exchanged. I do not believe I am going back to a "creator", and I do believe that the energy that flows through my body will move on to other forms. It has been scientifically proven that we have energy running through our body and mind, so this concept is NOT based entirely on faith, nor is it at all "loaded", unless one whats to percieve it in that light:>)
      • Nov 2 2011: " in Heaven. Whether one believes in God or not, it's such a nonsense if we were born just as a body, where did our spirits come from?"

        What is spirit and do you have a proof such a thing exists? Science still knows little about the brain and anything else is to the interpretation of individual.

        A few hundred years back it was a nonsense to think that people can fly. Now we all take it for granted. I think the same applies with brain and consciousness. We need to wait for science to give us answers or our civilization to reach technology that helps us to understand who we are and what our purpose (if any) is in this Universe?
        • thumb
          Nov 2 2011: When are we going to realize that science is not the truth, but only attempts to discover the truth, it is only THE MIDDLE MAN. It is the TRANSLATOR. It looks at what exists, and attempts to translate it, explain it to humanity.
          Science (the translator) is fallible, falls short, is getting better each day, and more precise, but will always be the middle man.

          Science, told us longtime ago that the world was flat, that death was surely what you'd get once you reached the horizon. More recently, Einstein's relativity opened the door to a lot of answers, explained a lot of things. Today we know that, good as it is, it is not sufficient, and it doesn't explain some things it should. Science is looking yet at another frontier of knowledge.

          Science is getting better at translating, but will always try to just explain this amazing creation to us, created beings.
        • thumb
          Nov 2 2011: I don't see why the fact that science is not the whole truth negates what Zdenek said. Regardless that it falls short sometimes, it's the most powerful tool for explaining our universe and what contains it.

          Science never said the Earth was flat, it was just popular belief. For science to say the Earth was flat would have required this conclusion to have come from the scientific methodology which it most certainly did not.I wish people would stop using this ridiculous argument which only shows ones scientific illiteracy.

          We've know that Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't cover everything for decades, we didn't just figure it out now. Quantum mechanics has existed for well over a decade and unification of the four forces has been at the center of much of the physics we have done for the pas decades.

          Faith, on the other hand, proves absolutely nothing. If you believe anything on faith alone, then criticizing science for not providing the ultimate truth is risible (no scientist claims that science has all the answers either. Mathematics have in fact clearly shown that some problems are unprovable [Halting problem]). If we're going to set the record straight on science, let's do it for faith. Faith is believing in things without evidence, good luck deriving truth from that.
        • thumb
          Nov 3 2011: Matthieu, hi! I suspected you were going to jump in, good to talk with you.

          Briefly, to set the record straight:
          I didn't try to negate what Zdenek said, I built on it and went deeper and wider.

          Also, I don't appreciate the attitude. Not in the spirit of edification but rather elimination.

          As for the rest of your comment, I DO NOT criticize science for not providing the ultimate truth, I celebrate it for doing all it can today.

          Finally, I would never try to entangle faith and science, they cover entirely different territories; I recommend you not to go there -that would make you a Tom Cruise :-P
      • Nov 2 2011: Hi Karina, science does not necessarily gives us an absolute truth but just an approximation. We can accept its theories and findings as a temporary truth before better theories and facts are established.

        What most people don't realize is that science continues to improve our knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Lets assume that a few hundred years ago science told us Earth is flat. That is truth if you measure the flatness in a very small area of the Earth. However wiith better instruments scientists concluded that Earth is actually round.

        Similarly with Newton's laws, these laws accurately predict and explain movements of objects. However as science progressed scientists realized that the model is not accurate or valid in all scenarios. With larger objects and higher speeds Newton's laws stop being valid and instead quantum mechanics needs to be used. Again, scientists improve our understanding.

        It is to be expected that science continues to get closer and closer to the ultimate and absolute truth because our technology allow us to gain more data and make more observations about the Universe.

        I don't see why human brain and anything else should be excluded from this process? I also don't see why we could not eventually arrived at the absolute truth? cheers
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: @Colleen: I understand, but surely you can conceed that Gloria's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is misplaced given that the existence of a soul, whether it is more of a ghostlike self or pure energy, is only a hypothetical position. Whatever each of us believes, one cannot argue a flawed premise from a hypothetical conclusion. Correct?

        @Karina: Point taken, although apart from its name, scientology actually makes very few scientific claims. Deepak Chopra is a better example of someone who warps science to sell his brand of faith (cf quantum healing and other such nonsense).
        • thumb
          Nov 7 2011: Hi Matthieu,
          I understand you as well, and I will conceed only that each and every one of us has a belief, based on information we have at any given time. Considering the topic of this discussion, I do not percieve Gloria's comments or beliefs to be "misplaced".
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: @Colleen: Her belief no, the particular comment yes. You cannot reject a premise based on a hypothetical statement.

        A soul may or may not exist. The body may or may not be the only thing there is. But you cannot reject the latter with the former because they are both hypothetical. Let's turn the phrase the other way around, would you accept:

        "it's such a nonsense, where did our spirits come from if we are just a body?"

        Is this a valid objection? Of course not. It's also invalid. Even though a good case can be made for the materialist view, one cannot take it as a given to call the other position nonsense. This I object to. And I am surprised you cannot see why its objectionable.
        • thumb
          Nov 7 2011: Matthieu,
          Technically, you may be correct, and if this were a test of some kind, one may say a "particular comment" is not appropriate because of technicalities.

          That being said, we are having a discussion on TED my friend. I don't see the question as an "objection", as you apparently do...I see it as simply a question. There are plenty of comments on TED that say one or the other perspective is "nonsense". If you want to "object" to the use of a word or phrase, that's ok...where does it take us in discussion? I just don't think it's anything to get your bloomers in a knot about...do you? :>) I also take into consideration that English is not everyone's first language.

          I agree with you... "A soul may or may not exist. The body may or may not be the only thing there is". I LOVE your comment to Rafi about life being made up of puzzle pieces, which we assemble:>)
    • thumb
      Nov 2 2011: Hi Pradee,

      Thanks for your thoughts but I don't think people of this time will believe that we we were rain drops coming from sky & returning to the ocean.

      We have to find out what is that source that we come from ? who has made it ?
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2011: God. *in my belief. And soon, I know that it will that of the world too.
        • thumb
          Nov 2 2011: Gloria, I didnt get your point. Do you mean it is the god who has created all these ?
      • Nov 2 2011: Rafi and Pradee, we cannot expect science to ever answer such existential questions, science at this stage is still largely material, mass, velocity, spin, of individual particles of matter. Even our knowledge of energy so very incomplete. This larger question delves deeper into something that I believe is both. We are carbon based life forms. Our physiology is pretty well understood, other than brain and consciousness. I believe that there is matter always present in the universe, as is myriad forms of energy. But this creator we speak of is whatever force that so elegantly, combined the two into a self aware being with a planet and other life forms to learn from and survive from consuming to generate biological energy by way of metabolism. I believe there is a larger sea of energy, which mankind is not yet responsible enough to discover(for we would exploit). This sea of energy is where the soul comes from and where the energy that is the soul shall return when the material vessel, the body has reached it's end. We exist as souls, but to experience physical reality, we must exist in bodily form. I believe that from the hydrogen atom to the energy composing a human soul, Each electron, ion had to evolve electrically in complexity. And that the energy composing humans consciousness, is the most evolved, hence being self aware & entrusted with free will. It is an evolutionary process of the consciousness energy within us, as well as the evolution of the vessels to carry consciousness energy. Our bodies, science has proved, have evolved over eons. But I believe that so too has the energy we call souls, or consciousness. I believe the roots of this is evident in other cultures beliefs in reincarnation. Although they don't give mechanism. I believe we have climbed up a ladder of evolutionary rungs, given a chance at self awareness. Where our soul, is given the chance to actualize itself, in whatever way is befitting to the individuals energy. We are consciousness energy
        • thumb
          Nov 5 2011: Though very late but,thanks for explanation. I got u.
  • thumb
    Nov 2 2011: i see god more like an instinct of human nature. If we can't explain something, we call it a higher force, with is most times, a god. So when you say you came from god and go to heaven, you aren't totally right but neither wrong. Because we really don't know where we go when we die, and i think the next 100 years we won't find the answer either, but some people say that they have seen heaven! ( and we can't prove they are wrong, because we don't know the truth)

    But if you ask where we come from, that question can simply be answers, from atoms! Atoms are the building blocks of this earth, and everything you see around you is made of atoms, from the screen that you are watching, to the eyes that are reading this, and everything in between. everything is made by atoms. And that's were you come from, from atoms! ( just like air, gravity food, water and life)

    But this isn't correct by the bible, they say the world is made in 7 days with the help of god and that god created Adam and Eve. But if you see god as an atom ( the building brick ) you will soon find out that the bible does have a lot in common with sciences and that the story of the 7 days do have some facts, so does the bible tell what atoms provide (water, air, life, plants, humans) and in what stage it was created. (ground, water, air, plants, life and humans) this is the basic of our sciences and everything after that was all made possible by the basics.

    sorry for my bad English!
    • thumb
      Nov 3 2011: Thank Niek for your thoughts.

      (they say the world is made in 7 days with the help of god and that god created Adam and Eve.) we have same thing in Quran. I never knew we have it in bible.

  • thumb
    Nov 2 2011: The question reminds me of Gauguin's painting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Woher_kommen_wir_Wer_sind_wir_Wohin_gehen_wir.jpg

    That's my answer. All the rest that you need to know about this, you already have an answer for. You just need to take time to see it :-)
    • thumb
      Nov 2 2011: Karina, thanks for link but details was not in English & I could not get anything from it ?
      • thumb
        Nov 2 2011: You didn't need to, Rafi.

        It is a painting. It speaks all languages. It speaks to your heart (but the theme in this one is not easy to get, I know)

        The name of the painting is "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?", so pretty much your question... That's all, making connections