Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (15599)	6/19/2003 2:48:25 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Yes, at death dropping 1 of 3 bodies (the physical)" Would you please tell me why people continue to use the oxymoron of a non-physical "body"? Here is a Webster's definition. Can you point out to me a meaning of "body" which is not molecular or atomic? "1 a : the main part of a plant or animal body especially as distinguished from limbs and head : TRUNK b : the main, central, or principal part: as (1) : the nave of a church (2) : the bed or box of a vehicle on or in which the load is placed (3) : the enclosed or partly enclosed part of an automobile 2 a : the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead: as (1) : the material part or nature of a human being (2) : the dead organism : CORPSE b : a human being : PERSON..." Now, can you point out to me one scientist in the entire world who is studying the attributes of a "body" which is non-physical: I.E. without any molecular or atomic basis? And if there were such a thing, how would it qualify as a type of "body"?? On what basis do you imply the existence of these non-physical bodies? After all, assuming that something without constituents could exist...well, how could one know it? It could not be seen; there is nothing to reflect the light. It cannot be touched; there are no molecules. It cannot be smelled, tasted, or heard. Furthermore it could have no extension in space (extension of WHAT?). It could have no form or structure (what would be limited, boundaried, or shaped?). Likewise, it could have no attributes or characteristics. So I don't understand on what basis certain people talk about non-physical "bodies". Centuries ago, people remarked on the dependency of life upon the breath. They called this unseen substance spiritus, which later became spirit. Of course, we now know that this unseen sunstance is simply oxygen coming in and CO2 going out. We know, indeed, that these are physical substances which may be compressed into liquid form. Now in the year 2003 we have "sages" talking about bodies which have molecules...and bodies which DO NOT have molecules or substance...the oh so elusive "non-physical" BODIES. And how do we evaluate these claims? Do we simply accept the assertion as proof? Do any of the claimants offer any proof? Of course not. How foolish of us to ask. How can they show us a non-physical body. We ought not to bother their certainty with foolish questions. "For example, your sardonic cynicism combined with a certain all-embracing optimism would likely continue in some form." These qualities, for good or for worse, have been carried by the millions. I have no doubt that they will continue to amuse, disgust, or comfort hunankind regardless of who is President.