/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6393989
>So evil is ultimately a creation of God?
No.
Evil is a corruption of something that is good.
The truth is good.
Lying is bad

Love is good
Hate is bad

Evil is not a new creation, but rather a perversion of something that already was.

>That means god created knowledge and evil but was not powerful enough to control it or create something that was not easily corrupted by mere knowledge, either way god is still the source of evil which is the antithesis of holy.

As previously stated I have a limited understand of God.

God has devised a plan to overcome evil.

>but was not powerful enough to control it
How quickly you forget about free will.

God could have very well made robots to worship him.
This however is not love.
God wants to love and to be loved, for this he needs freewill beings.
God wants us to know the difference, between Good and Evil.
Hence the pan.

God is in effect doing what you say he cannot. Just not in a way that you approve.

>>6392844
It would appear that the Mods allow it.

Our founder, who lives in New York, shallow be thy name.
Thy rules be followed, on /sci/ as they are on 4chan.
Give us this day our daily thread, and forgive us our violations.
Lead us not into shitposting, but deliver us from trolls.
MAYHEM


Note: I do not condone praying to anyone but God. The above was meant to be funny.
Also
Is there another version of moots prayer?
It seems like I have heard a similar adaptation of the Lords prayer in the past.


>>6392873
We have the law of conservation of energy because only God can create Matter/Energy.

If energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form.
How is it that there is energy?
A: God can, and did create it.

Also nice way to dodge my question.

>>6392891
I think you have failed to understanding the meaning of ad hominem.
You have provided examples as to why it's important to not just believe everything you read.
However you have not discredited any of the statements from the articles I have linked to.
Even if you had "discredited" the specific sources, it would not refute the statements.
If you would have me believe the articles are lying, you will have to show where they are in error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>But you didn't post any evidence, so i can't ignore things that you don't post.
Perhaps you have missed my previous posts. I am posting with a name.

>>6393569
God has not directly caused evil. He did however provide the means for it to occur.
With God all things are possible. I would remind you he has a plan to overcome sin.

>>6393606
The evil seen in the creation is a result of the fall of Lucifer, and the subsequent fall of man.

As previously stated I personally feel like it is the only way to overcome sin.

God had created the angels with knowledge of evil, and free will.
Lucifer used that knowledge, along with his free will, to disobey God.
So if we are to have both, sin must be overcome.

>>6392839
>decades of work by countless scientists are simply dismissed as lies

Yet you easily dismiss the Law of biogenesis.

>>6392840
I admit that's what it looked like I was saying.
I did not intend to refute the whole article.
However if you are considering the notion that the story is true, it would be illogical to fail to account for supernatural intervention.
>>6392844
May the Mods have mercy on my IP address.


I really am going now. You guys have worn me down.

Perhaps tomorrow. If the Mods allow it.

>>6392671
I could have saved you the trouble.
I too strongly disagree with "faith healers"
I do believe in Miracles.
However people who take advantage of the faith of others are despicable.

Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is.

>>6392708
I see your point.

>>6392736
I assume you mean the creation of the earth, and the additional creation in the garden.
It is two separate events. It is not a contradiction.

>>6392740
You can believe what ever you like, but I would point out a few flaws in that article.
These will be numbered as they appear in the article for easier reference.
1.They have failed to account for the fact that God was present on the ark. They have also not adequately demonstrated that it was impossible.
2.Noah did not gather the animals. The same God that created the universe lead them to it. Again no contradictions here
3.see http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark Again I do not see this as an impossibility. I would also remind you that "with God all things are possible"
4.Again I would remind you that God was on the ark. Also the previously linked article deals with this issue
5.http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html
6. Fails to consider the mountains formed as a result of the "fountains of the deep" breaking open. The ice cores have failed to account for multiple snowfalls in one year.


You know what I give up.
Believe lies if you want to. I don't intend to refute every piece of nonsense put forth.

>>6392757
speaking of made up >>6392740 7. The geological column is made up
>>6392757
Thanks guy.

>>6392811
>The news is lying to us its a conspiracy.
>>>/pol/
also ad hominem.
You have refuted nothing.

I offer your post as evidence that you are ignoring the evidence.

You guys have a nice thread. I'm done for today.
Perhaps I will make some replies tomorrow, but I make no guarantee of that.

>>6392646
Did you read the part about him being Holy?
God could limit himself, and he has partially by being Holy, if he chose to be.
Another way he is limited is by humans having free will.
He cannot force you to do something you don't want to, else you have no free will.

>>6392656
That's not how it happened. see Genesis for more info.

>>6392659
>It doesn't take much to show that "God"', as such, is a ridiculous notion
And yet you have not

>without any empirical basis and absolutely without any moral basis.
Perhaps you have missed my previous posts>>>>6392574, >>6392539

>Its fraud perpetrated on children.
I agree that religion should not be forced upon anyone >>6391630
God has given us free will, why should we try to take that free will from anyone.

But it is no fraud.
PS Your story fails to account for the fact that kids naturally believe in God.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

>>6392671
I do not remember.
54 minutes ehh. I might watch some of it. I make no guarantees.

I almost forgot.
>>6392559
> the story of Noah
I realize you probably wont read this article. I just wanted to say that there is evidence for a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533


>>6392690
>He debates people who are obviously not "religious" in the true sense of the word
He has obviously missed the previously linked video>>6392539

I can assure you John Lennox is indeed a Christian.

>>6392633
>God wanted us to have an experience of good and evil
Perhaps that would be better said
God wanted us to have the knowledge, and also be provide the means for it to be overcome.

I don't think he wanted us to suffer. Perhaps it is the only way.

I have a limited understanding, as I am not God.

>>6392593
>In what sense do we have free will?
In the sense that God has given it to us.

God knowing what you will do is not the same as God making you do that thing.

>>6392596
The good thing about sceince is its true whether or not you "BELIEVE" it
>>6392600
I was about to say the same thing.

>>6392605
Very good point.
I haven't the time or the understanding to explain this fully.
In my opinion God wanted us to have an experience of good and evil, hence the tree was in the garden.
He could not force that upon us because he is Holy. So he gave us the option knowing we would choose the knowledge.
It was so that he might enact his plan to overcome sin.
Sin can arise with but the knowledge of evil. As seen with Lucifer.
Ezekiel 28:15 - Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
God knew this and devised a plan so that the knowledge of evil might exist, and sin could be overcome.
I realize this is not a full explanation. Its all I can offer at this time.

>>6392606
The life of the flesh is IN the blood
>IN

>>6392617
God cannot perform logical impossibilities.
It is impossible that you can do what you want, and be forced to do what you don't want simultaneously.
God is all powerful, but he is not necessarily omnipotent, even if he were he could not do logical impossibilities.
Can he make a married bachelor ? How about a square circle?

God is Holy, and as such he cannot sin, God cannot lie.


>>6392611
>>6392620
>>6392624
>>6392625
>>6392627
Really guys

>>6392628
All humans descended from one man and one woman deal with it.

>>6392548
I believe that God has created the universe.
Getting a donkey to speak is a minor feat by comparison.

Perhaps a bit more science to back up the bible.
The bible has said.
In the beginning God created one man, and one woman.
Science has confirmed the notion of one man and one woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
"Analogous to the Mitochondrial Eve is the Y-chromosomal Adam, the member of Homo sapiens sapiens from whom all living humans are descended patrilineally. The inherited DNA in the male case is his nuclear Y chromosome rather than the mtDNA. "

Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood
Although this may seem obvious to us now. That was not always the case.
Quite recently in history we have found the practice of bloodletting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting
Eventually however science has once again confirmed the bible.

Although the bible is not a science book. It seems to be quite accurate when it speaks of things regarding the natural world.


>>6392559
>You can't "believe" or "disbelieve" in science
Absurd.

>If a person sins...
I would remind you of free will. God cannot give you free will, and simultaneously make you be good.

>>6392561
You are free to form what ever opinion you like.
As am I.

>>6392297
>That is literally sexism.
ok
Because science isn't a belief
Do you not believe in science?

>What reason do you have to assume the Bible is correct?
I have a great number of reasons, but for the sake of /sci/ I will limit them to ones related to science.

You don't seem to understand what [citation needed] means, as you have provided none.
Let me give you some examples of citation.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. This verse indicates that the universe has a beginning. Science has confirmed this fact to be true.
Job 26:7 - He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. This verse indicates that the earth floats in space. Science ....I think you get the point.
Job 38:16 - Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? This verse indicates there are springs in the sea.
Isaiah 40:22 - [removed] that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: This verse indicates the universe is expanding.


Many more examples could be given. Although I think they would just be ignored.
Perhaps it is you who is performing "pretty crazy mental gymnastics" to hold on to your beliefs that the bible is false.
As previously demonstrated by the faith in a "supposed spontaneous origination of life" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis

The truth is you don't want to believe in God, so you look for reasons to justify denying him. Its not that the evidence leads you to that belief.
There is no reason at all to assume abiogenesis could occur. Aside from the notion that God cannot be. A notion that has absolutely no justification.

I guess no one had any thoughts on.
http://mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html

>>6392317
Doesn't take much to convince you that you were previously correct.

Getting back on topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9t6Fkhu_MA

>>6391632
For believing in God?
>>6391637
I'm glad to see you have enjoyed my post.
>>6391638
>The devil is clearly made up.
I'm not sure you are reading the same bible as me.
>This is why science is so great
Because it has been wrong in the past?
I am not trying to say that it was wrong before so it is wrong now.
However I fail to see how previous errors make something great.
>the Bible is set in stone and never changes,
Agreed
> even in the face of overwhelming evidence and contradictions
[citation needed] Science does not disprove God.
Do not attempt to apply your interpretations of the evidence to your interpretations of the bible and count that as error.
This is known as conformation bias.
>>6391640
I know you wont believe me, but I am completely serious. I believe in God.
>>6391641
>>6391645
My point was that not all "Christians" are ignorant as argued in the post I was replying to>>6391585
Perhaps a different approach. http://mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html
49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.
>>6391713
I see your point, but I still find it to be lacking.
>>6391793
I got the notion from the bible.
Since when did Christianity give up the notion of a devil?
>>6391814
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I contend the possibility for God's existence is 100%. i.e. He is definitely real.
>God's existence is as likely as the existence of dragons or any other mythical being that we don't have evidence existed.
The word Dragon was used to describe the large reptiles. i.e. Dinosaurs. Do you deny that dinosaurs have lived. also (pic related)
>>6392212
I realize that my posts might make it seem that I am a troll.
I can only state that I am sincere. I know no way to prove it to you. Sorry

Well I think that was all who had replied to me. I shall have to go and read the thread.

I will read any replies I receive, but I might not reply again.

>>6391545
>all he's doing is preaching to the crowd and selling books.
You could sell books on any topic.
This does not explain why he does what he does.

>>6391561
I stand corrected.
Nevertheless It provides justification for such beliefs.
I would ask you to read some of Hitler's work.
He used evolution as justification for his actions.

>>6391567
You actually deny that God exists? Hilarious. I recommend you go learn the truth.

>>6391572
I would ask you to read the title of Darwin's book again.
>PRESERVATION OF FAVORED RACES

>what with interpretations that black people were the "marked"
>interpretations

> whole sections on how to own slaves
They were not specific as to which race. Anyone could be a slave. i.e. Not racist

> clear examples of genocide
Justified by God
Could you say the same of Hitlers Genocide?

>sexism
Are you saying the bible says to treat women badly?
It does say for men to rule over them. Perhaps you should consider (pic related)
Also justified see Genesis 3:1-16


>>6391585
>let them decide if they want to believe in things that conflict with what we know to be true.
I agree that individuals should decide for themselves what the truth is. I do not believe in indoctrination.
That being said I have no problem teaching kids the bible.
Speaking of believing in things that are in conflict what what we know to be true
Your supposed spontaneous origination of life remains to be seen. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis
It is standing in opposition to known law. i.e. biogenesis

I would remind you that one of the greatest scientific minds the world has known was a Christian. Sir Isaac Newton
Do you presume he was likewise retarded? Or does that only count for us "American Christians"?
ps Religious kids make better grades. Fact. http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2008/august/081808teensreligion.html

If this thread is still up. I will have to make my replies in the morning. Good night, and good luck with the thread.

>>6391248
I don't understand why he does what he does.
I used to be an atheist, and I could have cared less what theists were doing.

Christians are told to go and spread the word. Matthew 28:19
Not only that, but we really believe in God, we are genuinely concerned for others.
I honestly believe in hell, and I don't want anyone to go. Its easy not to. Accept God's gift of salvation.

If God is real, as I believe he is, getting people to seek him is of the utmost importance.
If God is not real, as Dawkins believes, who gives a shit what anyone believes.

Why does it bother him that I believe in God?

Assume that I am wrong about God.
I will spend my life trying to follow the teachings of Christ, and trying to get others to do the same. Which leads them to live a better life.
I think most can agree if everyone tried to lived the way the bible says to the world would benefit.
I will die happy thinking "I'm off to a better place". I will never know that I was wrong.

Now lets assume Dawkins is wrong about God.
He is spending his life denying God, and trying to get others to do the same. Which leads to their damnation
Darwinian evolution is the foundation for racism (pic related) It has been the basis for much wrongdoing.(debatable)
He will die thinking "This is the end" He will definitely know that he was wrong.

I do honestly believe in God. However I find the notion preferable, even if I were wrong.
Alright enough of that, and on to your questions.

>What is your opinion on Richie D?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

> Is he doing God's work?
He is doing the devils work.

>Does he talk about memes or genes anymore or just debate religious people?
Dunno.

>Why does he look so young for his age?
*looks up age. Almost 73 Wow he does look young for his age.
Must have made a deal with the devil.

>Would you touch his penis?
Nope.

>>6390670
I believe God is the uncaused first cause.

Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function.
However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed.
Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us.

The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time.
Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect.
However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction.
A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point.
Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created.

tl/dr
God did it.


Not trying to start a debate, Just wanted to throw in my two cents.

>>6390790
A better representation of what I meant


There is no way you can turn the cube to correct this problem, one side will always be wrong unless you remove the stickers, or take the cube apart.

If you switch this side and then mix up the cube, it might temporarily trick someone attempting to solve it.

>>6389800
I know for a fact if you switch just one side to be reversed, the cube will always have one side reversed.

You cannot move just one side they work in pairs. Its hard to explain just trust me.
I have circled what I mean by a side

>>6389806
This would probably do it as well.
I have never tried it, but the more I think about it the more I'm sure it would make the cube unsolvable.

Note: Anyone with any skill at solving cubes will know it has been tampered with. Perhaps not immediately, but I'm sure they will figure out the problem eventually.

>>6389362
Thanks man.

Sorry again for being a smartass. I have been one for so long, its a bad habit to break.
I am supposed to be taking more time in my replies, so that I might make them more appropriate. >>>/lit/4616608
Its one of the reasons I decided to start using a name. So that I am more accountable for my statements.
I just get caught up in arguing sometimes. I hope you can forgive me.


>>6389430
>I think that creation-man just doesn't believe in radiometric dating.
Correct. I don't believe this method is an accurate measure of age.
I am not prepared to defend this notion at this time, just stating my belief.


I guess no one has anything to say about ↓
http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2008/august/081808teensreligion.html

Alright I got to go. I can't be up all night debating. You guys have a nice thread.

PS I think the topic was education.

>>6389064
I am a Christian, but this is not a /sci/ thread.

Threads like this are part of the reason /sci/ seems to hate us.
Come on man seriously. Are you trying to get b&, or just make us more hated?
The Mods have been fairly lenient in regards to being off topic, or religion vs science, lately.
Do not abuse the situation.

>>6389243
I was supposed to be leaving this thread. Oh well.
>You can't prove or disprove something by citing a lack of evidence for it.
I totally agree.

>>6389253
>That's me, but I'm no troll.
I knew it. Anyways considering that we have already been through all this so hows about we agree to disagree?
I have decided to start posting with a name, so now you can just ignore my posts, or we can argue if you prefer it. I just don't see the point.

>Are you being deliberately obtuse?
No. I was trying to demonstrate the ignorance of your statement.
One cannot stop using Law. Gravity has its effect regardless your opinion of it.
I will offer my apology for once again being a smartass. Sorry. If I were a better debater I could make my point without the need of being rude.
I really am trying to stop doing that. If you had met me in the past, you would appreciate just how far I have come.

>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I still agree. I also admit that's what it looked like I was saying.

My point wasn't that abiogenesis could never happen.
It was only that we have never seen it happen.
Considering we can, and do observe life, we should take those observations into account.

>>6389263
>If I lived on an isolated island and the only birds I ever saw were blue, I could create a scientific "law" that "birds are blue".
That law would be valid for that specific island, provided no other birds showed up.
Laws can be disproven, and it only takes once. If abiogenesis is ever shown to occur, biogenesis will be refuted.
The fact is we are not trapped on an island. The whole world is ours to observe. We have yet to observe your supposed spontaneous origination of life.

Agree to disagree? Please. Neither of us can convince the other. We should give up the notion of trying.

>>6389202
The CIA has the stats for Ukraine, but not specifically Crimea

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html


I hope this helps.

I think I have been trolled.

>>6389090
>"Unproven theory" is the closest you can get without literally observing every instance of something.

We have competing theories as to the origin of life.
You say life made its-self, I say God made life.
They cannot both be correct.

One if them (abiogenesis) is standing in opposition to a known law of science.
The other (creation) is not.


If you are a troll, I just wanted to say good job.
Jimmies were effectively rustled.

You wouldn't happen to be the same guy from (pic related) would you?
Stop using science law he says.
As if I could just turn off gravity whenever I felt like it.
Oh no thanks Gravity, I think I'll just float around today.

>>6389227
Bacteria remains bacteria. This is microevoluton.

Law tells us what happens, theory explains why this is.
The law says life comes from life. The theory of abiogenesis is in opposition to this law.
The creationists view is more scientific, as it is not in opposition to any known law.


I'm done here.

You guys have a nice thread.

>>6389040
They tried to.

>>6389090
Everyone can test gravity at any time.
No one has ever seen one creature turn into another.
All the evidence is in agreement with the bible. Creatures produce after their kind. i.e. Cats make more cats, and dogs make more dogs.

>>6389106
I honestly don't even know if you are being serious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, which are proposed during the scientific process before and during validation by experiment and observation. These are NOT LAWS since they HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED to the SAME DEGREE and may not be sufficiently general, although they may lead to the formulation of laws. A law is a MORE SOLIDIFIED and formal statement, distilled from REPEATED EXPERIMENT.


PS
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biogenesis
"the development of life from preexisting life"
FACT All that has ever been observed, or demonstrated is life comes from life. i.e. VERIFIED Hence Biogenesis is Law.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis
"the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter"
>supposed
>spontaneous origination
No one has ever observed or demonstrated, even just once that, life can arise. i.e. UNVERIFIED You can believe it if you like, that does not make it a fact.

>>6389126
It's a distinction between what we know to be fact, and what some people think happens.

It would seem I have gone a bit "off topic".
This seems to be more of a /pol/ type of thread anyways.

I am not going to argue with you guys on Creation vs Evolution.

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the topic at hand.

I realize the majority of you disagree with me. I am honestly ok with the disagreement as it pertains science.
Why does the community allow such nonsense to be used in defense of evolution?
You guys know the difference between Law, and Theory. I shouldn't have to explain them.

>>6377330
Parents should have the final say, but ONLY when it pertains to unproven theory.
i.e. If a parent said " Your not teaching my kid Gravity" I would be of the opinion to allow the state to intervene.

That being said. Not everyone believes the Theory of Evolution.
I do not deny that microevolution occurs, but I do deny the notion of a common ancestor.

We should teach the facts, and let the children decide for themselves what those facts mean. Not demand that they buy into any specific theory that pertains to those facts. So that they might learn to think for themselves.
I have no problem with students learning any particular theory. Just don't assert it as fact.

>>6381736
As a Christian I would have to disagree.
John 3:18
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

>>6381749
The war was not caused because we would not pay the tax. It was because they insisted we pay in gold, and refused our currency.
i.e. England had said "Your money is no good here".

>>6382356
>You're not going to care about pollution, or fundamental science, or anything with "only" long term consequences.
I disagree in that I do care about pollution. etc. etc.

>>6385026
You guys seem to think that by removing Theory, all facts are removed with it.


PS
http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2008/august/081808teensreligion.html

"Overall, teens that attended services regularly demonstrated more positive educational outcomes in three areas: they had higher GPAs, a lower dropout rate, and greater school attachment (defined as the degree to which students feel like a part of the school and feel happy to be a part of it)."

>>6388862
I would have to agree.
I happen to be very fond of science, but it honestly cannot answer everything.

>>6388890
No
Sorry for any confusion I might have caused.

>>6388892
I never said you were coming back here, although some Christians do believe in reincarnation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWCUjx4nI98

I am as of yet undecided. Leaning towards true.

>>6388903
>>6388906
Its cool man. I have been there myself. Staying up late trying to keep up with conversation.
Its taxing sometimes. Get some rest man.

>>6387476
Science offers little to nothing to explain the feelings you have.
I would suggest you find a religion that you can agree with.

I personally follow the teachings of The Lord Jesus Christ aka Yeshua.

The reason you are having these feelings, is because they are true. There is an afterlife.
I realize you were looking for a scientific answer. Hence the post on /sci/.
The reply below is all I have to offer in terms of scientific explanations, and it does not answer your question.

>>6387494
Dimethyltryptamine is a chemical found in most living things. It is claimed to be the cause of our dreams.
Perhaps when you die, your body releases this chemical to help you cope with death. This claim has been made by others.
It is the scientific explanation as to why people have near death experiences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine
http://www.cracked.com/funny-2450-dimethyltryptamine-dmt/

>>6388211
I can see how this might be a possibility, especially considering the above information.
In my opinion the body dies, and the soul lives on.


The notion proposed is what I used to believe happened when you die, back when I had it all figured out.

I do have some questions for you guys to ponder on. I don't expect answers. Although I appreciate everyone's opinions, even if I disagree.

Why would nature need a coping mechanism for death?
You are going to be dead anyways what difference does it make?

In my opinion it only makes sense to have a coping mechanism, if it is not truly the end. To help with the transition between this life and the next.
A feasible naturalistic explanation could be. It is there in the event you almost die, but don't.
Although I fail to see how "tripping out" could help you live through a life threatening event.
ITS THE APOCALYPSE SOMEONE GET ME MY ACID!


Although I do believe in God, I try to keep my posts on /sci/ as scientific as possible.
Thanks to all for having tolerance, and understanding.