As an Physicalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism] I don't see any reason to believe in an afterlife.
Hey I'd like to keep on existing as much as the next guy, but I just don't see how it would be possible. Not to mention the total lack of evidence. And that most afterlives come with some sort of religion attached to it.
it is impossible to prove god does not exist and unless god shows up it's impossible to prove god exists so arguing evidence is not going to get to anywhere since if there is an all mighty being that made everything it could easily avoid detection and if there isn't then people can just say it's hiding on another plane of existence or something
btw this isn't target directly at you, you just got this idea to pop in my head
However, Occam's razor makes a God seem very implausible. Basically, the less assumptions you have to make to form a theory, the more likely it is to be true. However, why WOULD God hide? Why not show itself and convince atheists?
That said, I believe the same thing happens when we die as before we were born. How'd that feel? Well, absolutely nothing. I see no evidence or reason behind an afterlife, so my belief is that there is none.
simple god doesn't care if you think about it why would an almighty being care about one insignificant race when he is making an entire plane of existence, not only that but if that race found him they would constantly bug him for every whim they desire and thus he would have to hide again or more likely kill them all. an example would be if you had 1000 ant farms would you care if one was trying to break out and if it did break out wouldn't you just grab the ant traps and kill them all.
If God didn't care enough about whether people believed in him or not to show athiests that he exists, then why would he condemn a person to unimaginable, never-ending agony just for not believing in him, as the crazy ones like to keep telling us?
As to your hypothetical question- kill all the ants just because one got out of the farm? Why?
for question number 1: he doesn't i believe in reincarnation god set up a system so that he wouldn't have to constantly pump new souls into the world
Question 2: you misunderstood the example the ant traps are only to kill the escapees not the ones that are still in the ant farms
If life is what you make of it, maybe death is too? Within boundaries of course, but still, I believe in the afterlife and that while it may not be anything like we can conceptualize now, it doesn't mean the end of self.
I've skimmed because I'm bored of 2000 word essays. Especially when your last one could have been summed up in about 5 words.
"atheism is defined as the lack of belief... Of what? You can't have a lack of something without defining a structure to not believe in."
Yes you can. It denotes people who aren't theists. Theists believe in something, atheists don't.
"There's no such thing as 'not-believing', there is being entirely unaware of a concept, or having an opinion of it."
I do not believe there is a god because there is no evidence to support the notion that there is.
This entire debate hinges on your inability to understand that a lack of belief is a thing. Or maybe you're using 'opinion' and 'belief' interchangeably.
As I said, there is nothing to give me cause to believe in god, so I do not believe in god. A belief in god relies on FAITH, if I were to belief in god, it would rely on EVIDENCE.
... There's something very wrong with at least one of the above statements, but I'm way too tired to get it to make sense.
"But if you assert "there is no god", as a blanket statement - which would imply not just rejecting any specific notion of god, but every single possible notion of god anyone has ever come up with, as well as any other idea that might be possible..."
I suspect people say that because its easier than qualifying everything with "that has yet been proven or shown to exist with any substantial evidence, yada yada yada."
If there's no evidence or reason to believe something then its perfectly acceptable to say it doesn't exist, because for all intents and purposes it doesn't. Again, it is evidence based; it can change.
You're contradicting yourself here. But therefore I concede your point that it is essentially a form of laziness. In that you're not saying what you actually mean, but using a shorter form which implies a much higher degree of certainty than you actually intend.
I don't consider it acceptable to say something doesn't exist unless you have evidence to back this up.
Therefore, I use the same underlying of concept of requiring evidence, but apply it differently.
And you object to me doing so, because apparently it means you have to make more effort to state your actual position clearly.
So instead of doing so you state you don't need to prove anything because your (apparently absolute) statement is inherently more valid than what it stands opposed to.
Atheists as a whole rely on evidence, theists on faith.
Mhm. Neither of those statements is strictly speaking true. But since you stuck in the provisional statement 'as a whole', there isn't much I can realistically say against it though is there?
"That's because it is. You have no evidence for your position, any more than they have evidence for theirs."
My evidence is a lack thereof; you can't prove a negative. The only reason I am having to say "I don't believe in god" is because someone has had to imagine them in the first place.
absence of god is not strictly speaking a negative. It has certain consequences, which might be verifiable in principle.
Aside from which, you can't prove a positive either. At best you can actively try and disprove something, and consistently fail to do so.
That's how pretty much all experiments work.
Evidence based logic is fine as long as you don't ask the wrong kind of questions.
God is not a question. It is an answer to a different question that is difficult to answer.
But what in essence you seem to be saying is don't ask a question about the nature of reality unless you're confident you can find evidence for or against it.
...
You know what? You win. I don't even know what point you're trying to make, but fine. Whatever.
Clearly, I don't believe in evidence or something. >_>
Ah whatever. I haven't got a clue what I'm saying anymore. I'm going to bed.
As an Physicalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism] I don't see any reason to believe in an afterlife.
Hey I'd like to keep on existing as much as the next guy, but I just don't see how it would be possible. Not to mention the total lack of evidence. And that most afterlives come with some sort of religion attached to it.
it is impossible to prove god does not exist and unless god shows up it's impossible to prove god exists so arguing evidence is not going to get to anywhere since if there is an all mighty being that made everything it could easily avoid detection and if there isn't then people can just say it's hiding on another plane of existence or something
btw this isn't target directly at you, you just got this idea to pop in my head
However, Occam's razor makes a God seem very implausible. Basically, the less assumptions you have to make to form a theory, the more likely it is to be true. However, why WOULD God hide? Why not show itself and convince atheists?
That said, I believe the same thing happens when we die as before we were born. How'd that feel? Well, absolutely nothing. I see no evidence or reason behind an afterlife, so my belief is that there is none.
simple god doesn't care if you think about it why would an almighty being care about one insignificant race when he is making an entire plane of existence, not only that but if that race found him they would constantly bug him for every whim they desire and thus he would have to hide again or more likely kill them all. an example would be if you had 1000 ant farms would you care if one was trying to break out and if it did break out wouldn't you just grab the ant traps and kill them all.
If God didn't care enough about whether people believed in him or not to show athiests that he exists, then why would he condemn a person to unimaginable, never-ending agony just for not believing in him, as the crazy ones like to keep telling us?
As to your hypothetical question- kill all the ants just because one got out of the farm? Why?
for question number 1: he doesn't i believe in reincarnation god set up a system so that he wouldn't have to constantly pump new souls into the world
Question 2: you misunderstood the example the ant traps are only to kill the escapees not the ones that are still in the ant farms
2. Thats still pretty harsh. Why couldn't you just capture the ants and return them to the farm? Or better yet, let them go free into the wild? Ants are living things too!
Anyhow, I would see the afterlife as a destination for our soul with our body as the vessel and our life as the journey. In the same way you use a vehicle to travel from A to B. The problem with this theory (and many others) is that I can't explain the soul. Where does it come from? We are born with a soul? How does that work?
The soul is an ill-defined concept at best, so arguing about evidence for or against runs into some serious problems.
A better question would be to ask about consciousness, since that presents a far more awkward problem. There is evidence for it's existence, (everyone who is conscious knows they are), but for some reason it can't be measured by any objective means.
(Eg. I can trivially prove my own consciousness - by the ultimate in subjective means, but can't even begin to devise a method for proving the consciousness of another in any meaningful way. - Eg. A total failure of objective measurements.)
That comes back to the burden of proof. Some one comes up with the idea of "consciousness" existing as something more than or outside of a human brain, and other people accept that idea because..?
I say where there's a total lack of objective measurements involved in trying to prove something, it's best to call bullshit and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.
Sorry, but this response seems like something of a nonsequitor.
In any event, to go with what you're saying, objective measurement being the sole and only standard of evidence is incredibly flawed as a concept as far as I'm concerned.
Prove to me objectively you are conscious. That you have any kind of experience at all.
This is precisely the kind of problem that shows up the limits of objective proofs, yet you want to argue that because it can't be measured objectively it should be disregarded in it's entirety?
So... You know your consciousness exists, but since you can't prove it you don't want to give it any further thought?
To me, it is more important than 'objective reality', because it's the only thing I can be certain of.
I can be certain that I am currently experiencing something.
I cannot be certain that what is considered 'objective reality' has any actual existence whatsoever.
The problem comes in that if I speak to another person, (such as you), the only thing we seem to be able to agree on is this 'objective reality' we both seem to share.
But since the only parts of your existence that I can verify are the ones that exist 100% within this 'objective reality', and I cannot be in any way certain this actually exists, I cannot be certain you exist.
Except insofar as you tell me you do by means of 'objective proof'.
But objective proof is the least meaningful form of proof insofar as asking what it means to exist. Because it answers any question except the one you're actually trying to work out.
I cannot perform any objective experiment on any part of myself.
Anyway, as to 'burden of proof'
I never even said consciousness exists "Outside of a human brain". I merely made the observation that it exists.
Known facts about consciousness:
1. It exists.
That's it. And that's the problem. It's quite a different problem from asking about god. God May or may not exist. Same with the afterlife. This might, or might not exist.
Consciousness does exist. Everyone who is conscious knows this. Yet precisely no-one can prove it through objective means.
That is a big problem, and I don't see how you can find it acceptable to just brush aside like that.
OK, let me say something slightly different here:
Because you mentioned burden of proof, let's look at what else you've stated incedentally.
1. Objective measurements are the only meaningful way of understanding the world. If it is impossible to measure something objectively, it's not worth knowing about.
Now, that might sound a harsh or incorrect appraisal, but that seems to be what you've said.
However, my response to this would then be:
Given a phenomena which everyone knows to be true. (The fact that they personally have 'consciousnesss' - or whatever else you want to call the actual experience of being aware of your own existence)
And the observation that there seems to be no objective way to measure this phenomena at all...
The burden of proof lies with you to show why objective measurements are a valid way of understanding existence.
(And secondly, to double-check your claims about who has the burden of proof, let me reverse your own statement: Someone comes up with the idea that "consiousness" exists solely as a product of the human brain. Other people accept this idea because...?)
Honestly, I found most of that to be talking in existentialist circles. I can't prove to you that I'm not just a robot in a world built around you for the purpose of a sick experiment carried out by an omnipotent being... but assuming that isn't the nature of the world is reasonable because you have objective proof to the contrary (or at least you would if you dissected me... I suppose that's actually a bad *beep* example).
Objective proof of what though? Assuming my existentialist premise. (It's actually solipsism, which is " only one's own mind is sure to exist.", but then existentialism is a blanket term for various much more recent philosophical ideas, and has no consistent definition.)
The problem with this is that the premise on which this argument rests rules out the validity of what you would consider 'objective' proof.
Though to be honest, I can't find any such proof anyway, even if I did dissect you, what would I actually be able to prove about your consciousness (or potential lack thereof)?
This is not proof. At best it is inference and projection. The only way it could reasonably be said to be proof is if I performed some kind of non-fatal surgery upon myself, (since I am the only person for whom I can meaningfully verify the implications of what I am testing for).
Furthermore, these tests would have to alter something about my brain that does not fundamentally damage my ability to comprehend what I've done to myself. If I can't understand what I used to be like, it doesn't answer much either.
There's absolutely no point performing experiments on others to test for their changes in experiential reality (for want of a better way of putting it.). Because I cannot deduce with any degree of reliability what their experiences were before, or after the changes. (Nor if they even actually have any at all.)
About the only issue brought up that I can address without the condescension I have just displayed (so, to answer your question: yes, as far as I'm concerned, objective measurement is the only standard of evidence I accept) is that of the burden of proof.
People generally accept the idea of consciousness being a product of brain activity due to many studies of this subject [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience]. Individual consciousness is not an easy thing to explain, and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but what I've read on in makes a hell of a lot more sense than the spiritualist explanations I've received.
Sprititualist explanations are fiction. My own experiences are not. Neuroscience is fascinating, but it doesn't answer any of the questions I'm asking, because it fundamentally cannot answer them.
If objective measurement is the only thing you accept as 'proof' of anything, you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy there.
Because if your default assumption is "Only things which can be objectively proven are true", you will never find anything which defies that assumption. You are wilfully making yourself blind to the very idea.
But let's move on. Here's that burden of proof thing again. Burden of proof is a legal concept. Not one that applies to the workings of reality. Reality is whatever it is. We can try and work out what that means, but burden of proof is akin to you saying you don't ever need to make an effort.
But while we are going through this anyway, let's try to be clear on the point I am making;
Which do you think it is?
1. Consciousness exists independently of the brain.
2. Consciousness can be fully explained by the workings of the brain.
3. Consciousness cannot be understood by the workings of the brain alone.
If you answered anything other than 3, you've misunderstood my point. Furthermore, I have attempted to show you why this is the case, which you reject mostly by asserting all manner of things which don't answer the question.
I know what it's like to be conscious, and what this entails. I also know that to date I have never come across any meaningful objective measures of why the experiences I have are the way they are, when the functional aspects of what purpose those experiences serve show no logical reasons for why they are the way they are, as opposed to any number of alternate variations which would accomplish the same task.
The burden of proof therefore lies with you in explaining why you assert that objective measurements are valid to any problem, when I have reasonable grounds for believing I have found a problem to which objective standards of measurement cannot provide an answer?
Or, rephrased: I may well have the burden of proof for claiming consciousness is not a product of the brain, (which wasn't a claim I was even making to begin with).
But you have the burden of proof for substantiating your claim that objective measurements are the only valid proof to any problem, when I can find several examples where not only is there a question they fail to answer, they show no real sign of even potentially answering it.
So... Prove to me your rather strong assertion that objective proof is the only valid form of proof, when my own evidence tells me otherwise.
(Unless you're going to argue that you don't have a consciousness of your own of course. Because me asking you about it about it relies on the idea that you do in fact have conscious experience somewhat comparable to my own. In which case you too should be able to spot the same logical flaws that conscious experience poses for the notion of objective proof.)
So, can you back up your claim? Or are you going to try and deflect it by insisting I prove a position I never asserted to begin with?
-----------------
At least the arguments used by people with various religious beliefs tend to be compatible with how those beliefs work.
Ugh. OK, enough of that. I need to get some sleep, and get over this habit of posting such long rants trying to convince someone of something they're never going to accept anyway.
Might as well start trolling people for all the good it does.
first off, there are three concepts known as "burden of proof". One is legal, yes... one is philosophical, and the one I have been referring to is scientific. Though I learned all of this well over a decade ago, and apparently it's now more commonly referred to as "Scientific burden of evidence".
Thing is, in order for me to prove even a shred of what we're debating, both of us would need to be neuroscientists in the same location studying a live brain [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Scientific_approaches]... which is why I fall back on the scientific burden of evidence. Accepted, not yet disproved [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence#Beliefs_and_biases] theory in the field of neuroscience explains consciousness as likely originating in the prefrontal cortex. That is, of course, a gross oversimplification... but I'm not publishing a research journal here.
Oh, I almost forgot. Regarding your questions that objective proof apparently "fails to answer" (honestly, I think you're just not in the right field of research to have your questions answered)... apparently our consciousnesses aren't similar enough, because I would have to make a fourth option on your little biased quiz. Consciousness can most likely be explained by the workings of the brain. According to the scientific method, though, one can never be certain. Maybe one day it'll be as certain as the theory that Earth's gravity accelerates objects at approximately 9.8m/s/s (in a vacuum, anyway).
Also, before you bring up "belief" again, I pose that I don't actually believe in anything. Not in a nihilistic way, but a scientific (or universally skeptical) one. When I find evidence that disproves a theory I support, I no longer support that theory. When someone espouses a theory without evidence to back it up, I ridicule them if I care enough to. That is all this is.
Nope, certainly not. Even if you can't prove there isn't one, there still is absolutely no evidence that such an existence exists, and I am certainly not going to believe something just because it is comforting.
As an Physicalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism] I don't see any reason to believe in an afterlife.
Hey I'd like to keep on existing as much as the next guy, but I just don't see how it would be possible. Not to mention the total lack of evidence. And that most afterlives come with some sort of religion attached to it.
it is impossible to prove god does not exist and unless god shows up it's impossible to prove god exists so arguing evidence is not going to get to anywhere since if there is an all mighty being that made everything it could easily avoid detection and if there isn't then people can just say it's hiding on another plane of existence or something
btw this isn't target directly at you, you just got this idea to pop in my head
However, Occam's razor makes a God seem very implausible. Basically, the less assumptions you have to make to form a theory, the more likely it is to be true. However, why WOULD God hide? Why not show itself and convince atheists?
That said, I believe the same thing happens when we die as before we were born. How'd that feel? Well, absolutely nothing. I see no evidence or reason behind an afterlife, so my belief is that there is none.
simple god doesn't care if you think about it why would an almighty being care about one insignificant race when he is making an entire plane of existence, not only that but if that race found him they would constantly bug him for every whim they desire and thus he would have to hide again or more likely kill them all. an example would be if you had 1000 ant farms would you care if one was trying to break out and if it did break out wouldn't you just grab the ant traps and kill them all.
If God didn't care enough about whether people believed in him or not to show athiests that he exists, then why would he condemn a person to unimaginable, never-ending agony just for not believing in him, as the crazy ones like to keep telling us?
As to your hypothetical question- kill all the ants just because one got out of the farm? Why?
for question number 1: he doesn't i believe in reincarnation god set up a system so that he wouldn't have to constantly pump new souls into the world
Question 2: you misunderstood the example the ant traps are only to kill the escapees not the ones that are still in the ant farms
2. Thats still pretty harsh. Why couldn't you just capture the ants and return them to the farm? Or better yet, let them go free into the wild? Ants are living things too!
yes but what a pain it would be gathering each one before they got in your food and cloths and then making sure they stay out of you house or don't escape again. honestly the majority of people would kill them (and some of that portion would eat them) and i believe that god is just a really powerful person. also the "ants are people to" line made me laugh thanks for that it brightened my day
The only state of consciousness we can't comprehend is non existence. The mere idea of not being around anymore scares us so much that we turn to fables and old tales to avoid the fact that once we are dead, it's over.
They don't come back or go anywhere else in a form that YOU can observe. And what you can't observe you could just about fit into virtually all of the known universe, to say nothing of the unknown universe(s).
My point is, we're a step above monkeys. Universally speaking, we're a pretty dumb and extraordinarily limited species. We don't really understand the universe, we only think we do.
I never said we do, just that the idea of non existence is so difficult to understand that we come up with explanations that validate the idea that we keep on living after death in some way or form. This "we cannot know anything therefore there must be something after death" validates my point just as well as religion does.
Your comprehension skills leave much to be desired, unless you're just misrepresenting me on purpose to pathetically flail your point.
It's funny you poke at my logic, because you're at least as guilty. A few minor word substitutions, and we have YOUR point: "we cannot see anything therefore there must be nothing after death". Which, considering that I'm not actually firmly on one side of the fence or the other, is actually worse than my point, which was actually "we cannot know anything, therefore we cannot even guess as to whether there's something after death". My point was in response to your point, which was "i've never seen a ghost, therefore there's nothing after death!"
But I can see that after somebody dies, he or she doesn't come back or go anywhere, the body decomposes and life ends, unless there is proof that something keeps on living there is no evidence to back up the idea that there is life after death.
No you can't, jesus. And I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Try expanding your boxed-in mind just a little bit, will you? Try using an imagination. Try pretending that you don't have everything fucking figured out.
Well, I'm glad you've found it interesting, because at times I mostly feel like some of it has been a long-winded way of getting someone to understand a point, only to have them reach a more or less unrelated conclusion, then attack me for this.
Our conscious doesn't hold memories?* Because, if our memories are stored in our brain and we would strip away our vessel (body) then wouldn't we all be the same on a conscious level? By that theory, after death we all return to being one. This is under the assumption that memories makes us who we are. Which is something I do believe in. An interesting theory.
Then there is another interesting theory, which has been mentioned in this thread before, once, very short, I think. Okay, here I go...
It has been proven that, depending on speed and location, time is observed differently. Try to communicate with a shuttle traveling half the speed of light away from earth. You can't because of the time difference (in experience). I am not going to get scientific here. If you want to know more about this, watch these amazing videos on YouTube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJVDeusOfFM].
So time can be observed and experienced differently. Then it might be possible that our conscious never dies and our body never dies when we ourself are the only observer. Meaning that the second of death is a second to the outside world, but we might be an eternity for us.
Think about sleep. First off, it's interesting to note that we don't remember falling asleep but we do remember waking up. In analogy, we don't remember being born, but we might remember dying. Anyway, think about sleep (again). Most people remember there dreams. Not every time and not all of it, but we remember. In our dreams time flows differently. Usually we seem to have experienced more time in our dreams than in the waking world. Take the movie Inception, for example.
All this gives a notion of an eternal sleep lasting only 1 second to the observing outside world.
EDIT: *Not saying you suggested that, just throwing a question your way.
I think our physical bodies ("mortal selves") die but our souls remain as they are our "eternal selves". What happens from there is something I only wish to consider in any great detail once I've gotten there. In honesty, I have too much to do while my old ticker is beating to think about what's next.
Simply put, nothing I do will ever matter because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of my time will be spent on another plane of existence. Everything here is good, all the time, and no problems exist ever. This place has never shown the slightest shred of evidence to exist, EVER.
I'm a weird kind of guy, I don't follow any religion (in fact, I can't stand most organized religions, but that's a topic for a different thread), but I do believe that there is some form of afterlife. I don't believe it's some palace in the clouds where you get to chill out with God by the poolside all day, but I'd like to believe that our consciousness goes to some utopia of the imagination where we can create it to be whatever we want, whenever we want. Or we could just be put in dirt to be eaten by maggots, but I like my utopia theory better.
well i believe our consciousness does indeed die since our brains do not come with the soul. our existence itself does not end but is altered. also i believe the soul does contain part of what we were, it is every thought and emotion we ever had and is used to being manipulated in a certain way so when it is transferred it is easier to do things you did a lot in another life, think about it like a series of buttons some you push a lot and cause the spring to weaken and the button is easier to push others you never needed so when you do try to push it the button resists. also I'd like to thank you for remaining civil a lot of people on other forums can get out of hand when it comes to things like these.
We're divided in body, mind, and soul then? And together they form the you that we observe? However, the thing with our soul connected to our personalities seem to be in conflict with our current knowledge of genetics. As far as I know, we can see that we're affected by genetics, and environment. How would a soul cope, if it's used to doing something that doesn't exist around the new body? Also, then, can the amount of indivivuals grow, or is everything being recycled?
No worries. I always try to keep things civil. I'm merely curious. Likewise, as you don't seem to mind discussing this. Something I like.
absence of god is not strictly speaking a negative. It has certain consequences, which might be verifiable in principle.
Aside from which, you can't prove a positive either. At best you can actively try and disprove something, and consistently fail to do so.
That's how pretty much all experiments work.
Evidence based logic is fine as long as you don't ask the wrong kind of questions.
God is not a question. It is an answer to a different question that is difficult to answer.
But what in essence you seem to be saying is don't ask a question about the nature of reality unless you're confident you can find evidence for or against it.
Sorry if quotes don't get through, but I'm having some major "escapist" issues here for no apparent reason.
God is not an answer. God is an excuse. The idea that a god exists does not bring ANYTHING to the table. If anything it brings more questions. I think as with here:
And sorry about the "assume" bit, it's not what I meant, I meant that we reject something if we don't have any evidence for it. We don't assume the negative, we don't make a claim about the negative, we reject the claim. And rejecting the claim is disbelief.
So the default stance on the question "Do you believe in an afterlife?" is no.
If you said yes, you would be just going on faith, whereas saying no is the default. Saying "I don't know" is not the default. If you get asked a question about something invisible, untouchable and unmeasurable you don't say "I don't know" you just say "no," you make the assumption that because of the complete lack of evidence that there is no reason to consider that such a thing does exist. Essentially rejecting the belief.
Science is the method of using things such as maths to gather evidence to understand something.
That link redirects to a page on the scientific method. Nothing on that page is a huge surprise to me, but also nothing in my experience of science, nor anything I can find on that page mentions anything you're using as reasoning here.
Aside from which, I consider it completely flawed to reject a belief based on lack of evidence, so if this is standard practice (which seems rather odd), it is honestly rather silly.
This basically either means things are being rejected arbitrarily, or they are working from the assumption that "No" = "I don't know", but this is a very dangerous concept to take on board, because there's a rather important difference between "I reject this because it contradicts evidence I have", and "I reject this because I have no evidence of any kind relating to it."
That really, truly should not be a position anyone should take if they're working from what scientific principles are supposed to mean. - Though it would certainly explain a lot of stupid statements I've seen scientists come out with over the years.
in that the answer of saying that there is a god, or there is an afterlife is unfounded, there is absolutely no evidence supporting it.
We (ie. the people you're saying must disprove it) do not have to disprove it to view it as false. You have no evidence to support your claim, therefore it is regarded as false until evidence has been provided. This is how the scientific method works. This is the scientific burden of proof. That is why that link links to where it does. It is the foundation of science. If something does not have evidence to support it (ie. the supernatural) it is not considered. It needs evidence to become something or else every single claim ever could be considered a possibility.
Sure, "everything is possible", but in science we disregard that. This is why theories and facts are not empirically true, but are regarded as truths nonetheless.
Guest said:
I wasn't trying to say lightning wasn't understood, I was saying how we knew about even before we understood it.
You can believe that the human will be fully explained in the future, but can't see how something as complex and emotional and inconsistant as human beings will ever be fully explained by chemical reactions in the brain.
That's not lazyness, it's my belief about how to explain the unexplained. If you think that is a lazy assumption, then so is darkmatter. Or the graviton. Or a myriad other scientific theories that have no evidence to support them, we just assume they must exist because we can see their effects.
It's called deduction, maybe you should try it sometime, you might learn something.
No. No. No. No. No. No.
If we don't understand something at all we say it's an unknown. The beginning of the universe is an unknown, but the expansion isn't. The expansion WAS an unknown, but that does not mean you can assign something intangible to it to "explain" it. That just means you're making excuses.
Dark matter has a shittonne of maths and evidence to support it. We can see the effects of the problem it is postulated to solve, we actually have observation evidence that supports it.
Kinda the same thing with the graviton. There are experiments that are trying to find such things. These are testable hypotheses.
What people who believe in the afterlife or a god have are untestable excuses for a lack of understanding. There is a complete lack of evidence for them, not just a scarcity of evidence, a complete and utter lack of it.
Time for a more serious subject. Do you believe in the afterlife? And how does it affect your actions in this life? I guess believing in the afterlife is mostly tied to a religion and believing in God (one or more). But correct me if I am wrong.
Personally I am far to rational and pragmatic to flat-out believe in things without some logical argument or scientific proof.
But first off, let's say you do believe in the afterlife. The believe is all you need, because for this life is doesn't matter whether there is something beyond or not. It only matters how you act on that (dis)believe. That believe must be comforting, as no matter how shitty this life is, there is always going to be a next. [assumption incoming] And those that believe generally believe the afterlife will be better and longer (for them, at least).
But maybe it doesn't work that way for you?
I'm trying to find some argument that can theoretically prove the possibility of a beyond. But I am not succeeding. The human mind is limited and this theory might go beyond our limit. Anyhow, I would see the afterlife as a destination for our soul with our body as the vessel and our life as the journey. In the same way you use a vehicle to travel from A to B. The problem with this theory (and many others) is that I can't explain the soul. Where does it come from? We are born with a soul? How does that work?
In the end I tend not to believe in the afterlife, but I will always be holding a small glimmer of hope that is the vastness of the universe and in the complexity of life there is something more, until science proves otherwise.
Then there is also the matter of reincarnation. Maybe you don't view it as the afterlife, but as being reborn? Though, if I have to put my money or either the afterlife or reincarnation, I would have to go for afterlife in terms of logic.
Phew... that's enough for now. What are your thoughts or believes?
PS. I haven't mentioned the term 'heaven' (or 'hell') on purpose. Instead, I have used the more general term 'afterlife'. But, if you have an issue with that, please correct me.
EDIT: And I just realized, I've posted this in the wrong forum.
well i believe our consciousness does indeed die since our brains do not come with the soul. our existence itself does not end but is altered. also i believe the soul does contain part of what we were, it is every thought and emotion we ever had and is used to being manipulated in a certain way so when it is transferred it is easier to do things you did a lot in another life, think about it like a series of buttons some you push a lot and cause the spring to weaken and the button is easier to push others you never needed so when you do try to push it the button resists. also I'd like to thank you for remaining civil a lot of people on other forums can get out of hand when it comes to things like these.
We're divided in body, mind, and soul then? And together they form the you that we observe? However, the thing with our soul connected to our personalities seem to be in conflict with our current knowledge of genetics. As far as I know, we can see that we're affected by genetics, and environment. How would a soul cope, if it's used to doing something that doesn't exist around the new body? Also, then, can the amount of indivivuals grow, or is everything being recycled?
No worries. I always try to keep things civil. I'm merely curious. Likewise, as you don't seem to mind discussing this. Something I like.
i have very little knowledge about genetics so a link describing that fact would be appriciated. i believe that the soul contains part of the personality and which is altered by outside factors the soul mostly is my means of explaining natural talent. also if a soul cannot do what it is used to doing well nothing happens until that button gets pushed and then what happens is dependent on the situation.
a metaphor (a tool i love dearly) for my beliefs of the souls effect on personality is this:
The soul is like the sand when drenched with the waters of life it can be made into almost any shape but it is easy for it to be altered or changed entirly.
also i think the world does have a set amount of souls but the world was given a large amount to counter that and to be clear i believe every living thing has a soul animals, bugs, trees all have souls and they are all the same type of soul so a human can be reborn as a bear or a worm or a flower or another human.
as a sidenote i'm also curious i figure that by exploring others ideas and defending my own will only lead me into thinking deeper into my own beliefs and expanding the way in which i can see the world.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
