|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
But it raises an interesting question. If Fyron exsists only as a computer program, does Fyron have mass? |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
[edit: post 666... for whatever that's worth.] [ August 18, 2003, 15:16: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Actually, kidding of Fyron aside, the idea of a computer program is an interesting perspective on the whole "Does a soul have mass" question. I don't think a computer program could be defined as having mass while it's stored in memory. The silicon chip or magnetic tape has the same mass and number of electrons regardless. It's just that the little bits are in different positions depending on if they are ones or zeros.
I suppose the real question though is whether the soul has mass outside of the body though. Heaven and hell could be massive storage banks, the same as a human body but larger, that don't actually change their mass when souls enter or leave. Just rearange some bits to represent the loading and unloading of the soul/program. But that brings up other questions. How does the soul get from the body to the eternal storage archive? Is it like radio waves? Do radio waves have mass? Can the number of souls exceeds the storage capacity of either heavan or hell? And if so, what happens to the overflow? Can souls be zip compressed? Can you repartition heavan? Should I take the red pill, or the blue one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ August 18, 2003, 15:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Yes. Quote:
Both. The Red Pill is meant to be ground up and dissolved in Absinthe, drink chilled, with sugar added to taste. The Blue Pill is to be gound up as well, but cut with twice it's mass in baby formula and ingested as a 'rail'. Now, don't ask about the Green Pill. While you may not like the answer, it would fit with the humor found in the Cantina [ August 18, 2003, 15:15: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Yes. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will accept this one without need for explanation. However, it still leaves open the question of whether the soul itself has mass. If the soul is merely information, in the same way that computer code is information, then a case could be made that the soul has no mass. If it can be stored without changing the mass of the storage device. Even exsisting for a short time in the form of radio waves the information itself does not have mass. The mass of radio waves is not created at the begining of the transmission, and is not destroyed at the end. It's simply the transmission medium used to transfer the data. Who owns the intellectual property rights to my soul? Can an in individual be copyrighted? [ August 18, 2003, 15:27: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
The energy of a photon is E= hf (planck constant times frequency) E= MC^2, so M = E/C^2 so M = hf/C^2 For a 650nm photon from your red laser pointer there, it weighs: = 6.6e-34 x (C/6.5e-7) / C^2 = 3.4 x 10^-33 grams Which equals zero to an accuracy of 1 part in a quadrillion quadrillions. Or a European "Million Trillion" Quote:
You have the same particles sitting around, but less mass and more energy than you know what to do with. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [ August 18, 2003, 16:03: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
[quote]Originally posted by Tigbit:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by General Woundwort: Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Geoschmo [ August 18, 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Why is it that people are insisting that photons have mass when all available evidence and theory are contrary to that? I just don't understand it.
SJ, nice try http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , but that calculation shows how much mass would be generated if the photon was completely anihilated. It does not show how much mass a photon has. This has been observed, by the way, in a process called "pair production". A photon (gamma) of at least 1.02 MeV can be transformed (E=mc^2) into an electron and a positron. There must be 2 particles due to conservation laws (momentum, spin, charge, etc.) beyond the scope of this discussion. Slick. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Anyway, I've rambled enough |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
The relativistic mass is a different question. See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html (University of California site) Edit: better link [ August 18, 2003, 16:44: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
The question of whether or not photons have mass is not really that important to this discussion is it? The question was whether souls have mass, and more generally whether anything can exist that does not have either mass or energy. If photons do not meet the qualification of something that has no mass that doesn't mean souls have mass, unless we are sure souls are made out of photons. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
If a soul is just information though it can exsist without mass or energy. It might take some energy to transfer it from one form of storage to another, and it's presence might cause the mass of the storage or transmission medium to alter position. But that doesn't mean the information itself has mass or energy. And it wouldn't require any fancy transdimensional particle waves or anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ August 18, 2003, 17:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Yes. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Energy has mass, yes, so it does distort space like matter. Oddly, Einstein didn't allow for gravity to have mass in his original calculations. He set it aside as 'special' even though there was no reason to. I guess he didn't like recursive equations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Recent experiments have shown that gravity does in fact propogate at the speed of light and otherwise behaves like energy. We just haven't isolated any 'gravitons' yet. Quote:
Proof or disproof of the existence of this 'substance' is not going to be solved anytime soon, methinks. Quote:
When you invent the Star Trek transporter let us know. The issue of 'copyright' of humans will then mean something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ August 18, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
On that subject, I would have to quote the familiar:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" And would point out that it would be very presumptious to assume that all things are required to be made up of mass or energy. Just because we don't know how to observe something is not sufficient to prove it does not exist or to conveniently dismiss them. A soul may or may not exist. We don't even agree on what it is, much less what it is made of or how to detect it. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to disprove it. As for proof, not enough evidence there either. Arthur C. Clark (inventor of the communications satellite, author of 2001: a space oddesy, investigator of the mysterious) once had a rating system for mysterious things. It went from a +5 (being unquestionably true and provable to anyone) to a -4 (being almost certainly not true). His system had no corresponding -5 rating for the very reason that you can't prove that something doesn't exist just because you can't find it. Now he did not apply this to mathematical "mysteries" where it is possible to prove that some things don't exist. He used this system for common mysteries like Bigfoot, Voodoo, etc. Slick. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Jumping back to before this thread got Fyronised...
Quote:
There's scope for a brilliant story here, although it would have to be written by someone capable of drawing on religious, mythological, philosophical and scientific sources far more authoritatively than I ever could: Anyway, here's the idea: The above model turns out to be true, with all the stuff of the universe being gradually converted into souls and then drained away into the afterlife. Now, the universe is utterly vast (and according to scientists, still expanding), so it's hard to imagine it ever being completely consumed by current levels of soul-drain. However, as populations colonise and grow, the universe, the rate of soul-drain would increase exponentially with it. Eventually, the universe reaches a saturation point where expansion turns into contraction, and the universe starts to shrink. Eventually, with the death of the Last soul, the universe will shrink to a point where it can no longer support life and then- because there's no point to a universe without any souls- disappear, kicking off armageddon. Think of it as a theological big bang/ big crunch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif A hundred million years from now we see the Last, dwindling few intelligent beings in the universe, which is absolutely tiny by now and shrinks further with each death. The story is about them as they await their demise and the resultant ragnarok. Kind of like an anti-One over Zero=-) The Big Brother TV concept also springs to mind: The living are the contestants, the souls of the dead are spectators: You have been evicted from the universe, please leave immediately. Some interesting points that come to mind: -Maybe at some point in history some advanced and enlightened civilisation would try to balance their population rates in order to stabilise the universe (or even allow it to grow again). How could they do that though, short of massive genocide campaigns? Maybe this campaign is still in effect in the very Last days. -Eventually it will come down to the very Last person, all on their own. With no other people and no society to provide tests and temptations, how can he/she live righteously and earn salvation? -With all the souls in history already on their battlelines in the afterlife, would the fate of the Last few make any difference to the outcome of armageddon? Maybe the numbers are equal and it all hangs on the Last soul..? -Being utterly alone in a tiny universe would probably drive this Last person completely mad. Assuming suicide isn't a valid option, is it really fair to be put in that position, especially if the outcome of armageddon depends on it? Maybe (s)he wouldn't want to reach heaven just out of spite. -With all the souls in history already there, would the afterlife be all that different to this one? -After armageddon and the end of the universe, what comes next? Maybe you get some kind of soul-singularity that reaches critical mass and triggers the next big bang... There you go, fantastic story or what? if anyone thinks they can write this, I look forward to reading it. When it becomes an international best-seller though, just remember to throw me some change from the window of your speeding limo... |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Put it this way: There is no such thing as a "forest"- it's an abstract- an entirely human invention. Accepting for argument's sake that there is such a thing as a tree, just giving a bunch of trees the name “forest” does not necessarily mean that there is such a thing as a forest. It's just a container for a bunch of trees. Of course you can (quite rightly) argue the same thing for the whole of language being a metaphor , (and therefore that there is no "tree" either) but I think when you are talking about physical fundamentals like matter and energy you can get around this and say with confidence that matter and energy are about the only things that definitely do exist whether you have a name for them or not. Space and time are just terms we use to contain them. BTW, spoons and sporks are an entirely different question. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Science can explain a lot of things.
I figure by the time Science can explain souls it will be too late. I may not be able to prove I have a Soul but I have Faith that I do and that there is a continuation of my being after my worldly death. We all live by faith. I have faith that the Sun will come up every morning that a seed planted will follow it's design parameters and grow. And I have Faith that politicians will get us into a deeper mess today than we were in yesterday. I have Faith that there is an Afterlife. And Once Science "proves" it Why then I guess I won't need faith then. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
To answer the original post: the Bible speaks of eternal life and eternal punishment, but does not claim that the physical universe will Last forever (perhaps your proof proves this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). In fact, not even heaven itself is said to be eternal. Matthew 24:35 says "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there was no longer any sea." Perhaps the recreation will rebalance the mass/energy equation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Note that I am not trying to make a scientific proof from the Bible, just showing that the original supposition of the "proof" is inaccurate in that heaven is not said to have infinite duration. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
The relativistic mass is a different question. See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html (University of California site) Edit: better link</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly my point. Thanks SJ. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
The relativistic mass is a different question. See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html (University of California site) Edit: better link</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly my point. Thanks SJ. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*sigh* From that very article: Quote:
Quote:
Believe what you want. I give up. It no longer "matters" to me if you want to believe it or not. You don't need to attempt to convince me that you are right and I am wrong. I will continue to do my day job testing submarine reactors for the US navy at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I have been doing nuclear engineering for over 13 years and I am very comfortable with my knowledge of physics. I do not have the need to have the Last word on this. I'm out of this discussion. Slick. [ August 20, 2003, 01:49: Message edited by: Slick ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
First of all, I believe that most reasonable people will agree that if someone A claims that an entity x exists, it is up to A to provide a positive argument that x exists, and not up to a skeptical person B to provide an argument that x does not exist. Most reasonable people will also agree that it is difficult / almost impossible to prove a negative. Second, the term "soul" is only a nominative label. When people debate the existence of "souls", people are of course really debating the existence of some definable entity which the term "soul" denotes, not the term "soul" itself. So, if person A claims that entity "soul" exists, it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of "soul" and all debate subsequent to that will relate to that particular definition of "soul" and no other. Of course, I admit that there are other, more subtle considerations (e.g. there is a logical difference between actively asserting the non-existence of an entity and passively denying the existence of an entity due to faulty arguments asserting its existence.) However, the main point is that I believe that we can safely and quite reasonably say that souls, in the popularly understood sense of the term in Western culture, do not exist because all known arguments for its existence have been conclusively refuted or else are fatally flawed. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
First of all, I believe that most reasonable people will agree that if someone A claims that an entity x exists, it is up to A to provide a positive argument that x exists, and not up to a skeptical person B to provide an argument that x does not exist. Most reasonable people will also agree that it is difficult / almost impossible to prove a negative. Second, the term "soul" is only a nominative label. When people debate the existence of "souls", people are of course really debating the existence of some definable entity which the term "soul" denotes, not the term "soul" itself. So, if person A claims that entity "soul" exists, it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of "soul" and all debate subsequent to that will relate to that particular definition of "soul" and no other. Of course, I admit that there are other, more subtle considerations (e.g. there is a logical difference between actively asserting the non-existence of an entity and passively denying the existence of an entity due to faulty arguments asserting its existence.) However, the main point is that I believe that we can safely and quite reasonably say that souls, in the popularly understood sense of the term in Western culture, do not exist because all known arguments for its existence have been conclusively refuted or else are fatally flawed.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, (and this is my very Last word hehee) That argument only works for a logical discussion. Belief (or disbelief) in souls is not a logic question, but a question of faith. By definition, faith is believing without proof. It's a religious thing, not a math thing or a logic thing. So those who believe in souls do so acknowledging that there is no concrete proof. If you are looking for proof of religious beliefs, you can easily reason yourself into not believing in anything; and that may be what is right for you. But not everyone thinks that way. edit: spelling/grammar Slick. [ August 20, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: Slick ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Photons have no rest mass, but they have relativistic mass. Hence, mass-like property.
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
ot--- my great uncle discovered their opposite
[ August 20, 2003, 02:45: Message edited by: tesco samoa ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
I mean no offense to you in particular. After all, I know you mainly from your great work in keeping the FAQ here updated. But from my personal experience, theists tend to use the faith line when things get tough, but forget about it when it comes to disseminating their beliefs. This is what Carl Sagan called wanting to enjoy the Cachet of scientific respectability without being willing to pay its costs. Again, to make things perfectly clear: I have no objections whatsoever if anyone says something to the effect that he believes souls exist because it's a personal, religious thing. I do object if anyone says that he believes souls exist and tries to convince others that souls exist due to some logical / scientific argument without properly spelling out that argument or properly defining "soul" in an unambiguous way. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
This would imply that souls are stored within (or at least sustained by) the medium of human social memory. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Of course it sounds to me (like most of religion does) like a nice, cozy little metaphor that people have taken too literally. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief). |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
However the cost of bearing the scientific Cachet is that you have to be prepared to defend your arguments on a variety of fronts, i.e. the quality of your data, whether or not arguments are logically sound etc. From personal experience, I've simply found that many theists who do make the claim that their arguments are logically and perhaps scientifically sound, when pressed, often fall back to the line that their beliefs simply don't have to be held to the same standard as the rest of science because they're based on faith. Quote:
Last year, while on holiday, I'd met a fellow Malaysian who had done her Bachelor's degree in China and majored in philosophy. I tend to seek out people (especially females http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) who are interested in philosophy to make friends with them. However, I was none too impressed with her aptitude. Currently, I'm corresponding with a friend (female too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) who is doing a masters degree in Chinese Studies, with a heavy tilt towards philosophy at the National University of Singapore (which incidentally is considered a VERY good school). I'm not too impressed with what they teach her too. I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School. If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess. Quote:
[ August 20, 2003, 11:52: Message edited by: deccan ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Before I go though- I've not met many atheists myself who use the "Why doesn't God solve X problem/ why does God let Y happen" argument. Personally I look at the history of religion, the way it has evolved, the way it has been manipulated and adjusted and applied throughout the ages, and I came to the conclusion that it's either an entirely human invention (or more likely, misinterpretation- see my post earlier about souls as memes), or at the very least it has very little to do with what any real God wants/ wanted. EDIT: Just had to comment on this- Quote:
[ August 20, 2003, 14:36: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Slick: I think we are in agreement, we just don't realize it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Deccan, the attitude expressed by Mr. Sagan and held by you is that unless the creationist can prove the exsistance of God, a proof that few creationists will attempt and most acknowledge is impossible to do, that any alternative theories regarding the specific mechanics of life are invalid. The reason they fail your litmus test is not due to lack of support to their arguments. It's becuase you attempt to apply a specific argument to cover a general set of circumstances.
It is not neccesary for a creationists to be able to scientifically prove the exsistance of God to study creation any more then it is neccesary for an evolutionist to pinpoint the exact mechanism of evolution to study and believe the theory as a whole. There are things that you and I are not able to understand about the universe despite our theories and hypotheses. Mr. Sagan on the other hand has found the answers, for better or for worse. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
And that is what the cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence covered. Until Kantianism and naturalism ruled the whole discussion out of bounds from square one... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
[ August 20, 2003, 17:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
The thing I find interesting about this debate is that it started with a flawed (and admittedly satirical) "proof" that there is no afterlife, yet those who disputed that proof are being asked to prove the existence of souls, something they did not set out to do. Logically, to show the flaws in the initial proof, it was only necessary to show that there could be ways for there to be an afterlife, not whether there is one or not. I have not seen anyone claim to prove that the soul exists, nor have I seen a legitimate proof that the soul does not exist. We simply do not have the means to prove by physical observation one way or another whether things exist outside of the physical universe.
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Last year, while on holiday, I'd met a fellow Malaysian who had done her Bachelor's degree in China and majored in philosophy. I tend to seek out people (especially females http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) who are interested in philosophy to make friends with them. However, I was none too impressed with her aptitude. Currently, I'm corresponding with a friend (female too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) who is doing a masters degree in Chinese Studies, with a heavy tilt towards philosophy at the National University of Singapore (which incidentally is considered a VERY good school). I'm not too impressed with what they teach her too. I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School. If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess. [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aptitude? Or conclusions? A great many thinkers of quite high intellectual abilities have come to different conclusions than the atheist/materialist philosophers you seem to favor. I wonder if this poor 'aptitude' you noted wasn't a difference of opinion. (Maybe you are seeking an agreeable female companion and not a philosophical challenge? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) All you have to do is recognize that logic cannot encompass all problems and there's just as much fault to find with atheism/materialism as theism. That's an odd mix of thinkers, too. Ayn Rand? She's a stunted miniature of Nietzsche with a bit of Adam Smith mixed in. Read the originals and don't waste your time on the knock-offs. And Darwin is hardly a philosopher. He's a hero of the 'materialist' movement because he supplied a major weapon in the war on religion, but that doesn't make him a philosopher in his own right. What did he write other than 'Origin of Species'? Bertrand Russell is a study in contradiction all to himself. I don't think he'd like being in the same list with some of those others... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ August 20, 2003, 17:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
[ August 20, 2003, 17:57: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Darwin was a student in theological seminary before the voyage that resulted in his seminal work. Although there is some question whether his educational choice was a matter of spiritual belief or one of practicality.
At the time of his voyage to the Galapagos he was more what you would call an amateur naturalist, as it was more or less something he did as a hobby. Although "amatuer" in this connotation is not meant to degrade the quality of his work as the field was in it's infancy at the time anyway he was pretty generally regarded as having a talent for it at the time by his professors. Obviously his work has pretty much redefined the field as it has exsisted after him. The point of all this is just that a case could be made that even Darwin approached the subject from a philisophical perspective. At least initially. The phisophical and the scientific are heavily interconnected when discussing the subject of the origin of life. Geoschmo |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Philosophy is ENTIRELY based on logic... there is no faith involved. When you bring faith into the picture, you veer from philosophy and get into religious arguments/beliefs/etc. (using faith as you have applied it, of course; there are other types of faith). Note: there is indeed religious philosophy, but it tries to stay as far away from faith as possible and, like other branches of philosophy, sticks to logical arguments rather than faith based arguments. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Well. Y'see... no one will ever be able to "prove" (yes I said prove, seeing as how everyone is so fond of using it) anything of religious nature (religious as in organized religion, not spirituality). This is simply because the ideas that come out of religion is unprovable by necessity. Religion and science are two sides of the same issue. The two do not fit together and never will. If you are a scientist you have no business sticking your head into the affairs of religion (and vise-verse). Go ahead and try to theorize the origin of the moon, or how galaxies form, or try to find the exact mass of a photon with quantum theory. Try to explain the evolutionary path for the common housefly. But, please keep your nose out of the search for God, for crying out loud. If you are religious, keep your knowledge of your chosen god out of the realm of scientific research, it doesn't belong there. If the two sides can just keep to their own business all will go just fine.
Personally, I disbelieve anything the originates out of organized religion. I have read enough views on historical events to know (for myself) that it's all full of crap. I may have a few personal ideas on spirituality but those are kept at a comfortable distence from my scientific side. That's all I have to say on the matter. |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
|
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
Quote:
Any particular definition of "God" involves attributing particular properties to the entity "God" and unambiguous explanations of those properties, and perhaps ruling out certain other properties. Depending on the specific definition of "God" used, refuting the validity of the argument by questioning whether or not "God" actually performs actions that the properties ascribed to "God" logically implies that "God" ought to do and ought to be able to do, could in some, though not all, circumstances, be a sound approach. In any case, GW, I'm glad to see that we can come to some sort of general agreement. Reasonable people *can* politely discuss controversial issues even if they are on opposite sides of the fence. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
I don't agree with you on this Fyron. Philosophy is also hostage to the limitations of the human state - namely that every philosophy will suffer from the inevitable biases found in the original "starting position". The very fact that we must have some sort of starting position will and must bias our logical progression. However we cannot double-guess every single position before proceeding with our development of a proof. We have to make and accept a set of assumptions about the world we live in before we can progress, or we will do nothing but attempt to prove our starting position.
If that doesn't make sense, let me say just this: everyone does, and by necessity must, make some basic assumptions before they can make an arguement. As a result, even the most "unbiased" position is in truth, based on a world view or "leap of faith" of some sort. As a result philosophy cannot be entirely based upon logic, as if it has more a corner on truth than any other system of thought. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.