OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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.

Philosophy is not entirely based on logic. At least, not as thouroughly as the emphasis you used would indicate. When it comes down to it, philosophers are reasoning based on one or more fundamental assumptions that they cannot prove. This precludes philosophy from being TOTALLY based on logic; there is much logic used, but it is based on unproveable assumptions.

[deccan]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
I have found that many agnostics/atheists base their doubts about God more on "Well, if God does exist, why doesn't He do this or that?" But questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.

I don't quite agree. "God" is one of those ambiguous terms that I was talking about earlier. If theist A wishes to advance arguments for the existence of 'God" for the consideration of a skeptic B, then it is incumbent upon A to provide an unambiguous definition of what he means when he employs the term "God".

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.

[jimbob]

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.

[jimbob]

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.

I'm reminded of a theology professor from the UBC who talked about philosophy students coming to him to debate the existance of God. He would ask them to tell him what the thought of/imagined when they referred to the term "God". He said that inevitably he would agree with the students that he also did not believe in the "God" that they had described (because it was an unlikely or atrocious or un-involved God), but that he most definitely did believe in a "God". Again, the starting point is very important... it can be as key to "solving the problem" as knowing you must "start" by doing all of the multiplication and division before "going on" and doing the addition and subtraction when solving a math problem (unless there are brackets of course )

[ August 21, 2003, 00:10: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
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.

I note the use of the word "personally" here. Personally, I agree with what you've said but at the same time I also state that this does not constitute a logical argument of any kind, though it does constitute a kind of emotional argument.

If you haven't already, you could try reading Andrew Dickson White's "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom". It's at the same time very amusing and very tragic.

Originally posted by dogscoff:
That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.

Hahah, Greg Egan has a novel in which one of the characters is a devotee of the church of The God Who Makes No Difference.

[ August 21, 2003, 00:18: Message edited by: deccan ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
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.

Sorry, Geo for the strong language, but I must state that I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

To get up to speed on the arguments for evolution, please visit this site Talk Origins

And I might as well direct you to its opposite number as well, for the sake of "fairness" at:
True Origin

There are A LOT of papers on both sites so it might take you a while. When you're done, come back and let me know whether or not you still think that evolutionists are asking creationists to prove the existence of God as the critical test of creationism's validity.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

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.

A fair enough criticism. Here's an account of my conversation (the original was in Mandarin) with that first girl. I've discovered that the girl believes in creationism, so, intrigued, I ask her:

Me: Really? What brand of creationism? I keep myself abreast of creationist literature you know.

Girl: What do you mean?

Me: Well, which writers do you read? Do you tend more towards the young earth school of thought or the old earth school of thought?

Girl: I've just read some of the literature by young earth creationists and I think their ideas make a lot of sense.

Me: Really? Why so?

Girl: Well, I'm not sure. I just read their tracts and they seemed very persuasive to me. But then when I read the old earth literature, I find them persuasive too.

Me: Er, that doesn't sound very rigorous to me. Maybe if you've read some pro-evolution literature, you might find them persuasive as well.

Girl: I guess I might. I haven't read any.

[Later...]

Girl: Hey, where did you go to school anyway?

Me: I went to France.

Girl: Really, so you speak French? How long did you live in France?

Me: Seeing as my entire course was in French, yeah, I'd say that I speak France. I spent nearly 3 years in France.

Girl: Wow, that's so cool and romantic. [Goes all bubbly...]

Me: [Thinking: next please.]

And I'm still looking for my dream girl.