OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[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.

[Gozra]

Is there any proof showing a "dream girl" exist? Or are they found in the afterlife?

[Gozra]

By the way 'Afterlife' is something you do when you are not playing SEIV. I'm sure that is what Afterlife is. Therefor this statement is elegant proof that there is an afterlife.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
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.

Let me explain myself a bit.

One, when I profess admiration for certain people, it need not necessarily be admiration for that person in general. It might be admiration merely for some specific qualities of that person or some specific piece of work done by that person. This applies to ideas as well. If I profess agreement with an idea expressed by a person, it does not imply blanket agreement with all other ideas expressed by that person.

Two, I never stated that the content of my website should be restricted to "philosophical" topics or philosophers, whatever that means.

[Fyron]

The very root of philosophy is logical arguments... it can be used to try to prove assumptions, yes. That is how science works, incidentally. But, the philosophy itself is still all logic. Of course, this is not to say that noone ever misuses it or gets it wrong...