OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by deccan:
Um, sorry I don't quite catch your point here. My point about the Carl Sagan statement is that often some theists (especially creationists) like to claim that their beliefs are supported with either empirical evidence or logical arguments that are comparable in quality to that of conventional scientific theories.

That is their goal, yes. Whether they attain it or not is entirely up to the quality of those arguments and evidences. But the question here is, as I understand it, about the very existence of God and/or supernatural dimensions to the universe, and these questions are dealt with more on a philosophical basis than determining how old rocks and starlight are. Note I say "more", not "entirely".

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.

I would agree.

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.

I'd have to see the particular arguments being made to judge whether or not they would really be a "cop-out". That's what I was trying to get at in my prior reply to you - 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 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.

Copelston and Dennett certainly cover the bases (Copelston the Catholic, Dennett the agnostic [if I'm thinking of the same Dennett you are).

Actually, what I meant was that when people use terms, especially terms that are so common and have so many varied meanings that they are prone to abuse, such as "love", "good", "soul" etc., they ought to define precisely and unambiguously what they mean when they are using that term. The fact that certain concepts may be innately ambiguous or fuzzy doesn't, in my opinion, exonerate one from that responsibility.

OK. Put this way, I would agree (cf my post to Dogscoff earlier).

[dogscoff]

I don't agree with the use of the word "philosophy" here. Sorry dogscoff. To put it another way, let's say that I greatly enjoy music by Britney Spears.

I only used that word becasue GW did. I think I'll relurk and let you two slug it out.

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-

questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.

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.

[ August 20, 2003, 14:36: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Slick: I think we are in agreement, we just don't realize it

[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. 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.

[General Woundwort]

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.

Well, that's the whole question, isn't it?

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...

[geoschmo]

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.

If this is the nature of God then truely the question of her exsistance is not merely unprovable, but irrelevant. If God exsists, but doesn't care about her creation, why should her creation care whether she exsists or not? The search for God has always been more about a search for our place in the universe then it is an actual search for God herself. If there is no God, or if there is a God but she cares not for her creation, then our place in the universe is the same. It begins and ends with our own lives and nothing we do matters in the long run.

[ August 20, 2003, 17:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

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.