OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[Fyron]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically.

I think the point he's making is that it's actually two things to say that God exists, philosophically and logically:
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).

---

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.

[Tigbit]

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.

[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 ]