do you believe in the afterlife?

[Descartes]

I don't really occupy myself with questions I have no ability to answer. There are a lot of things that would be great (though I'm not sure afterlife is one of them), but putting resources into believe they're true just because I'd like them to be seems a little silly.

I have no evidence to even suggest that it's possible other than others that say it is. That's not enough for me.

In short: I make no conclusions.

 

[Leafy]

It's a bit unfeasible - where does all of this take place? In the mind? In which case, it's not "real". You have to define the terms you're using ("believe in" = accept existence of?). I personally wouldn't want an afterlife - finite existence gives meaning and purpose.

Keep in mind that when it comes to hallucinations, the person having the hallucination is in the least objective position to be evaluating its veracity and authenticity. Similarly, testimonial evidence is the least reliable form of evidence. You're basically assuming that people's interpretations of their own subjective experiences is 100% accurate, flawless with perfect recollection and a complete understanding of the mechanics involved. Something as extraordinary as an afterlife would require, say, extraordinary evidence, rather than meaningless testimonial evidence. At the current point, it's hearsay.

There are many, many flaws with religion, and the afterlife in particular. If it's all just speculation, why would you believe it in the first place? If you care if your beliefs are true, the only way to evaluate truth is through rational, logical reasoning. Which means objective, empirical evidence, or a deductive argument. In the lack of, the most correct position to take is disbelief.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott
I believe in it yes. Key word believe. I don't claim to know anything about its nature and I don't live my life around it. That said, the concept of heaven and hell (generally speaking) makes sense, assuming there is an afterlife.

Desirable != Makes Sense.

Well think about it. Assuming we maintain our consciousness in the afterlife, would you associate with Hitler? If any kind of human segregation exists, the evil bastards will effectively be stuck with each other. I'd call that hell. Similar situations for heaven and such.

1. But why believe? Because it'd be nice?
2. Just because nice people don't generally get along with evil people is no reason to posit a hell any more than to assert that the earth has broken down into two nations, one of evil people and one of nice people...

1. Why not believe? Because we don't have any scientifically validated evidence yet? Anything's possible, and while I love logic (hell I'm an Engineering major) it can't tell us everything by a long shot. Nevermind the fact that science is continually growing, and history has proven that many apparently laughable concepts are in fact quite concrete when enough information is obtained. Go back in time and tell an Ancient Greek that you can make lightening. Chances are you'd become the village idiot until you proved otherwise.

In the case of the afterlife, there are thousands if not millions of people who report said "out of body/life before eyes/near death experiences". That's enough evidence to justify my beliefs. Like I said, I believe and speculate. I don't claim to know or be able to prove shit.

2. That's about the most inaccurate analogy you could possible make. You're comparing Earth to the afterlife. Here many people don't have a choice of, say, moving to the Western world. Either due to literal inability or politics. With freedom of movement social dynamics would be far different. This is of course assuming that there's freedom of movement in the afterlife. Like I said, it's all speculation.

And yes, it is nice to believe in an afterlife. I won't deny it. Doesn't mean that it's the primary reason for my belief. Likewise I'm Deist, and believe in a God as evidenced by the presence of order in the Universe. Science has yet to explain how such order can come from nothing.

Wow, that's some really bad logic for both points there. I don't have the time or energy to debunk this point by point, but I really suggest you take a long hard look at what you believe. Every point you raised has a scientific explanation, or is logically meaningless. I will answer the "order" of the universe bit, simply by pointing out that the universe appears ordered because we have evolved within it.

That's my point. It's not pure logic/science and it's not meant to be. It's belief with pseudo-logical/scientific backing. I choose to live with my feelings and trust my intuition, as opposed to proving everything with reason before I state it. I'm not submitting a scientific paper or stating facts here.

As for the order of the universe bit, what you just said is irrelevant. The very fact that we can see it as ordered proves that it is ordered, if only on a high level (I'm not delving into quantum physics here). The fact that it might appear chaotic from a different frame of reference means nothing.

Quantum physics has nothing to do with my point. All I am saying is: The universe appears ordered because we only know the universe. Without a dataset larger than one, how are we to know if the universe is orderly or not? For all we know, our universe could be right on the cusp of being so disorderly life wouldn't exist. Saying that the universe appears to be ordered makes NO case for a creator -- even if the universe is orderly.

Easily. Because we can extrapolate things like the laws of physics. If the universe was completely chaotic, said laws wouldn't exist. On some level the universe has order. The fact that we even exist and can comprehend it (to some degree) is proof enough of that. It may not be perfectly ordered, but order does exist.

Now explain to me how order can come out of nothing without some conscious guidance. Once science gets around to explaining that, I'll gladly re-examine my beliefs.

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: Leafy
It's a bit unfeasible - where does all of this take place? In the mind? In which case, it's not "real". You have to define the terms you're using ("believe in" = accept existence of?). I personally wouldn't want an afterlife - finite existence gives meaning and purpose.

Keep in mind that when it comes to hallucinations, the person having the hallucination is in the least objective position to be evaluating its veracity and authenticity. Similarly, testimonial evidence is the least reliable form of evidence. You're basically assuming that people's interpretations of their own subjective experiences is 100% accurate, flawless with perfect recollection and a complete understanding of the mechanics involved. Something as extraordinary as an afterlife would require, say, extraordinary evidence, rather than meaningless testimonial evidence. At the current point, it's hearsay.

There are many, many flaws with religion, and the afterlife in particular. If it's all just speculation, why would you believe it in the first place? If you care if your beliefs are true, the only way to evaluate truth is through rational, logical reasoning. Which means objective, empirical evidence, or a deductive argument. In the lack of, the most correct position to take is disbelief.

What is "real"? As said above, perception is reality. For all you know, those keys you're typing on don't exist.

 

[Kadarin]

While I hope there is an afterlife, I do not believe that there is one.

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Easily. Because we can extrapolate things like the laws of physics. If the universe was completely chaotic, said laws wouldn't exist. On some level the universe has order. The fact that we even exist and can comprehend it (to some degree) is proof enough of that. It may not be perfectly ordered, but order does exist.

Now explain to me how order can come out of nothing without some conscious guidance. Once science gets around to explaining that, I'll gladly re-examine my beliefs.

Who are you to say that the laws of physics are universal? The only thing science says, through inductive reasoning of course, is that

In all cases observed, the speed of light in a vacuum is the constant c.

You're asserting that the laws of physics are universal, and as thus you require infinite knowledge. Besides, the very tenets of science require that nature is orderly in the first place, so it's a circular argument. In addition, the laws don't "exist" - they aren't physical. In addition, it's not that things are following these laws. We have created the laws to follow what these objects consistent behaviors are. Just because you can observe something doesn't mean that the laws are the only laws, or that they apply in all cases.

What is this "nothing" that you're talking about? Are you demanding an account of the consistency of the laws of physics that I've already shown may not be consistent?

Your argument can be summarized as follows:

1. The universe is orderly because physical laws apply in all cases
2. These laws cannot be explained
3. Therefore, a consciousness must be required to explain the existence of these laws.

It's remarkably similar to the transcendental argument for the existence of God, except that instead of physical laws, it's logic. Physical laws have that problem of being circular, and God's consciousness is unaccounted for. Why does this consciousness have the traits and qualities he has? Why does he exist? etc... To say that you're able to account for the assumed order of the universe by positing a deity that is itself unaccounted for is dishonest and has no explanatory value.

 

[TheSlamma]

No, I think it's an excuse for people who can't get off their ass and make the best of this life.

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: James Bond

Originally posted by: Leafy
It's a bit unfeasible - where does all of this take place? In the mind? In which case, it's not "real". You have to define the terms you're using ("believe in" = accept existence of?). I personally wouldn't want an afterlife - finite existence gives meaning and purpose.

Keep in mind that when it comes to hallucinations, the person having the hallucination is in the least objective position to be evaluating its veracity and authenticity. Similarly, testimonial evidence is the least reliable form of evidence. You're basically assuming that people's interpretations of their own subjective experiences is 100% accurate, flawless with perfect recollection and a complete understanding of the mechanics involved. Something as extraordinary as an afterlife would require, say, extraordinary evidence, rather than meaningless testimonial evidence. At the current point, it's hearsay.

There are many, many flaws with religion, and the afterlife in particular. If it's all just speculation, why would you believe it in the first place? If you care if your beliefs are true, the only way to evaluate truth is through rational, logical reasoning. Which means objective, empirical evidence, or a deductive argument. In the lack of, the most correct position to take is disbelief.

What is "real"? As said above, perception is reality. For all you know, those keys you're typing on don't exist.

I define real to be anything objectively detectable or objectively observable by the senses, or the effects of. The key is the independent confirmation of the senses that tells us that they are reliable. If 5 people see one thing, and 1 person sees something else, then it is correct to assume that the 5 people saw reality. Solipsism is a really lame argument, by the way. Solipsism aside, reality is objective.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott
I believe in it yes. Key word believe. I don't claim to know anything about its nature and I don't live my life around it. That said, the concept of heaven and hell (generally speaking) makes sense, assuming there is an afterlife.

Desirable != Makes Sense.

Well think about it. Assuming we maintain our consciousness in the afterlife, would you associate with Hitler? If any kind of human segregation exists, the evil bastards will effectively be stuck with each other. I'd call that hell. Similar situations for heaven and such.

1. But why believe? Because it'd be nice?
2. Just because nice people don't generally get along with evil people is no reason to posit a hell any more than to assert that the earth has broken down into two nations, one of evil people and one of nice people...

1. Why not believe? Because we don't have any scientifically validated evidence yet? Anything's possible, and while I love logic (hell I'm an Engineering major) it can't tell us everything by a long shot. Nevermind the fact that science is continually growing, and history has proven that many apparently laughable concepts are in fact quite concrete when enough information is obtained. Go back in time and tell an Ancient Greek that you can make lightening. Chances are you'd become the village idiot until you proved otherwise.

In the case of the afterlife, there are thousands if not millions of people who report said "out of body/life before eyes/near death experiences". That's enough evidence to justify my beliefs. Like I said, I believe and speculate. I don't claim to know or be able to prove shit.

2. That's about the most inaccurate analogy you could possible make. You're comparing Earth to the afterlife. Here many people don't have a choice of, say, moving to the Western world. Either due to literal inability or politics. With freedom of movement social dynamics would be far different. This is of course assuming that there's freedom of movement in the afterlife. Like I said, it's all speculation.

And yes, it is nice to believe in an afterlife. I won't deny it. Doesn't mean that it's the primary reason for my belief. Likewise I'm Deist, and believe in a God as evidenced by the presence of order in the Universe. Science has yet to explain how such order can come from nothing.

Wow, that's some really bad logic for both points there. I don't have the time or energy to debunk this point by point, but I really suggest you take a long hard look at what you believe. Every point you raised has a scientific explanation, or is logically meaningless. I will answer the "order" of the universe bit, simply by pointing out that the universe appears ordered because we have evolved within it.

That's my point. It's not pure logic/science and it's not meant to be. It's belief with pseudo-logical/scientific backing. I choose to live with my feelings and trust my intuition, as opposed to proving everything with reason before I state it. I'm not submitting a scientific paper or stating facts here.

As for the order of the universe bit, what you just said is irrelevant. The very fact that we can see it as ordered proves that it is ordered, if only on a high level (I'm not delving into quantum physics here). The fact that it might appear chaotic from a different frame of reference means nothing.

Quantum physics has nothing to do with my point. All I am saying is: The universe appears ordered because we only know the universe. Without a dataset larger than one, how are we to know if the universe is orderly or not? For all we know, our universe could be right on the cusp of being so disorderly life wouldn't exist. Saying that the universe appears to be ordered makes NO case for a creator -- even if the universe is orderly.

Easily. Because we can extrapolate things like the laws of physics. If the universe was completely chaotic, said laws wouldn't exist. On some level the universe has order. The fact that we even exist and can comprehend it (to some degree) is proof enough of that. It may not be perfectly ordered, but order does exist.

Now explain to me how order can come out of nothing without some conscious guidance. Once science gets around to explaining that, I'll gladly re-examine my beliefs.

If the universe requires a creator, what created the creator? If the creator does not require a creator, why does the universe? How does the fact that we perceive the universe as ordered speak to ANYTHING other than "the universe has a certain level of order, and it might have had more or less, and in either case, life might or might not have existed". That doesn't even come CLOSE to suggesting a creator. Not one teeny tiny bit.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
While I hope there is an afterlife, I do not believe that there is one.

And that is a reasonable position to take. I think everyone can agree that it would be pretty nice. But that doesn't tell us anything about whether one exists or not.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott
I believe in it yes. Key word believe. I don't claim to know anything about its nature and I don't live my life around it. That said, the concept of heaven and hell (generally speaking) makes sense, assuming there is an afterlife.

Desirable != Makes Sense.

Well think about it. Assuming we maintain our consciousness in the afterlife, would you associate with Hitler? If any kind of human segregation exists, the evil bastards will effectively be stuck with each other. I'd call that hell. Similar situations for heaven and such.

1. But why believe? Because it'd be nice?
2. Just because nice people don't generally get along with evil people is no reason to posit a hell any more than to assert that the earth has broken down into two nations, one of evil people and one of nice people...

1. Why not believe? Because we don't have any scientifically validated evidence yet? Anything's possible, and while I love logic (hell I'm an Engineering major) it can't tell us everything by a long shot. Nevermind the fact that science is continually growing, and history has proven that many apparently laughable concepts are in fact quite concrete when enough information is obtained. Go back in time and tell an Ancient Greek that you can make lightening. Chances are you'd become the village idiot until you proved otherwise.

In the case of the afterlife, there are thousands if not millions of people who report said "out of body/life before eyes/near death experiences". That's enough evidence to justify my beliefs. Like I said, I believe and speculate. I don't claim to know or be able to prove shit.

2. That's about the most inaccurate analogy you could possible make. You're comparing Earth to the afterlife. Here many people don't have a choice of, say, moving to the Western world. Either due to literal inability or politics. With freedom of movement social dynamics would be far different. This is of course assuming that there's freedom of movement in the afterlife. Like I said, it's all speculation.

And yes, it is nice to believe in an afterlife. I won't deny it. Doesn't mean that it's the primary reason for my belief. Likewise I'm Deist, and believe in a God as evidenced by the presence of order in the Universe. Science has yet to explain how such order can come from nothing.

Wow, that's some really bad logic for both points there. I don't have the time or energy to debunk this point by point, but I really suggest you take a long hard look at what you believe. Every point you raised has a scientific explanation, or is logically meaningless. I will answer the "order" of the universe bit, simply by pointing out that the universe appears ordered because we have evolved within it.

That's my point. It's not pure logic/science and it's not meant to be. It's belief with pseudo-logical/scientific backing. I choose to live with my feelings and trust my intuition, as opposed to proving everything with reason before I state it. I'm not submitting a scientific paper or stating facts here.

As for the order of the universe bit, what you just said is irrelevant. The very fact that we can see it as ordered proves that it is ordered, if only on a high level (I'm not delving into quantum physics here). The fact that it might appear chaotic from a different frame of reference means nothing.

Quantum physics has nothing to do with my point. All I am saying is: The universe appears ordered because we only know the universe. Without a dataset larger than one, how are we to know if the universe is orderly or not? For all we know, our universe could be right on the cusp of being so disorderly life wouldn't exist. Saying that the universe appears to be ordered makes NO case for a creator -- even if the universe is orderly.

Easily. Because we can extrapolate things like the laws of physics. If the universe was completely chaotic, said laws wouldn't exist. On some level the universe has order. The fact that we even exist and can comprehend it (to some degree) is proof enough of that. It may not be perfectly ordered, but order does exist.

Now explain to me how order can come out of nothing without some conscious guidance. Once science gets around to explaining that, I'll gladly re-examine my beliefs.

If the universe requires a creator, what created the creator? If the creator does not require a creator, why does the universe? How does the fact that we perceive the universe as ordered speak to ANYTHING other than "the universe has a certain level of order, and it might have had more or less, and in either case, life might or might not have existed". That doesn't even come CLOSE to suggesting a creator. Not one teeny tiny bit.

Not only that, but by saying that order requires a creator, you are immediately stuck in a recursive position, the creator is order as wlel, no? So that creator must ALSO have a creator.

Recursively Recursive Argument is fail.

 

[thecrecarc]

What if we are all already dead and this IS the afterlife? ohhhhh....



Also, No.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

No

There was some guy who wrote about this in a book. He says that the belief in the afterlife is a psychological condition. It stems off a person's desire to fill the lack, in this case, the lack of life and knowledge of what happens after death. Humans always try to fill in emptiness by filling it up with something, wether it be crap loads of food, or in this case, the concept of the afterlife. Humans are too scared to think about what happens after death. We inherently can't imagine a world in which we are dead, and so, we try tofill that lack by saying, WE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

The thought that there is an afterlife is moronic. What about us makes us worthy of having an afterlife? We're nothing special. Souls don't exist. The concept of the afterlife can't be explained either. Do we have memories in the afterlife? If so, what about memory loss? What makes up a soul? Is there a personality attached? All of these things make it so that, the concept of an afterlife is pretty delusional.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Leafy

Originally posted by: irishScott
Easily. Because we can extrapolate things like the laws of physics. If the universe was completely chaotic, said laws wouldn't exist. On some level the universe has order. The fact that we even exist and can comprehend it (to some degree) is proof enough of that. It may not be perfectly ordered, but order does exist.

Now explain to me how order can come out of nothing without some conscious guidance. Once science gets around to explaining that, I'll gladly re-examine my beliefs.

Who are you to say that the laws of physics are universal? The only thing science says, through inductive reasoning of course, is that

In all cases observed, the speed of light in a vacuum is the constant c.

You're asserting that the laws of physics are universal, and as thus you require infinite knowledge. Besides, the very tenets of science require that nature is orderly in the first place, so it's a circular argument. In addition, the laws don't "exist" - they aren't physical. In addition, it's not that things are following these laws. We have created the laws to follow what these objects consistent behaviors are. Just because you can observe something doesn't mean that the laws are the only laws, or that they apply in all cases.

What is this "nothing" that you're talking about? Are you demanding an account of the consistency of the laws of physics that I've already shown may not be consistent?

Your argument can be summarized as follows:

1. The universe is orderly because physical laws apply in all cases
2. These laws cannot be explained
3. Therefore, a consciousness must be required to explain the existence of these laws.

It's remarkably similar to the transcendental argument for the existence of God, except that instead of physical laws, it's logic. Physical laws have that problem of being circular, and God's consciousness is unaccounted for. Why does this consciousness have the traits and qualities he has? Why does he exist? etc... To say that you're able to account for the assumed order of the universe by positing a deity that is itself unaccounted for is dishonest and has no explanatory value.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said in all cases. I never said the laws of physics were universal. Hence the reason I said "to some degree" and "it may not be perfectly ordered". It's in the very post you quoted.

As for the laws not "existing" due to their not being physical, you know what I mean. Stop playing semantics.

Obviously we don't have the proper knowledge to say what is what for certain when talking on this scale. That is why, for the third time, I am stating my beliefs. Not facts, not knowledge, not even fully-logical arguments. BE-FUCKING-LIEFS.

As for God, I don't assert any knowledge of his nature. I don't follow any religion. I simply believe that he, or a being like him, exists and is responsible, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, for the creation/general nature of the Universe.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for God, I don't assert any knowledge of his nature. I don't follow any religion. I simply believe that he, or a being like him, exists and is responsible, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, for the creation/general nature of the Universe.

And (correct me if I'm wrong here) you said that the reason you believe is that you think the order in the universe speaks to a creator. We've pointed out that the order you speak of is not necessarily there, and even if it is, it would not require a creator. And, since it does't require a creator, we'd have no rational reason to assume a creator. Logic dictates that we shouldn't make unnecessary complicating assumptions.

I am stating my beliefs. Not facts, not knowledge, not even fully-logical arguments. BE-FUCKING-LIEFS.

But WHY do you believe these things? As an engineer, if you or I said "I think this will be safe" and when asked for justification for this claim said "because it is my BELIEF", we would be laughed out of the room.

It would be nice isn't a reason to believe something. Having heard your argument, I think that when you slice off all the circular reasoning, and look at it honestly, you will find yourself left with nothing but that.

 

[Fayd]

Some day, I'm sure we'll find a cure for death. My money's on some sort of artificial body and brain, something like an android, with more advanced circuitry of a nature we can only imagine today. Maybe with compact quantum computing technology, room temperature superconductors, and optical circuitry. Stuff that would make a biological human brain run and hide under the bed.

we are the borg. you will be assimilated. resistance is futile.

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said in all cases. I never said the laws of physics were universal. Hence the reason I said "to some degree" and "it may not be perfectly ordered". It's in the very post you quoted.

It's still circular.

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for the laws not "existing" due to their not being physical, you know what I mean. Stop playing semantics.

Semantics is important here - you never defined what you mean by existence. Of course, if you redefine existence to mean something so vague that it can be applied to things that don't physically exist, then what would you venture to say does or doesn't exist?

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for God, I don't assert any knowledge of his nature. I don't follow any religion. I simply believe that he, or a being like him, exists and is responsible, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, for the creation/general nature of the Universe.

Correct, you didn't. But some things about God are unaccounted for. To assert that "God did it" or something of the like is to explain a mystery with a mystery. Other than that you said he was conscious, and we can infer that he has purpose from this, intents, etc. You also seem to suggest that God created the order surrounding the nature of the laws of physics. So yes, you did assert knowledge or at least beliefs of his nature.

Why do you believe he exists? Why don't you accept that the universe is eternal?

Addressing an earlier comment you made,

Originally posted by: irishScott
1. Why not believe? Because we don't have any scientifically validated evidence yet?

The time to believe something is when there is evidence for it. Anything else isn't using critical thinking, is irrational.

Originally posted by: irishScottAnything's possible

Not really. Is it possible to go faster than the speed of light while traveling on the same plane as it?

Originally posted by: irishScottwhile I love logic (hell I'm an Engineering major) it can't tell us everything by a long shot.

The basic principles of logic can be expressed as "A or not A" - the law of excluded middle, "A is A" - law of identity, and "A is B or not B" - the law of non-contradiction.

To say that something transcends it - or that logic can't explain it - is to say that this, and the other laws of logic, don't apply to it. The laws of logic are descriptive - they describe the way that things in the universe that exist behave. To say that something is outside of logic, or that logic cannot be applied to it, is to say that it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by: irishScott
Nevermind the fact that science is continually growing, and history has proven that many apparently laughable concepts are in fact quite concrete when enough information is obtained. Go back in time and tell an Ancient Greek that you can make lightening. Chances are you'd become the village idiot until you proved otherwise.

Actually, chances are they would ostracize you for not believing in Zeus, but that's besides the point. Most likely they would ask for a demonstration, or proof that you can. The role of events is reverse - you wouldn't be assumed an idiot until you could prove so, you would be questioned, and if unable to prove it, then you would be considered an idiot.

Originally posted by: irishScott
In the case of the afterlife, there are thousands if not millions of people who report said "out of body/life before eyes/near death experiences". That's enough evidence to justify my beliefs. Like I said, I believe and speculate. I don't claim to know or be able to prove shit.

Testimonial evidence is the least reliable and not empirical, not objective. I've already addressed this in one of my earlier posts.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for God, I don't assert any knowledge of his nature. I don't follow any religion. I simply believe that he, or a being like him, exists and is responsible, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, for the creation/general nature of the Universe.

And (correct me if I'm wrong here) you said that the reason you believe is that you think the order in the universe speaks to a creator. We've pointed out that the order you speak of is not necessarily there, and even if it is, it would not require a creator. And, since it does't require a creator, we'd have no rational reason to assume a creator. Logic dictates that we shouldn't make unnecessary complicating assumptions.

I am stating my beliefs. Not facts, not knowledge, not even fully-logical arguments. BE-FUCKING-LIEFS.

But WHY do you believe these things? As an engineer, if you or I said "I think this will be safe" and when asked for justification for this claim said "because it is my BELIEF", we would be laughed out of the room.

It would be nice isn't a reason to believe something. Having heard your argument, I think that when you slice off all the circular reasoning, and look at it honestly, you will find yourself left with nothing but that.

The order I speak of is IMO there due to the fact that we can even perceive it as such. Even if it's on the most finite scale imaginable, it's there. If there was no order, I see no way that we could perceive order. Hell if the Universe was pure chaos, we shouldn't exist.

As for requiring a Deity for the creation of the universe, is there another explanation at the moment? None that have been proven. My beliefs are a possibility like any other. A pseudo-logical possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. I see it as a compromise between logic and belief.

As for why I believe what I believe, to be blunt, it feels right. I've learned to trust my intuition/instincts. I admit that it doesn't make fully logical sense, but logic is only one form of human perception. I'm not saying I'm psychic or anything, but I believe there are perceptions other than logic that are valid. They're obviously not scientifically valid or proven (yet), because science is an application of logic. Whether science can prove them in the future or not has yet to be seen.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for God, I don't assert any knowledge of his nature. I don't follow any religion. I simply believe that he, or a being like him, exists and is responsible, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, for the creation/general nature of the Universe.

And (correct me if I'm wrong here) you said that the reason you believe is that you think the order in the universe speaks to a creator. We've pointed out that the order you speak of is not necessarily there, and even if it is, it would not require a creator. And, since it does't require a creator, we'd have no rational reason to assume a creator. Logic dictates that we shouldn't make unnecessary complicating assumptions.

I am stating my beliefs. Not facts, not knowledge, not even fully-logical arguments. BE-FUCKING-LIEFS.

But WHY do you believe these things? As an engineer, if you or I said "I think this will be safe" and when asked for justification for this claim said "because it is my BELIEF", we would be laughed out of the room.

It would be nice isn't a reason to believe something. Having heard your argument, I think that when you slice off all the circular reasoning, and look at it honestly, you will find yourself left with nothing but that.

The order I speak of is IMO there due to the fact that we can even perceive it as such. Even if it's on the most finite scale imaginable, it's there. If there was no order, I see no way that we could perceive order. Hell if the Universe was pure chaos, we shouldn't exist.

As for requiring a Deity for the creation of the universe, is there another explanation at the moment? None that have been proven. My beliefs are a possibility like any other. A pseudo-logical possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. I see it as a compromise between logic and belief.

As for why I believe what I believe, to be blunt, it feels right. I've learned to trust my intuition/instincts. I admit that it doesn't make fully logical sense, but logic is only one form of human perception. I'm not saying I'm psychic or anything, but I believe there are perceptions other than logic that are valid. They're obviously not scientifically valid or proven (yet), because science is an application of logic. Whether science can prove them in the future or not has yet to be seen.

Hell if the Universe was pure chaos, we shouldn't exist.

We exist BECAUSE the universe it pure chaos. If it wasn't where would have all the heavier elements come from? Millions of supernova created those elements. If the universe was not chaotic, nothing would be happening. The universe is a hostile place, but at least one of the planets had the conditions necessary to support life.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Leafy

Originally posted by: irishScott

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said in all cases. I never said the laws of physics were universal. Hence the reason I said "to some degree" and "it may not be perfectly ordered". It's in the very post you quoted.

It's still circular.

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for the laws not "existing" due to their not being physical, you know what I mean. Stop playing semantics.

Semantics is important here - you never defined what you mean by existence. Of course, if you redefine existence to mean something so vague that it can be applied to things that don't physically exist, then what would you venture to say does or doesn't exist?

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for God, I don't assert any knowledge of his nature. I don't follow any religion. I simply believe that he, or a being like him, exists and is responsible, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, for the creation/general nature of the Universe.

Correct, you didn't. But some things about God are unaccounted for. To assert that "God did it" or something of the like is to explain a mystery with a mystery. Other than that you said he was conscious, and we can infer that he has purpose from this, intents, etc. You also seem to suggest that God created the order surrounding the nature of the laws of physics. So yes, you did assert knowledge or at least beliefs of his nature.

Why do you believe he exists? Why don't you accept that the universe is eternal?

Addressing an earlier comment you made,

Originally posted by: irishScott
1. Why not believe? Because we don't have any scientifically validated evidence yet?

The time to believe something is when there is evidence for it. Anything else isn't using critical thinking, is irrational.

Originally posted by: irishScottAnything's possible

Not really. Is it possible to go faster than the speed of light while traveling on the same plane as it?

Originally posted by: irishScottwhile I love logic (hell I'm an Engineering major) it can't tell us everything by a long shot.

The basic principles of logic can be expressed as "A or not A" - the law of excluded middle, "A is A" - law of identity, and "A is B or not B" - the law of non-contradiction.

To say that something transcends it - or that logic can't explain it - is to say that this, and the other laws of logic, don't apply to it. The laws of logic are descriptive - they describe the way that things in the universe that exist behave. To say that something is outside of logic, or that logic cannot be applied to it, is to say that it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by: irishScott
Nevermind the fact that science is continually growing, and history has proven that many apparently laughable concepts are in fact quite concrete when enough information is obtained. Go back in time and tell an Ancient Greek that you can make lightening. Chances are you'd become the village idiot until you proved otherwise.

Actually, chances are they would ostracize you for not believing in Zeus, but that's besides the point. Most likely they would ask for a demonstration, or proof that you can. The role of events is reverse - you wouldn't be assumed an idiot until you could prove so, you would be questioned, and if unable to prove it, then you would be considered an idiot.

Originally posted by: irishScott
In the case of the afterlife, there are thousands if not millions of people who report said "out of body/life before eyes/near death experiences". That's enough evidence to justify my beliefs. Like I said, I believe and speculate. I don't claim to know or be able to prove shit.

Testimonial evidence is the least reliable and not empirical, not objective. I've already addressed this in one of my earlier posts.

1. My beliefs in this regard are pseudo-logical. Circular reasoning does not apply as I'm not trying to prove anything.

2. Alrighty then Webster. By "exists" I mean that they are perceivable. Happy?

3. I believe he exists because it feels right, has pseudo-logical backing, and I trust my intuition.

4. Yes, my beliefs are not entirely logical or rational. Emotions aren't either. Welcome to humanity.

5. IMO, yes. There's a reason Einstein's theory of relativity is still a theory. Same story with gravity. Just because we don't know how doesn't mean it's not possible.

6. And there is evidence for my beliefs. Pseudo-logical evidence but evidence nonetheless.

7. So the human creation of logic is the be-all-end-all? One singular perception is so great that if something does not follow it, it can't exist? Sounds more arrogant than most religions.

8. That was my original point. Unless you know how to build the tools you need to make the tools you need to make a generator that can produce something approximating lightening. A bad analogy on my part, as that is theoretically possible if you have the knowledge.

9. It's evidence. It's not perfectly reliable in any logical sense, but, once again, my beliefs are not entirely logical.

 

[Baked]

Originally posted by: Old Hippie
I had one of those "died and brought back" to life scenarios.

It was just like what you read. I floated above the situation, watched as people drug my body around, saw and followed the bright light, saw my Grandmother (who died 10 years previously) who was waving me in saying "Come on in Rick. Everybody's here". I could see every line in her face, the way she applied her make-up, and I smelled her lilac perfume. Looking past her, I could see other relatives who had passed.

I remember hearing the rescue guys say "Rick, we're going to try and bring you back to life now" and I remember thinking, "Man it's nice here, I don't want to go back."

I finally told this story to my Mom and Dad when my brother died @ 6 yrs. ago. It really gave them peace believing that they would see him again.

So ya, I'm thinking I believe it.


I have another story about believing you're going to die and having your life pass before your eyes, but you didn't ask about that scenario. :laugh:

Lucid dream + overdose of imagination = your scenario. I got into an accident many years ago, woke up in the hospital a week later. Didn't remember anything from the day of the accident until the moment I woke up at the hospital. You can say if it weren't for the amazing medical technologies, I would've been dead. There were none of the things you recounted in your scenario. Shit, I watched plenty of movies and TV shows about the adventures of afterlife, but none of those things happened to me. You must be real special.

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: irishScott
1. My beliefs in this regard are pseudo-logical. Circular reasoning does not apply as I'm not trying to prove anything.

It's circular no matter how much you make ad-hoc hypotheses why it's not, or why it doesn't matter. It's true by virtue of the fact that it's circular.

Originally posted by: irishScott
3. I believe he exists because it feels right, has pseudo-logical backing, and I trust my intuition.

So you don't care if your beliefs are true? You just believe "because it feels right"? Consider this hypothetical:
Your doctor knows you have cancer, yet he tells you you're fine because it would break your spirit and make you depressed. In both cases, you feel "right" - you get comfort from it.

Originally posted by: irishScott
5. IMO, yes. There's a reason Einstein's theory of relativity is still a theory. Same story with gravity. Just because we don't know how doesn't mean it's not possible.

Stop. For someone who purportedly doesn't like playing semantics, you sure are engaging in some. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, and is the highest level of recognition and value an idea in science get. It is not a colloquial "theory" - a conjecture not supported by evidence. That is a hypothesis. Furthermore, "just because we don't know how" means we shouldn't assume that a God exists. You're not solving anything - you're just moving the questions to an unneeded entity. You're explaining a mystery with a mystery - your hypothesis has no explanatory power.

Originally posted by: irishScott
6. And there is evidence for my beliefs. Pseudo-logical evidence but evidence nonetheless.

It's not pseudo-logical, it's not even logical. It's not evidence, it's hearsay. If I say I'm God, how can you refute me by your reasoning? I mean it's evidence, eh? You have to have standards of evidence - something someone said cannot be used as evidence as people can say anything and be mistaken.

Originally posted by: irishScott
7. So the human creation of logic is the be-all-end-all? One singular perception is so great that if something does not follow it, it can't exist? Sounds more arrogant than most religions.

How repugnant. First of all, the laws of logic are formed by our observations of the preconditions of existing - anything that exists is behaving in these rules in all cases we've observed, and there have been absolutely no cases in which things that exist don't follow these rules. Since there's mountains of evidence to support this, there's no reason to assume that there are any exceptions, as there is a total, complete void of evidence to the contrary. Your mocking is a silly ad-hoc hypothesis, and it doesn't carry any weight. To say it's arrogant is the exact opposite. These truths don't have any ego attached.

8. That was my original point. Unless you know how to build the tools you need to make the tools you need to make a generator that can produce something approximating lightening. A bad analogy on my part, as that is theoretically possible if you have the knowledge.

Originally posted by: irishScott
9. It's evidence. It's not perfectly reliable in any logical sense, but, once again, my beliefs are not entirely logical.

See #6

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: irishScott
The order I speak of is IMO there due to the fact that we can even perceive it as such. Even if it's on the most finite scale imaginable, it's there. If there was no order, I see no way that we could perceive order. Hell if the Universe was pure chaos, we shouldn't exist.

Then explain quantum randomness. Go ahead, if your God hypothesis has any explanatory power you should be able to answer how he created order, or why he created order. Explaining a mystery with a mystery.

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for requiring a Deity for the creation of the universe, is there another explanation at the moment? None that have been proven.

This is intellectually dishonest. It's called "god of the gaps" - you can't explain it, so therefore God did it. It's intellectually dishonest - you can't STAND THE POSSIBILITY OF not knowing something, so you cower behind this God of the Gaps. Be honest and say that you don't know how the universe, if created, came about.

Originally posted by: irishScottA pseudo-logical possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. I see it as a compromise between logic and belief.

It's not logical at all. Why would you believe something without evidence? What rational do you have for believing that doesn't apply to every religion, including ones that you can just make up on the spot?

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for why I believe what I believe, to be blunt, it feels right. I've learned to trust my intuition/instincts.

Your intuitions. You have so much experience when it comes to the creation of cosmos and the birth of universes, I should just trust your judgment on this one. You don't have any reason to believe it, and you can't even explain why you believe it, you can't explain anything about it, all you do is move the mystery up one level.

Originally posted by: irishScottbut I believe there are perceptions other than logic that are valid.They're obviously not scientifically valid or proven (yet), because science is an application of logic. Whether science can prove them in the future or not has yet to be seen.

This whole section is total nonsense.

 

[Eli]

No.

 

[AVAFREAK182]

yes. and i believe in magic, in a young girls heart.

oh the music can free her, whenever it starts