Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

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

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

In the first instance, I could say that I greatly enjoy music by Spears as a matter of purely personal taste. I simply like to hear her music, it makes me feel good to hear her music, and I don't care to justify why I feel this way to anyone.

In the second instance, I could say that I've come to enjoy music by Spears as a result of a long, tortuous and comprehensive study into many different musical styles by many different artistes that lead through a series of impeccably logical steps to the inescapable conclusion that Spears' music is superior to any other type of music. And I'm convinced that if anyone else bothers to go through the same process, they must inevitably and logically end up just like me and enjoy music by Spears.

Again, I don't have a single objection to the situation described in the first instance but I do have grave reservations and objections to the second situation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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".

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would agree.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Copelston and Dennett certainly cover the bases (Copelston the Catholic, Dennett the agnostic [if I'm thinking of the same Dennett you are).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK. Put this way, I would agree (cf my post to Dogscoff earlier).

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif 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.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.] http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

And I'm still looking for my dream girl.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

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

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

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.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

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...

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The most significant of these (aside from Origin of course), is probably THE EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS IN MAN AND ANIMALS .

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope. Way off here. Philosophy is purely a mental playground where anyone can flesh out a fanciful idea and not have to worry about proving anything. In philosophy you are not required to support your view, it is nice if you are able to and it does lend some credence to the view you are expressing, but not all important. Philosophy is now mainly for those who need to buy time in college or university till they decide what exactly to do with their lives. Philosophy is mental filler.

Science is the search for understanding and explanation by the employment of strict rules.

Religion is simply belief and requires no support whatsoever.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Tigbit, I am actually not way off at all. What I described is what philosophy is, and has been for centuries. I suggest you pick up some philosophy text books.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Actually Fyron, you are off. If philospophy were logic alone, then the final answer of ethics would have come long ago. As it hasn't, philosophy is not logic alone.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Why do you claim that? Different people can use different paths of logic to arrive at different conclusions. Philosophical arguments are never the end-all, beat-all that solve all of life's problems.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you realize how extensive a library one can build in the space of 10 years? Now this is a library that has no fiction in it at all. I have a mix of science, spirituality, and philosophy, some history, loads of reference books and various others that don't really seem to fit in any one catagory. I assure you, Fyron that I am very well read. It seems that you have much to learn yet, and that's okay because we always have something we need to learn.

Philosophy is far from the pure logic that Aristotle professed so long ago. Back then he felt that pure thought alone could understand the world. Anyone who has reached their first year of highschool knows that Aristotle was very incorrect about a great many of his ideas. Philosophy was that sad attempt to make sense of the world without the checks and ballances to root out the most-certainly-incorrect from the more-than-likely. (Personal opinion coming up) Now all philosphy has become is a course that one can take so that they can spew off a few quotes from dead people to make themselves feel like they know something. Few people who actually go through a phil course will continue on and actually have something to offer in the way of unique thought. Those that do go far and actually believe that they have found their calling as a philosopher write a book or few of some-to-great value and become professors for the next generation of wannabe know-it-alls.

If you really want pure logic, then science is the dicipline you are looking for, not philosophy.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

I was never talking about lame college students that never had an original thought, I was talking about philosophy itself, which is indeed still all logic based.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will not get into a is/isn't argument, Fyron and I need not repeat myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Weight of a soul!!!? I'm still trying to figure out how many angels fit on the head of a pin!

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Trying to find a solution to MY question I came across this anecdote. It seems somewhat relevant.

http://www.rbs0.com/baromete.htm

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry, Fyron but I disagree. jimbob on the other hand has it exactly right.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You might be interested in reading a technical description of the problem in the article Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification

In particular note this excerpt:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And yes, this applies to my beliefs and worldviews as well.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually no, if we all start at the same beginning, then if our logical reasoning, if they're correct, should always lead to the same conclusions.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's try a mathmatics analagy for a moment: There are many different algorythims that can successfully multiply two numbers together. However, if two algorythms designed for the same number system derive different results, one of them (at least) is incorrect. Further, it is possible to prove which one is false by going back to the base definitions involved. This is possible because math is truly based on logic; there are assumptions involved, but more often than not they are either definitions to cut down on the problem being worked on or criteria under which the derived fact holds true. That does not work with philosophy, as many of their base assumptions are by nature unproveable, arbitrary, and all-encompasing (such as Kant deciding that reason should be the basis for all decisions). As they are unproveable and arbitrary, we arrive with differing schools of thought in philosophy centering around those base assumptions. Were such assumptions not present, you would end up with only a single school of thought, as you could truly prove that a competing school of thought was objectively wrong. There would still be differing opinions on some of the newly brought up/newly discovered fine points until such time as an objective (dis)proof comes around (as it is with mathmatics), but on things of any importance at all, everyone would be in agreement (again, like math: Using the standard definitions of +, =, 2, and 4 in the standard base 10 number system, 2 + 2 = 4; no exceptions). That isn't the case with philosophy. Any philisophical school of thought is ultimately based on one or more basic assumptions that cannot, by their very nature, be proven. Such assumptions are either arbitrary, "feel-good" statements, or those that (while they cannot be proven) few would disagree with (often defended by a question). Something requiring an unproveable assumption is outside the realm of logic alone. Note that I am including the "alone" in that statement. Don't get me wrong - assumptions aren't necessarily a bad thing. You can go far with a good assumption set. However, unless it can be objectively tested, an assumption lies outside the realm of pure logic.

That, and there are schools of philosophy that don't recognize logic as the keystone of ethics, choosing instead to go with emotions. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Arguments? No. However, some of the schools sometimes claim to be.

Edit: I hate it when my signiture is correct.

[ August 21, 2003, 06:58: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Just to try to clarify about the nature of philosphy:

My philosophy Teacher says that philosophy, originally, was the term used to nominate all the sciences (from logic, to biology to astrology, etc.), but when a science became too complex it "separated" from the philosophy and because of this, today philosophy only works with some "sciences", and other have their own methods and fields.

About logic, according to my teacher, it is one of the "chapters" or "sciences" that are part of philosophy, but, in itself, logic is not the only basis of philosopy, only one of ist fields of study and, freq�ently, one of its "tools".

So, when on says that philosophy is entirely based in logic he is exagerating, while is truth that logic is one of the most popular "tools" of philosophy, and that philosophy have an entire "chapter" of studies about pure logic, it is not the "essence" of philosophy, that, in itself, is a "colective" of sciences.

I hope this helps to clarify the question, and if i'm wrong, it will not be the first time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Makinus

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

If you want to lump things in with philosophy that are not really philosophy, go right ahead.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Let me see if I have this straight:

Fyron is contradicting at least four others who have posted in this thread on what philosophy is. At least one of whom is leaning on rational argument, at least one of whom is checking with a professional on the subject, and at least one of whom is quoting literature on it from Stanford University. Meanwhile, Fyron leans on his own authority on the matter, and maintains that he is correct.

Does anyone - anyone at all - see anything false in the above statements?

If not, the logical thing to do would be to ask Fyron what his authority is that he can lean on it so surely. Fyron?

[ August 21, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

You didn't know? I am the world authority on philosophy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The graemlin would indicate you are joking, and the entry for your occupation in your profile ("Student") would support that interpertation.

If you aren't joking, please, give us links to the many places where you are listed for your philosophy awards, and the many papers you have written on the subject in order to obtain that vaunted position, so that we might have evidence of your claim.

If you are joking, please try actually debating the subject, as the other four(?) people involved are; I don't recognize your statements as authoritative on the subject when they stand by themselves. Were there debate and rational arguments with them, I might. As your statements on the issue currently stand, however, you don't really have anything in them to go on, and they can be discounted.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Jack and Fyron. Go to your corners please.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry Geo - I ought to have phrased things differently.

[ August 22, 2003, 01:53: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

I have no interest in continuing this discussion (and will not respond to such Posts), but will provide some closure... this is from my philosophy text book Thinking Philosophically, by Richard Creel:

"Within philosophy every claim that anyone makes is considered to be an appropriate target for critical investigation by means of reason. What is reason? What does it mean to investigate something by means of reason? That is difficult to say, but it means something like this: taking nothing for granted and asking of every claim, 'What evidence is there for believing it? What arguments are there to support it? Are those arguments strong enough to justify believing it?' Philosophy examines every position and asks what reasons there are for accepting or rejecting it; philosophy allows nothing to be sacrosanct and beyond the pale of rigorous investigation - not even reason itself! In brief, philosophy is the attempt to see what we can know just by depending on ordinary human experience and the powers of the human mind."

[ August 21, 2003, 23:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(emphasis added)

When ordinary human experience is included in the list of things something depends on, it is not "all logic" nor "ENTIRELY based on logic"; The excerpt you use denies your own thesis.

[ August 22, 2003, 01:53: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

Human experience sounds to me like observing the universe for empirical facts, so you have something to philosophise logically about.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps, but when empirical data gets added to the mix, it is no longer "all logic" nor "ENTIRELY based on logic", which is what I was arguing against. With observations thrown into the mix, it becomes "logic and observations", not "all logic".

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

So, are you saying that you consider the observations part of the philosophy, or did you have something else in mind?
Observations can be used to support a position, but ISTM they hardly provide a reason for believing something else. It is the logic (or whatever alternative you propose) that links the ideas to observations. The observations simply anchor the argument to our reality, rather than say the starwars "universe" or the matrix "universe".

The logic or alternative would be the gist of the philosophizing that philosophers do, as far as I see.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but a large part of that is the nature of the observations used. For example, Aristotle routinely cited what people in general seemed to think was right for particular instances to support/refute/move along his own arguments. However, most would agree that such judgements are culturally based, and valid only inside that culture. As those are culturally based, they can't be considered pure logic anymore. Logic is greatly, thouroghly, and widely used, but the position I am arguing against is that logic is all that is used in philosophy. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, logic is most of what philosophers do, but it isn't the entirety of philosophy.

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

I'm not clear on the observations as argument you implied there... Could you give an example?

Re: OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The one I was specifically thinking of (half-remembered from Philosophy 116 - I've since sold the book back, and can't readily double-check) was a case where Aristotle was discussing the private vs. the public good: justice. He started with a statement along the lines of 'those for whom a ruling is unfavorable will not agree with it'. However, he then says something along the lines of 'well, no, there have been observed instances where the judgement was against someone, but that person agreed the judgement was fair.' Basically, he was pointing out that courts made judgements which, while not in the favor of one or more parties, were still considered fair by all involved; he appeared to be doing this to support an external Version of justice as possible.

However, when it comes down to it, every ethical system philosophy has ever put out makes unproveable assumptions somewhere down the line. For example, Kant, one of the strongest advocates of reason you'll ever find, made such an assumption when determining what has inherent value: reasoning beings. His support for this was basically 'what else could it be?' and a note that essentially every expression of value is of the form 'valuable to' some person. Standing alone, the question defense is decent, but doesn't constitute a proof. The note on expressions of value relating to people is cultural evidence, and only valid inside that culture: an Austrailian aboriginy (spelling?) from a millenia ago might have very different ways of expressing value. Such an argument might not be valid in that culture.