OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[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.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by deccan:

quote:

---

May I ask a question - nothing personal intended, just trying to make a point. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Like colllege level Phil 101 or the equivalent?

No, I've never taken a Philosophy 101. I've always meant to, but it isn't easy for me. I'm Malaysian and currently live in the Solomon Islands.

Last year, while on holiday, I'd met a fellow Malaysian who had done her Bachelor's degree in China and majored in philosophy. I tend to seek out people (especially females ) who are interested in philosophy to make friends with them. However, I was none too impressed with her aptitude.

Currently, I'm corresponding with a friend (female too ) who is doing a masters degree in Chinese Studies, with a heavy tilt towards philosophy at the National University of Singapore (which incidentally is considered a VERY good school). I'm not too impressed with what they teach her too.

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.
[/QB]

---

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. (Maybe you are seeking an agreeable female companion and not a philosophical challenge? ) All you have to do is recognize that logic cannot encompass all problems and there's just as much fault to find with atheism/materialism as theism.

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. He's a hero of the 'materialist' movement because he supplied a major weapon in the war on religion, but that doesn't make him a philosopher in his own right. What did he write other than 'Origin of Species'? Bertrand Russell is a study in contradiction all to himself. I don't think he'd like being in the same list with some of those others...

[ August 20, 2003, 17:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
What did he write other than 'Origin of Species'?

OT, but a clarification nonetheless. In a quick search, I've pulled up nineteen books by Mr. Darwin, though with a single duplication. That's just on the Gutenberg site. As a naturalist he is certain to have written many other books and papers that have not been as well remembered. Still I don't see this relating to the conflict of philosophy here, it's rather OT.

[ August 20, 2003, 17:57: Message edited by: Loser ]

[geoschmo]

Darwin was a student in theological seminary before the voyage that resulted in his seminal work. Although there is some question whether his educational choice was a matter of spiritual belief or one of practicality.

At the time of his voyage to the Galapagos he was more what you would call an amateur naturalist, as it was more or less something he did as a hobby. Although "amatuer" in this connotation is not meant to degrade the quality of his work as the field was in it's infancy at the time anyway he was pretty generally regarded as having a talent for it at the time by his professors. Obviously his work has pretty much redefined the field as it has exsisted after him.

The point of all this is just that a case could be made that even Darwin approached the subject from a philisophical perspective. At least initially. The phisophical and the scientific are heavily interconnected when discussing the subject of the origin of life.

Geoschmo

[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.