OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[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:
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).

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.

[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 ]

[General Woundwort]

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

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

However the cost of bearing the scientific Cachet is that you have to be prepared to defend your arguments on a variety of fronts, i.e. the quality of your data, whether or not arguments are logically sound etc.

I would agree.

From personal experience, I've simply found that many theists who do make the claim that their arguments are logically and perhaps scientifically sound, when pressed, often fall back to the line that their beliefs simply don't have to be held to the same standard as the rest of science because they're based on faith.

I'd have to see the particular arguments being made to judge whether or not they would really be a "cop-out". That's what I was trying to get at in my prior reply to you - I have found that many agnostics/atheists base their doubts about God more on "Well, if God does exist, why doesn't He do this or that?" But questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.

I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School. If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess.

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

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

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

[deccan]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Deccan, the attitude expressed by Mr. Sagan and held by you is that unless the creationist can prove the exsistance of God, a proof that few creationists will attempt and most acknowledge is impossible to do, that any alternative theories regarding the specific mechanics of life are invalid.

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" 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.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

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.

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.]

And I'm still looking for my dream girl.

[Gozra]

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

[Gozra]

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.

[deccan]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
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.

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.

[Fyron]

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...