belief in an afterlife

[Cris]

Lg,

I see you are continuing to attempt to divert attention away from your inability to support your claims. We are not the ones that have to prove anything. The onus is still on you.

So in all of those statements you still haven’t made the slightest attempt to support your claims that an afterlife could exist or that there is anything supernatural involved.

You really don’t have anything do you? You don’t have to answer, we know you don’t and likely never will.

So where does that leave the concept of an afterlife? Absolutely nowhere – it is total fantasy.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

So in all of those statements you still haven’t made the slightest attempt to support your claims that an afterlife could exist or that there is anything supernatural involved.

You really don’t have anything do you? You don’t have to answer, we know you don’t and likely never will.

So where does that leave the concept of an afterlife? Absolutely nowhere – it is total fantasy.

thats because you still haven't admitted that the reductionist paradigm has severe limitations in determing reality - if you are still sold out to reductionism, there's not a lot that can be said (except of course the driving of mammoth holes in your arguments)

 

[Cris]

LG,

And still you can’t offer any support for a supernatural afterlife. Put up or shut up.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

And still you can’t offer any support for a supernatural afterlife. Put up or shut up.

And I have explained why - you are too attached to reductionist models of definition that cannot adequately explain the phenomena of the embodied, and yet you are not shy in boldly proclaiming

So where does that leave the concept of an afterlife? Absolutely nowhere – it is total fantasy.

Your fantasy is the idea that molecular reductionism is broad enough to define everything - until you give up this fantasy there is not much room for progressive discussion

 

[Fire]

And I have explained why - you are too attached to reductionist models of definition that cannot adequately explain the phenomena of the embodied, and yet you are not shy in boldly proclaiming

So where does that leave the concept of an afterlife? Absolutely nowhere – it is total fantasy.

Your fantasy is the idea that molecular reductionism is broad enough to define everything - until you give up this fantasy there is not much room for progressive discussion

You go on and on about ad homs against you, but when you talk nonsense like this, it's an inevitable byproduct. It seems you want a license to talk utter shit, without fear of ridicule. Well I hope to god you never get that license.

All of science and knowledge is based upon materialism - that is, things that exist. Where there is no material there is nothing. Which effectively means any interpretation of this nothingness is simply made up. It's not knowledge. You can sit there with all the smugness you like and go on about how science is a fantasy, but this is the height of delusion and if not ignorance, then stupidity.

 

[lightgigantic]

You go on and on about ad homs against you, but when you talk nonsense like this, it's an inevitable byproduct. It seems you want a license to talk utter shit, without fear of ridicule. Well I hope to god you never get that license.

All of science and knowledge is based upon materialism - that is, things that exist. Where there is no material there is nothing. Which effectively means any interpretation of this nothingness is simply made up. It's not knowledge. You can sit there with all the smugness you like and go on about how science is a fantasy, but this is the height of delusion and if not ignorance, then stupidity.

i never said there was nothingness - I said that there are phenomenan (such as life) that doesn't lead to any noumenan that reductionism can elaborate upon - hence reductionism is insufficient to determine the nature of reality, and to constantly call upon it as evidence for everything is limiting

 

[Cris]

Lg,

Science is not on trial here, it has repeatedly proven itself and there is no reason to doubt the method. The onus remains on you to justify your claim that something supernatural can exist by whatever method you can demonstrate is credible. If you have a method that is superior to science then you need to prove that.

So how are you going to prove that a supernatural afterlife exists?

Or are you going to avoid the issue again as you have for this entire thread?

 

[VitalOne]

Lg,

Science is not on trial here. The onus remains on you to justify your claim that something supernatural can exist by whatever method you can demonstrate is credible. If you have a method that is superior to science then you need to prove that.

So how are you going to prove that a supernatural afterlife exists?

How can you provide evidence of an afterlife? Atheists claim that because after you die the body dies, there must not be any rebirth or any traveling to heaven or hell.

Ofcourse there is some evidence for reincarnation with people taking lie detector tests and stuff about their past life, and that consciousness does not equal the brain.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

Science is not on trial here

,
but what you hold as the means to determine evidence is

it has repeatedly proven itself

proven itself in the examination of dull matter, yes

and there is no reason to doubt the method.

there is reason to doubt it has any jurisdiction beyond dull matter

The onus remains on you to justify your claim that something supernatural can exist by whatever method you can demonstrate is credible.

the first step in determining what happens to life after the body dies would be to positively identify what is life to begin with - its kind of jumping the gun to think you can determine what happens after death when you cannot even determine what is happening while life is present

If you have a method that is superior to science then you need to prove that.

if by this statement you mean prove that it is subservient to reductionist models there will be problems - after all, how can you see what you are seeing with

So how are you going to prove that a supernatural afterlife exists?

first of all it requires an examination of how life is existing in the body before death

Or are you going to avoid the issue again as you have for this entire thread?

as long as you insist on using the reductionist model as the final last word in discerning the nature of reality and use it to claim "there is no evidence" for anything supernatural, metaphysical or spiritual, you can expect my comments regarding the limits of reductionism to run parralell with yours

 

[Cris]

lg,

but what you hold as the means to determine evidence is

In science it is an easy definition. Anything detectable. There are no limitations. If you can show that the supernatural is detectable then science can examine it.

proven itself in the examination of dull matter, yes

Simply because nothing else has been detected.

there is reason to doubt it has any jurisdiction beyond dull matter

There are no limits to the jurisdiction of science. Essentially science simply means knowledge.

the first step in determining what happens to life after the body dies would be to positively identify what is life to begin with

Then take a stab at it – how would you define life?

“ If you have a method that is superior to science then you need to prove that. ”

if by this statement you mean prove that it is subservient to reductionist models there will be problems - after all, how can you see what you are seeing with

No, I mean prove there is a method superior to the well established scientific method.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
but what you hold as the means to determine evidence is
”
In science it is an easy definition. Anything detectable. There are no limitations. If you can show that the supernatural is detectable then science can examine it.

If you hold the reductionist paradigm as the absolute for detection it is limited - for instance its obvious that we have a mind, but such an entity doesn't appear by reductionist schemes

“
proven itself in the examination of dull matter, yes
”
Simply because nothing else has been detected.

what about those things that don't appear by molecular reductionist views, like the mind

“
there is reason to doubt it has any jurisdiction beyond dull matter
”
There are no limits to the jurisdiction of science. Essentially science simply means knowledge.

agreed - what I contend however is that reductionism, the observation of the base elements of dull matter, does not have a supreme jurisdiction in the field of knowledge

“
the first step in determining what happens to life after the body dies would be to positively identify what is life to begin with
”
Then take a stab at it – how would you define life?

I started a thread on it before that opened with this

Basic Features of ............................The View of ................. The View of
Absolute Truth .............................. Modern science............. Religion


1. The Absolute truth exists,
but is not fully conceivable ..................Yes .............................Yes
by the human mind

2. It exists invariantly throughout
space ..............................................Yes .............................Yes


3. It does not change with time ..........Yes .............................Yes


4. It controls and is the source of
all manifestations ..............................Yes .............................Yes


5. It exists as a unified whole .............No.............................Yes


6. It possesses the attribute of
consciousness
(thinking, feeling, willing) .....................No........................... ..Yes

7. It corresponds with fixed
mathematical expressions....................Yes .............................No

8. The perception of the absolute truth
is limited to matter and material.............Yes .........................No
energy only


I guess one can argue that there are no absolutes in science, but that is not very helpful, just as religion without philosophy is useless

He explains all these points, but perhaps the most contentious for the material scientist is point 4 so Singh explains ....

....Point 4 should ideally be "yes" in both columns. We should expect the ultimate cause to determine all phenomena completely. The natural laws of modern science, however, must be supplemented by initial conditions describing the state of affairs in nature at some arbitrary point in time. This is a rather unsatisfactory feature of the modern science view, and theories such as Darwinian theory of evolution and the "Big Bang" theory of cosmology may be viewed as attempts to circumvent it ......

 

[Cris]

lg,

Please give it a rest with your reductionist mantra, it was irrelevant when you introduced it and it is still irrelevant. E.g. psychiatry and psychology, both branches of science have no problems understanding that the mind exists.

As for the rest of your post, I do remember thinking it was nonsense when we discussed it before and it is still nonsense - I do not see how any of that is a definition of life.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

Please give it a rest with your reductionist mantra,

that will require that you also give a rest to your clamouring that there is no "evidence" for god

it was irrelevant when you introduced it and it is still irrelevant.

the broadness of your view is defined by it

E.g. psychiatry and psychology, both branches of science have no problems understanding that the mind exists.

both of which operate out of behavioural paradigms (ie perception of the behaviour of a person) - theism operates out a similar premise, namely observation of god - the only difference is that god is a superior entity to us and is not subservient to our perception (the successful performance of religious principles enables us to get that direct association however) - just like if you wanted to do a behavioural study of the consciousness of the president of the USA that would be very difficult because you are not privvy to his direct association

As for the rest of your post, I do remember thinking it was nonsense when we discussed it before and it is still nonsense - I do not see how any of that is a definition of life.

It begins by establishing the terminology, without which discussion would be useless - if you don't understand the terminology you will just harp on "there is no evidence" , not realizing you are talking with both your feet firmly fixed in reductionistic paradigms

 

[Cris]

Then there is no basis on which we will agree.

That ends this debate. I see no value in continuing.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then there is no basis on which we will agree.

That ends this debate. I see no value in continuing.

there is the basis of logic, which is the medium for debate since it is a given that the views will be divergent

 

[Cris]

I do not see that your understanding of logic is sufficiently developed to enable a logically reasoned debate.

 

[lightgigantic]

I do not see that your understanding of logic is sufficiently developed to enable a logically reasoned debate.

All you have done is call things "irrelevant"

it was irrelevant when you introduced it and it is still irrelevant.

"nonsense"

I do remember thinking it was nonsense when we discussed it before and it is still nonsense

"fantasy"

So where does that leave the concept of an afterlife? Absolutely nowhere – it is total fantasy.

and made unbacked claims such as

Science is not on trial here, it has repeatedly proven itself and there is no reason to doubt the method.

what to sepak of your earlier confusion between distinguishing cause from effect in regard to metabolism .....

its not clear how this gives you the logical upperhand

 

[Cris]

That you are unable to see why you were wrong on so many basic issues is an essential part of the problem. That's why it is so frustrating and disatisfying trying to reason with you.

 

[lightgigantic]

That you are unable to see why you were wrong on so many basic issues is an essential part of the problem. That's why it is so frustrating and disatisfying trying to reason with you.

But you haven't introduced a shred of logic

on what grounds should I accept that I am wrong?
Faith?

 

[Kron]

humans don't even have consciousness, they are inside our consciousness.

What? You sound like you're babbling... Can you please EXPLAIN what you mean instead of spouting strings of zen.

multiplying zero is impossible and useless. 0 may become 1 only by infinite division (creation). only zero can be infinite.

that's what this site says: http://www.hatem.com/science (bottom of the page)

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the net. You have to subject everything you learn to LOGIC. If you're saying that dividing 0 by infinity makes 1, then you're saying that 0 is infinitely greater than 1. Which makes no sense.

youre so nice.

Sorry. I'll rephrase my arguments better next time; it's just that some people think you're a wuss unless you sound forceful...

no u cant cuz i is not anumber

According to me it is. Introducing i into the number system allows all functions of numbers to be explained.