Do you reject all things that cannot be supported by evidence?
If there is a soul what does it do in an afterlife
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Do you reject all things that cannot be supported by evidence?
Of course. All things claimed to be in the objective realm. Meaning all things that you or I claim to have some measureable effect on the cosmos. Like wind, sunlight, electricity.
Don't try to go on about subjective things like my feelings for my dog or my perception of the color red.
Theists claim a "real" existence for their various gods. Prove it. Or shut up.
Just wondering, do you, superluminal, claim to exert a measurable effect upon the cosmos?
I'd like to know how to measure your will, or do you deny it?
Good. Prove to me that anything in the universe exists outside my mind.
Steady on.
I find that mutual orgasm is the best way to do that.
No kidding, solipsism is a symptom of sexual frustration.
Then go fu*k yourself. That should do it.
Here the fuck we go again.
You can insist that such a thing is impossible (to prove that things exist outside your mind). Fine. Let's assume that I am a figment of your imagination like the rest of the cosmos.
Within that "reality" you claim a god exists. I (another figment) claim that there is no proof of such a thing. Within the confines of your "reality" the proof of the illusory chair you are sitting on is categorically agreed upon by the meta observations of every pseudo human and pseudo measuring device in your mind-world. Your meta-god however, is just as non-existent in your cogno-reality, based on the same ficto-evidence, as it would be if the premise that real things exist outside your mind were shown to be true.
Of course.
And my will? Will is a subjective desire on the part of individuals and therefore not subject to the objective analysis of things claimed to be "real".
If I punch you in the nose, the effect is real. The cause (will) behind it is of no interset to objective observers trying to determine the reality of observed effects.
I am deadly serious.
Soul and the afterlife is an incomplete equation without the bits of the before life that matter most to people.
"How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?" ~ Albert Einstein.
To meaningfully discuss the soul it makes sense to me to discuss in the appropriate context.
Soul and the afterlife is an incomplete equation without the bits of the before life that matter most to people.
"How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?" ~ Albert Einstein.
To meaningfully discuss the soul it makes sense to me to discuss in the appropriate context.
He was not a biologist or a chemist. His authority does not extend to everything.
The biochemical nature of "first love" is very well understood.
Which would be...?
That just dodges the question, or fogs the issue.
Do you deny your own will?
Wherever the word is used, frequently.
Look around.
But if everything is a figment of my imagination, do I really care what those figments mean?
And if they are not, isn't it all based on faith in my subjective perception of a reality that I assume to be objective?
Can it be biochemically induced? (Serious question)
Also what leads to loss of love? What biochemical changes accompany loss of love? And grief over a lost one?
Of course not. I just probably don't take it for the mystical gobbledygook that you do. It's biochemical, dude.
Yes indeed.
I believe so. Well studied. Research it. Huge subject.
Hmm so why isn't everyone out there taking first love injections?
Please quote the research.