But I said "may be" that time? So I recognize that there may be a possibility.
You also said that "they are just as possible as ghost farts," which is an inaccurate statement because you don't know how possible either hypothetical phenomenon is.
Now, the problem I have with that is that, you seem to be implying that YOU DO KNOW, since you say: There is no need to bring this up.
Saying there's evidence for something is not the same as knowing something is true. I said specifically that evidence suggested that consciousness requires certain biological constructs, not that it
definitively does.
Whatever evidence we have is just human evidence.
This is a nonsense term you've invented that has no basis in reality. There is no such thing as "human evidence" as a contrast to some other form of evidence.
If such a thing as "outside our universe" IS POSSIBLE (because, yes, we don't know if it is possible) AND it exists, it would OUR evidence would not matter. Do you disagree?
I wouldn't disagree, but the problem is that by dismissing the evidence as "human evidence", and therefore of no value, you are assuming not only that some other realm could possibly exist, but that it absolutely
does exist. The proper intellectual stance would be to agree that the evidence suggests this, not to draw some arbitrary line in the sand based on some ether-realm you've concocted in your imagination.
If there does turn out to be something more to the universe, then we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. In the meantime, you have no reason to believe such a thing or place exists, and dismissing evidence based on the assumed possibility is stupid.
Now I have chosen my words carefully this time (hopefully), and recognize that it may not be possible. I've always knew this, I just didn't know you needed to explicitly say it.
That's not the problem. The problem is that you've stated the
direct opposite of that opinion. Remember? You said "you must believe in the possibility until there is evidence against it." (oddly enough, you don't seem to mind "human" evidence in that circumstance :shrug
So it isn't a matter of you not being clear, it's that you contradict yourself.
Now, I thought the God question was always something science cannot answer. This is always the cliche I always here: "Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a God." The explaination was because such a thing is untestable, and even if "miracles" happen, and prophecies come true, it doesn't necessarily mean God, but a higher being. So this is why I thought it can never be knowable. Am I wrong?
Yes and maybe. "Yes" because we have enough evidence to show that the God of the Abrahamic faiths is a human construct, and in turn that
all gods are human constructs, and "maybe" because we don't know if science will someday be able to show us the empty space where a creator or creators would need to be if the universe were created rather than the outcome of a natural process.
Why even say there is reason to believe, though? Wouldn't it be better to just say we have no evidence of such? When you say "we have reason to believe it's not possible" it is like leaning to "no, it's not possible."
No it wouldn't be better to say that, because there is a difference between having no evidence for something, and having evidence against it. In the case of the afterlife--which is how this whole thing started--it isn't simply that we have no evidence of an afterlife, it's that we have evidence against its existence. So yes, saying "We have reason to believe it's not possible"
is like leaning toward "No, it's not possible." And that would be the correct position to take when you have evidence against something. Why would you pretend that your position is neutral when you have evidence for or against something?
Say the existence of Big Foot. We have no evidence of such a creature. You don't say, "we have reason to believe it's not possible."
You're wrong here, because we do have reason to believe Bigfoot isn't possible. For one, where the fuck would he be? It's not like there's unexplored terrain here in the continental United States, and it's not like we're talking about a species of insect that's only discernible from its cousins by a particular behavior--we're talking about an 8-foot-tall humanoid furball supposedly living near well-populated areas of the country. If it really existed, we'd have more than one or two shaky videos. (the first of which, the one that started this whole mess, having already been admitted to be a hoax, of course.)
Yes it would be an afterlife. An afterlife is simply, "life after death."
By that definition, then people who are resuscitated after heart failure spend their remaining days in "the afterlife." A temporary cessation of vital functions is only "death" in a clinical sense, not a practical sense. And even with all that aside, "the afterlife" has spiritual implications. If you meant otherwise, you should have said so before.
Yes it has. Thank you. But I still feel you knew all along.
I didn't, because you didn't say so all along. Again, am I mind reader? Much as you don't want to admit it, there is a difference between "is" and "may be."
Well my original post, to clarify, was just saying that there may be a possibility for such a thing. If science can ever prove there isn't an afterlife (which I really don't see how it can, but apparently you think so),
Again with "prove." How many times must this concept be explained to you before it sinks in?
that would mean if your life is crap there would be no problem in killing yourself. Why live through the torture? Whereas I live on hope, hope for the future, and hope that if I die, there may be a possibility for an afterlife (again, this could even mean anything scientific, like cryogenics). I'm just saying that I don't know, no one knows, and I like it that way. The whole premise of my post was hope. Not anything supernatural or God, or anything religious. Just hope. Anything. Human Science, Alien Science, Un-Universal Science (whatever that is). Anything.
The value of my life does not require the promise of a second life after my death. And how would the promise of that make this life more meaningful? Where's the logic in that? If I have only one life, that life is more precious than if I had two, or an endless amount of them. And either way, I treasure my life because of what's
in my life, not what's beyond it. My family, my friends, my interests, my passions...to me, that's what life is, that's what makes life worth living.
Intellect and philosophy are not antonyms. They can work hand in hand. You should know that. There is no doubt in my mind the gods of the various holy texts are human invention. That doesn't mean the idea of a god can be ruled out, anymore than the idea of evolution was ruled out before humans could identify the evidence.
There's so much wrong with this paragraph, I hardly no where to begin. Okay, let's start with you presuming to lecture me on philosophy and intellect. Obviously philosophy and intellect do not have to oppose each other, but I never said they did. I simply meant that atheism is not a value-based position, but rather an evidentiary one.
Secondly, I do not say that the concept of a created universe can be ruled out. In fact, I say the opposite. Do please try to follow along. I'm very tired of having to repeat and restate my positions just because you can't be bothered to read them properly the first time around.
So you are telling me you don't consider "what if" scenarios at all? You have missed out on a good multitude of movies, my friend. This isn't a scientific discussion. There is no need to "consider" any of this with any scientific merit. Did you forget we are in the philosophy section?
In this conversation, you have disregarded scientific evidence based precisely on your "what if" scenarios, so don't try to change your story now. You've already made factual assertions, and don't pretend you haven't.
This has nothing to do with what we let ourselves imagine. My imagination works just fine. The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend scientific evidence is useless because in my mind I can imagine a scenario that would render it all pointless or false.
To our current knowledge, it is not possible to go back in time currently. Does that stop us from asking, "what if we had done this or that 10 years ago?" Of course not. It's a fun thing to consider, and we can still learn from questions that are not possible.
See above.
Alright, a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, what was the point again? We have clarified that we do not know if outside our universe is possible, but we do know that it could be possible, even though there is no current evidence for it and it might not be possible, but there is no evidence for that either. Absence of evidence does not lean one to say it's not possible. When there is absence of evidence one should take a neutral ground until it is disproven. Now, again, I don't see how this can be proven or disproven scientifically, but apparently you say science can do so. Please clarify this point.
Again, you're off on a tangent and
completely off-base.
1. Yes, in many cases absence of evidence
is evidence of absence.
2. For the 90th time, proof only exists in math.
3. We do not know if something "may be" possible. Saying something may be possible is a neutral statement; it is not a statement of knowledge. You only "know" if something is or isn't possible.
Will I have to go through this
again, or I can I trust that you're paying attention this time?
What in your mind would be proof of a deity or evidence to support a deity? THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. I thought. How could any evidence say for sure, yes, there is a deity??? This is why I say such things are beyond science ever knowing, but you say no, so just explain why and I'll try to understand. Again, I'm not saying anything one way or the other. My whole goal here is to remain on neutral ground with the simple phrase, "I don't know." Your goal is to somehow explain things, correct?
Well, my goal is to help you understand, but apparently that's a lost cause. The point of saying you'd ask for proof is not that there could possibly be proof, but that you would ask for something that doesn't exist. In other words, you don't want to believe that there
isn't a god, so you'll dismiss any evidence against such a being out of hand. You've already said that you couldn't possibly survive without the possibility, so we both know you're simply unwilling to accept a reality in which it
isn't.
So this whole exercise for you is for affirmation, not information. You don't care what I have to say, you only want to be able to dismiss it all out of hand.
As for what evidence for a creator looks like, I obviously can't say for sure, but perhaps some phenomenon that could not be explained away by other means. For example, if the world stopped turning suddenly, and there were no ill effects, and the sun turned blue and the face of some being appeared and spoke in a language everyone could understand. That would be evidence of, at the least, an intelligence able to suspend the laws of physics. Maybe that's not necessarily a creator or deity, but it's close enough that it makes no difference.
Are you trying to say for sure 100% the teapot does not exist? You can't say such a thing before you disprove it. That would be like me saying there is no sock in your bedroom floor because I just cleaned it the day before. How am I supposed to know for sure that you didn't put the sock there after I left?
Yes I am saying that, and no, your analogy is a non-sequitur. I originally said that there was no time for the teapot to reach its destination, but it turns out that Russel's Teapot only revolves around the sun, so that's my mistake. I therefore could not say I "know" there's no teapot, because I know it's at least
possible that we shot one out in that direction at some point.
However, just as an experiment, and to answer your question, supposing the teapot was purported to orbit the outermost star on the far side of the Andromeda Galaxy. I could not disprove that the teapot orbited that star (making the assumption that "teapot" is a exclusively human phenomenon, and therefore of Earth) , but I could tell you that there is enough evidence to be completely sure that it did not exist.
I agree. I recognize that there could be a possibility. It might not be possible, but it might be possible. It's neutral. I don't know.
That is perhaps the first honest thing you've said in this exchange.
Nobody says what? Do you want me to give you an example of someone saying that?
Please, yes. I'd love to see an example of someone else saying what you just said.
I mean that it may be possible that there is a universe outside of our universe. Then our math wouldn't matter.
Again, you're just demonstrating your ignorance of what math is. It's not a set of values, it is the
study of values. That's probably a crude definition, but it's true enough. If this hypothetical "outside" exists, we'd measure it with math.
Then how are you using it as a metaphor?!?!? :wtf:
Again, I did not know this was possible. What would denote evidence for or against a deity for you, then?
I answered the "for" part above. As for evidence against, I've already stated that the evidence against the gods of our ancestors could be construed as evidence against the very concept of godhood. If we know that every example of godhood is a human creation, then at least in my opinion that would be evidence that godhood itself is a human creation. In other words, the only reason we discuss the possibility of a deity is because of the writings and oral traditions from antiquity. If it's true that those writings and oral traditions are simply mythology, then what's to say that the very concept of a deity isn't mythological as well?
Put it in terms of Care Bears. We know that Wish Bear and Grumpy Bear are inventions of human imagination, but we can't actually
disprove the Care Bear as a species...but the fact that we know that
every single example of a Care Bear is fictional means that we can say safely that the concept of Care Bears is fictional. Do you follow that?
Aside from that, I would assume that evidence against a deity would have to be something like a discovery in physics that mandates that the universe is a natural process. Or something.
Science is a method and a tool to describe the laws and functions of the physical universe. As a method, it measures by observation and records data. As a tool, it is used to find consistencies and similarities and thus arrive at logical conclusions. It is not a method or a tool designed to deal with the abstract spiritual being of God and is therefore, incapable of doing so. This does not make science an imperfect method or tool, because science does what it is supposed to do. It is a mis-use of science to try and define and prove something which is outside of its legitimate purpose. It won't ever prove or disprove God.
Again, proof doesn't exist outside of math. Secondly, science already has found evidence against God. Yahweh can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be false through the scientific method. Perhaps it will someday be able to say for certain whether or not there is some abstract realm where a god may exist, but until it does, and until we know the makeup of such a place, it's not fair to say that science "can't" do that. For all you know, it might. For all you know, a god might exist in a physical place. The Mormons, for example, say God is a physical person living on another planet. There's nothing that says a god must be ethereal or abstract. That's just one conception of it.
I don't even know what we were talking about.
Yes you do.
Maybe a quote with the contradiction?
Okay, but this is the last time I'm doing this. I will quote you the entire exchange.
You said:
There are fallacies to some definitions of a God.
Moi said:
Yes, but timelessness isn't one of them.
You said:
I'm making it one. =D Because I can't comprehend why a God would make a law such as time, and then say he always existed, which is incomprehensible to us.
Me said:
The universe does not depend on your ability to comprehend it.
You said:
No it doesn't depend on that. I never said that.
Now that I went to this trouble, will you admit that you contradicted yourself, or are you going to keep playing this immature game?
My bad then. I didn't realize you can comprehend timelessness. So if a god is timeless, what created the god?
No one. A timeless god requires no creator.
So Zeus (Greek) and Indra (Hindu) are not Gods? Dyeus is not a God?
Nope. They're
gods. You keep using capital "G" despite the fact that I've corrected you on that usage three or four times now.
I speaking perfectly clear English.
Maybe, but you certainly don't
type it.
And?
Because if it were not disproven, there may be possible for the planet to be alive. It is a question plagued by man since we began to think. Is this planet alive? This is not your concept. You conceptualized the name.
It may be a question that plagued early man (as opposed to being plagued
by man...:bugeye
, but certainly no one believes the earth is "alive" in any real sense. The earth is not a sentient being.
And way to miss the point.
As I've said, this is not the science section, it's the philosophy section. I should be able to ask a, "what if?" question without a frog going into my throat and saying there is no evidence for it.
You make scientific claims and then complain when your claims are refuted? Grow up.
Yeah, anything may be possible. How's that?
Better, but you're still fundamentally mistaken. You think that this idea means that scientific evidence is worthless and meaningless, so essentially it's no better than saying anything
is possible.
Again, my example of the computer simulation which may be possible, if we are just code, consciousness can be copied. Again, I am not giving any weight to this. It's only an example. We don't know if it's possible, but it could be. Only a what if scenario. No evidence needed. I feel like I need to keep restating now whenever I say this because you will try to say "but we don't know if that's possible, or there is no evidence for that."
But you posited it as a reason why scientific evidence is invalid, so your hands aren't clean.
Can you clarify? I believe I got lost after "floating consciousness."
I said that the evidence suggests that consciousness is a byproduct of biological activity. In other words, it doesn't happen without the brain. Your response was "So science can't replicate my mind?" This is a non-sequitur, because I did not imply that science could not someday "download" you onto software that operates on hardware much in the same way that your mind currently operates in your brain. It would still be a brain-like construct, if it's possible. For your consciousness to carry on to an afterlife it would need to "float" away from your decaying brain and exist entirely independently, and there's evidence to suggest that this isn't possible.
But now that you contend "afterlife" can mean your persona being downloaded into a computer, then what I said doesn't really have any relevance.
