Afterlife?

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Hey Frank, not trying to argue here. Can you do something with this?

P1 and P2 to support a C of: Therefore the sun will rise at dawn tomorrow.

I cannot do it, Hightor.

But I will say this: The sun will not rise at dawn tomorrow. The Earth will continue to spin on its axis...and create the illusion of the sun rising at dawn tomorrow.

In any case, I am not making the case that "there will be an illusion of the sun rising tomorrow" in a discussion of the Earth's motion dynamics. (I'm not anywhere near smart enough to do that.)

I don't know if anyone is discussing that issue here...and if so, I doubt I would join in that discussion.

Here in this forum, however, there are people asserting one of the following four matters:

1) There is at least one god.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

I think it makes sense to ask for a P1 and P2 for any of the "therefore" of those conclusions.

If I may ask, do you think the question I am asking is inappropriate?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The Earth will continue to spin on its axis...and create the illusion of the sun rising at dawn tomorrow.

Well, there's really no "dawn" from the astronomical perspective — I'm aware of the illusion but thought you'd understand why I'm asking without taking it literally. It just seems to me that as humans, we regularly make conjectures based on experience, and it would be difficult to form scientific hypotheses if there weren't an expectation that the observations we make today will be borne out tomorrow...is this not another example of a "blind guess" or a "faith-based" belief? It certainly doesn't stand up to the sort of radical skepticism people employ when they question the certainty (or likelihood) of a non-theistic universe.

Quote:

If I may ask, do you think the question I am asking is inappropriate?

Of course not. But I'm not knowledgeable enough to supply a satisfactory answer.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
The Earth will continue to spin on its axis...and create the illusion of the sun rising at dawn tomorrow.

Well, there's really no "dawn" from the astronomical perspective — I'm aware of the illusion but thought you'd understand why I'm asking without taking it literally.

I did understand...and was merely making the "literal" aspect of the analogy a part of my response.

Quote:

It just seems to me that as humans, we regularly make conjectures...

We do, indeed. I certainly do.

When I do, however, I call my conjectures...conjectures. I call my guesses...guesses. I call my hypotheses...hypotheses. Nothing whatever wrong with conjecture or guesswork or hypotheticals.

But when a conjecture or guess or hypothesis is made...and then offered as an assertion rather than as conjecture or guess...a problem arises.

Mostly, the problems are minor.

When it comes to whether there is at least one god or if there are no gods...it probably is a minor problem...with the potential for devastating consequences.

Secondly, when the conjecture or guess is disguised using the words "I believe..." rather than "I guess..."...the potential is increased. (Or at least that is what I conjecture.)

The issue interests me more than any other issue pursued in Internet fora, Hightor. So I discuss it at length with anyone willing to discuss it.

Quote:

...based on experience, and it would be difficult to form scientific hypotheses if there weren't an expectation that the observations we make today will be borne out tomorrow...is this not another example of a "blind guess" or a "faith-based" belief? It certainly doesn't stand up to the sort of radical skepticism people employ when they question the certainty (or likelihood) of a non-theistic universe.

Not really sure of what you are attempting to say there, but it seems interesting. If you feel inclined to discuss it further, PLEASE do so. What were you saying there?

Quote:

Quote:
If I may ask, do you think the question I am asking is inappropriate?

Of course not. But I'm not knowledgeable enough to supply a satisfactory answer.

I suspect no one is "knowledgeable enough."

That is the basis of my take on the issue. There is not enough unambiguous evidence (knowledge) to make a meaningful guess.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

What were you saying there?

Scientific hypotheses (as opposed to mathematical proofs) are based on experiments and observations which depend on the assumption that physical constants and "laws" – Bernoulli's principle, Gauss' Law, Maxwell's equation's, etc. – will be in effect tomorrow as they were yesterday and today.

Scientists don't take into account the sort of skepticism which asks, "How do you know there isn't some other principle at work which prevents us from seeing that these formulations are mistaken, or might be made inoperative by an unforeseen phenomenon which could take place tomorrow?"

I tend to hover around assertion number 4 – although I cannot and do not claim to know it as a fact – based on the informal observations I laid out for you before. Now, I'm not claiming that a personal creator cannot exist, but I am suggesting that assuming its non-existence isn't as much of a problem as you make it out to be. As with the theories of science, I remain open to correction of this view upon the presentation of convincing evidence.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
What were you saying there?

Scientific hypotheses (as opposed to mathematical proofs) are based on experiments and observations which depend on the assumption that physical constants and "laws" – Bernoulli's principle, Gauss' Law, Maxwell's equation's, etc. – will be in effect tomorrow as they were yesterday and today.

Scientists don't take into account the sort of skepticism which asks, "How do you know there isn't some other principle at work which prevents us from seeing that these formulations are mistaken, or might be made inoperative by an unforeseen phenomenon which could take place tomorrow?"

We are not talking about scientific hypotheses here, Hightor. So my inclination is to leave that aspect for a different discussion.

I will say this, however. As regards your "Will the sun rise tomorrow?" suggestion.

In "my take" on the question "Are there any gods or are there none?" I mention that "I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't."

Well...on your question I DO see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. My guess would be "The Earth will continue to spin on its axis and will create the illusion of a sunrise tomorrow."

I am not saying that it will with certainty, but if I am wrong...probably no one will ever know, because it is almost certain that every human will be dead as a result of the secession of rotation of the Earth.

Quote:

I tend to hover around assertion number 4 – although I cannot and do not claim to know it as a fact – based on the informal observations I laid out for you before. Now, I'm not claiming that a personal creator cannot exist, but I am suggesting that assuming its non-existence isn't as much of a problem as you make it out to be.

What on Earth causes you to think that I consider it a problem? Either there is at least one god...or there are none. Neither is a problem...nor is either improbable. I am simply saying there is no way a human can reasonably say one way is more likely than the other...(unless that human is also a god.)

Asserting there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods...IS PURE BLIND GUESSWORK. There is no avenue at this time to obtain either of those assertions through logic, reason, math, or science.

Quote:

As with the theories of science, I remain open to correction of this view upon the presentation of convincing evidence.

I have no problem with you making a blind guess that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...just as I have no problem with anyone else making a blind guess that it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

I suspect you easily see that the latter blind guess...is nothing more than a blind guess.

Am I correct?

Do you have difficulty seeing that the former is as well?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

What on Earth causes you to think that I consider it a problem?

Only because of what you said here:

Quote:

You mean "what is so harmful" other than the many wars, slaughters, genocides; pogroms; suicides; patricides; matricides; fratricides; regicides and **** like that which are a direct result of "tentative conclusions?"

Well...not much, if one ignores the mountains of hatred that spew because of them.

Quote:

Do you have difficulty seeing that the former is as well?

No difficulty whatsoever.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
What on Earth causes you to think that I consider it a problem?

Only because of what you said here:

Quote:
You mean "what is so harmful" other than the many wars, slaughters, genocides; pogroms; suicides; patricides; matricides; fratricides; regicides and **** like that which are a direct result of "tentative conclusions?"

Well...not much, if one ignores the mountains of hatred that spew because of them.

So, because I think "belief" in gods can be very harmful...you suppose I have to think that "supposing its non-existence" is also???

Quote:

Do you have difficulty seeing that the former is as well?

No difficulty whatsoever.
[/quote]

As I suspected.

But BOTH are just than blind guesses.

Nothing wrong with blind guesses on the question. When someone insists that I make a blind guess one way or the other...I flip a coin.

When (if) you finally see that your "hovering around #4" is motivated by the same kinds of things that motivate those who hover around #1 and #3...that will be significant.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The first self-replicating molecule would have been far simpler than life as it exists today. You didn't get a human spontaneously forming in an ocean, or even something as complicated as a cell. We're talking about a molecule that could copy itself and nothing more. After that, evolution by natural selection would have taken over, so to get life as it is TODAY would have taken 4.5 billion years.

Your argument is basically, "It seems too complicated," But that's not a quantitative analysis. You have chance incidents occurring all over the Earth for billions of years. You have an improbably event, but an immense number of trials. You cannot say that it's improbable.

And even though you have cleverly not said so, I strongly suspect that what you believe is design by a supernatural being, for which there is not an iota of evidence. Chemical reactions is more likely than supernatural beings.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
But that's not what I believe. I don't declare absolutely that it did not go to another place.

Then we are in complete agreement.

No, we're not, because you obviously think that it's warranted to believe in an afterlife, and my position is that without any evidence, such a belief is foolish.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

The first self-replicating molecule would have been far simpler than life as it exists today. You didn't get a human spontaneously forming in an ocean, or even something as complicated as a cell. We're talking about a molecule that could copy itself and nothing more. After that, evolution by natural selection would have taken over, so to get life as it is TODAY would have taken 4.5 billion years.

Your argument is basically, "It seems too complicated," But that's not a quantitative analysis. You have chance incidents occurring all over the Earth for billions of years. You have an improbably event, but an immense number of trials. You cannot say that it's improbable.

And even though you have cleverly not said so, I strongly suspect that what you believe is design by a supernatural being, for which there is not an iota of evidence. Chemical reactions is more likely than supernatural beings.

You are as far off base as is Leadfoot, Brandon.

It is no more probable that there are no gods than it is that there is at least one. And it is not more probable that there was "no intelligent design" than that there was "intelligent design."

You may think you are arguing more rationally than he, but you are not.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
But that's not what I believe. I don't declare absolutely that it did not go to another place.

Then we are in complete agreement.

No, we're not, because you obviously think that it's warranted to believe in an afterlife, and my position is that without any evidence, such a belief is foolish.

There may be an afterlife of some sort; there may be no sort of afterlife.

Supposing a blind guess in one direction or the other is superior to the other blind guess...is what is foolish.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Your argument is basically, "It seems too complicated,"

You either didn’t read my argument or you are too ignorant of biology and computer science to understand it. Or more likely, both.

Same thing I told farmer, either you have a counter argument or you don’t.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

youre argument is still "lifes too complicated to have arisen undesigned".
Youve compared DNA to a bar code.
Ill accept that since a barcode is mere "bookeeping" of something already in existence (can a soup was my recent offering).
Bar codes onthe cans didnt "dsign the soup's recipe, they merely record it).
there is no evidence that first life required such bookkeping. (according to Dr Gould;s massive treatise on evolution)

Also, watching how a virus (not even a lifeform) responds and produces variants based seemingly on natural selection rather than "design" provides some decent underpinning of Margulis and Wose (not to mention Watson , Dudna, Wagner and Coyne.
Your understanding of evolutionary "algorithms" have not shown me that they revolutionized the living state, all they do is repeat lifes "common origins"
See things like autocatalysis and prebiotic organic chemistry ( ATP, purines, pyrimidines, peptide bonds , etc.)
Life has mastered recombination, not design.
You can only evidence ID if you can show some facts that life periodically starts from scratch. even the"Big 5" extinction events didnt produce forms "redesigned from scratch"
Youve fallen on deaf ears because youve not been able to prov your point of insistance. I understand eveything youve said, I just dont buy into it. It is sorta like using data that is WRONG to explain a belief system. ( Fundamentalist IDers have been busy trying to discount(and miscount) geologic Ages and fossil records and they have shown that they are purely ignorant of the evidence presented by it)

Quote:

Same thing I told farmer, either you have a counter argument or you don’t.

and you obviously have a hard worked bunch of assertions that have no real scientific value except to a small bunch of religious zealots.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I challenged you to point out any specific error in my argument.

Either do that or STFU.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

your first error was to not understand how evoltion even work or leaves it tracks
seconndly youve purposely misunderstood and dismissed evidence on pre biotic chem and the compounds necessary for first life

Youve stated that bar codes represent are similar to the algorithms used in computer language (I said that, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail.

You have never admitted that e are all ignorant of what part of life came first. Most evidence shows that its cell walls, nutrients, and that replication came later(The chemistry of the deposits at Isua and The Western range of OZ as well as the newfound Proterozoic deposits in Canada and Russia point to the same as what Ive been preaching.

Your insistence that life's too complex to not have been designed is a kind of unsupported argument. It ignores all the mounds and mounds o evidence that refutes it. Its a totally different argument than "Are there gods"
What we see today in evolution details most careful responses to environmental pressures and population dynamics, not ID. Sorry, How can I refute the bases of your rgument when you refuse to accept scientific evidence totally.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Either do that or STFU

Ill bet youd never say that to me in real life one on one.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'll take that bet.

Still no example of a factual error in my argument from you i see.
Hope you are better at fisticuffs than you are at scientific debate.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

taking some hints from O;;ie are you> The fact that you are unable to see your errors doesnt mean that others are similarly short sighted.
At Isua , there are no fossil indications of purines OR pyrimidines. Whereas in the later deposits in the mid proterozoic during the "Great Oxygen event" similar structures to these two class chemical groups exist. Life extended in both these periods, THAT WE KNOW.

your design guy has lost yards of play in the last 5 years alone.

I dont think I want to continue any discussions with you on this , youve got your religious based POV and Ive got facts.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Much of religion is a blind guess, yes.

But there are certain laws of logic that have to be observed, or we cannot take you seriously. Suppose again we are talking about a bakery. All of a sudden, the ummmm baker's union is on strike. The manager and a few scabs try to bake the bread, but they all get killed in the fight (and this is why you should hate unions, all that delicious bread is not being made). We know that bread doesn't bake itself. Likewise, you can have a bakery in addition to tables and chairs (a place where the universe is ). You can dry ingredients, wet ingredients, starters, and preservatives (physical matter and subatomic stuff). You can have rolling pins, measuring cups, mixing bowls, even electric whisks (the laws of the universe such as gravity, magnetism, etc).
But none of that does any good if there aren't any bakers!!! But, you say, surely bread can arise spontaneously from the flour being left on the counter. If flour was able to stay in a jar with not reaction, more likely weevils (entropy) will do away with the flour long before it gets the chance to spontaneously turn into bread.

It may not have to be a conventional notion of God here. For the record, I am also willing to accept:
1. An unknown Will of Magic, or Force.
2. Human beings created themselves. Then everything else.
3. UFOs from another universe created our universe, and other UFOs created their universe, and other other UFOs created their universe...
4. Universe was eternal, it had not creator, but there was some sort of driving force.
5. Reapers or fairies run all mechanistic forces of the universe.
6. Not one God but many gods.
7. The Earth was constructed as a model. Also the meaning of life is 42.

I am not willing to accept a creator-free creation. That is stupid. And anyone trying to sell me on that is either also stupid, or a willfully ignorant con-artist trying to deconvert people because they hated Catholic school. So which are you?

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

havent studied any biology eh? Lot of people call biology stupid out of sheer ignorance of what weve observed.
Youve observed a world pandemic in action these last 2 years and I wonder what you really cannot grasp Or really want to grasp).
Facts and evidence abound to those who spend the time and do a bit of homework.
The analyses of self replicating molecules and the molecules of life are easily found out there.

anyone can take an easier way (A fact free way) that involves intercession by magic guys in the sky. yet you fail to present any evience and then try to disount the very evidence of life on the planet

Because you find something stupid means you just dont wish to have to give up your beautiful tales and then havent invested any time carefull scrutinizing your beliefs. you seem willing to accept panspermia but fail to see that even they needed to have an origin.

dont be name calling till youve invested some time to understand , you obviously havent. Your "where are the bakers exampl is precious. Where did the yeast come from?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know