|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 0:39:34 GMT
It's good enough evidence for me. If you, or anyone else, has more convincing evidence in favor of an afterlife, feel free to share it. I'm not holding my breath, of course. In all those years afterlife has been discussed on IMDb or here, no one provided convincing evidence. A 23 minutes hallucination is less convincing than a scientific experiment. The Libet Experiment is so far off the mark even your fellow atheists can see how far off it is. The data does not even suggest there is no free will. The "consciousness" of a person is known to be complicated. Any decision can, and most do, involve weighing several reasons for and several reasons against some action. Some of the reasons might get less "notice" and result in a "feeling" one way the other. Making a decision based wholly are partly on a "feeling" is not however proof that there is no free will. It is not even evidence. The feeling can well be the individual's "own free" feeling, much like his "own free" choice. Furthermore when reasons do entirely fail to receive "conscious" examination they can at a later time be considered quite consciously and if necessary modified. The argument in the Libet experiment seems to be that the existence of a subconscious precludes free will, which is totally ridiculous. Another totally ridiculous notion of yours is that simply because you have seen no evidence then there is none. Ten people go separately into the forest. When they return they report. Five saw a bear, the other five did not see any bear. What is the probability there is a bear in the forest? Unlike bears, God is apparently not visible. Do I have to tell my bear shitting in the woods joke AGAIN? Does God leave scats? invisible scats?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 1:02:41 GMT
Unlike bears, God is apparently not visible. Do I have to tell my bear shitting in the woods joke AGAIN? Does God leave scats? invisible scats? It's a really big forest, okay? Let's just leave it at that and not miss the point. It's disturbing to think about in this context, but still true, that you cannot see the wind, but you can see what it does. Going on a totally different train of thought here, there definitely is a "god" without question, just as there is a "game" of baseball. People attend religious services, engage in and resolve disputes, advise pillars of the community, in some cases being pillars of the community themselves. So there is definitely something going on. You can't say there's no game of baseball because many people attend games and you can see them on TV. In the same sense you cannot say there is no "god." What you can do is argue about its nature and qualities, which of course religious people often do quite without the assistance of atheists. The amusing thing is how atheists think they're special somehow.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 1:14:25 GMT
Unlike bears, God is apparently not visible. Do I have to tell my bear shitting in the woods joke AGAIN? Does God leave scats? invisible scats? It's a really big forest, okay? Let's just leave it at that and not miss the point. It's disturbing to think about in this context, but still true, that you cannot see the wind, but you can see what it does. Going on a totally different train of thought here, there definitely is a "god" without question, just as there is a "game" of baseball. People attend religious services, engage in and resolve disputes, advise pillars of the community, in some cases being pillars of the community themselves. So there is definitely something going on. You can't say there's no game of baseball because many people attend games and you can see them on TV. In the same sense you cannot say there is no "god." What you can do is argue about its nature and qualities, which of course religious people often do quite without the assistance of atheists. The amusing thing is how atheists think they're special somehow. Oh Dear! So, the bigger the forest the more chance f seeing BOTH bears and God? You can measure the wind, NOT so much God. The effects of the wind are natural forces at work as are most of the pathetic 'evidences' of God's work. Arlon, did it NOT occur to you that something going onis NOT evidence? You are using those two really cute arguments where because a lot of people believe, think it or do it, it must be true, and ALSO, invoking the God of the gaps where just because YOU can't understand something that it must be explained by God. I actually think it is theists who think that they are special, because they feel impelled to make shit up and then justify it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 1:35:06 GMT
Arlon, did it NOT occur to you that something going onis NOT evidence? You are using those two really cute arguments where because a lot of people believe, think it or do it, it must be true, and ALSO, invoking the God of the gaps where just because YOU can't understand something that it must be explained by God. I actually think it is theists who think that they are special, because they feel impelled to make shit up and then justify it. No, it is not "maybe" something is going on. It is a fact that something is going on. It is proved that something is going on. You are disputing what is going on not whether anything is going on. You are saying god can't or won't give anyone who asks a million dollars or that sort of thing. You're saying that is not going on, which I and most religious people would agree is not going on. Something else however is definitely going on. The evidence is conclusive that something is going on. One of the first things I noticed when I joined the old board on IMDb was that none of you were really arguing the "existence" of god at all. You were arguing the nature of god. Of course the atheist's view of the nature of god does not exist. Only children think of god as an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 1:37:31 GMT
Oh, you. I was thinking more like having the experiment set up by scientists and having the believers and/or prophet praying for their God to light it on fire. They could set it up to make sure no trickery was afoot. BTW, this was referenced in one of my favorite Lesswrong posts. Always laugh at the last punch line here: I don't see how your post contradicts anything I said. But as for evidence: I'd possibly accept evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a body/"soul" dualism, and that the "soul" can exist without a body. Since there have been dualists since the beginning of humanity, and the evidence for their claim could be described with the words "zip", "zilch", "nothing", "nada" or "null", I am going with absence of evidence being evidence of absence. I wasn't trying to contradict what you said, just elaborate on my idea of a modern Elijah/Baal experiment. That's the thing though: WHAT kind of evidence for a body/soul dualism would you accept? IE, can you think of an experiment that might be able to provide evidence for that? I can think of one good one that's been conducted in at least one hospital, but I'm curious to see what your ideas might be.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 1:40:34 GMT
Arlon, did it NOT occur to you that something going onis NOT evidence? You are using those two really cute arguments where because a lot of people believe, think it or do it, it must be true, and ALSO, invoking the God of the gaps where just because YOU can't understand something that it must be explained by God. I actually think it is theists who think that they are special, because they feel impelled to make shit up and then justify it. No, it is not "maybe" something is going on. It is a fact that something is going on. It is proved that something is going on. You are disputing what is going on not whether anything is going on. You are saying god can't or won't give anyone who asks a million dollars or that sort of thing. You're saying that is not going on, which I and most religious people would agree is not going on. Something else however is definitely going on. The evidence is conclusive that something is going on. One of the first things I noticed when I joined the old board on IMDb was that none of you were really arguing the "existence" of god at all. You were arguing the nature of god. Of course the atheist's view of the nature of god does not exist. Only children think of god as an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. No. It is not evidence of God that the 'fact' of people believing is 'going on'.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 1:41:07 GMT
tpfkar What strikes me most about that story is the casual gruesome viciousness. MonsterIndeed, though to quote Yudkowsky again:
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 1:49:55 GMT
No, it is not "maybe" something is going on. It is a fact that something is going on. It is proved that something is going on. You are disputing what is going on not whether anything is going on. You are saying god can't or won't give anyone who asks a million dollars or that sort of thing. You're saying that is not going on, which I and most religious people would agree is not going on. Something else however is definitely going on. The evidence is conclusive that something is going on. One of the first things I noticed when I joined the old board on IMDb was that none of you were really arguing the "existence" of god at all. You were arguing the nature of god. Of course the atheist's view of the nature of god does not exist. Only children think of god as an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. No. It is not evidence of God that the 'fact' of people believing is 'going on'. That's like saying there's no such thing as baseball because you never met anyone who got a baseball scholarship. True, very few people get baseball scholarships, but they do get them -- further proving that there is such a thing as baseball. Maybe playing baseball won't do for you the things some people say it will, but that doesn't mean it does not exist at all.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 2:04:31 GMT
No. It is not evidence of God that the 'fact' of people believing is 'going on'. That's like saying there's no such thing as baseball because you never met anyone who got a baseball scholarship. True, very few people get baseball scholarships, but they do get them -- further proving that there is such a thing as baseball. Maybe playing baseball won't do for you the things some people say it will, but that doesn't mean it does not exist at all. No, it is not. There is a thing called baseball and a few people get baseball scholarship because it(and they) exist. God cannot be proven in either of those ways, or in fact any.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 2:11:28 GMT
That's like saying there's no such thing as baseball because you never met anyone who got a baseball scholarship. True, very few people get baseball scholarships, but they do get them -- further proving that there is such a thing as baseball. Maybe playing baseball won't do for you the things some people say it will, but that doesn't mean it does not exist at all. No, it is not. There is a thing called baseball and a few people get baseball scholarship because it(and they) exist. God cannot be proven in either of those ways, or in fact any. No, you failed to cast any doubt at all on the existence of god and are left with trying to make one up of your own that couldn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 2:12:36 GMT
It's good enough evidence for me. If you, or anyone else, has more convincing evidence in favor of an afterlife, feel free to share it. I'm not holding my breath, of course. In all those years afterlife has been discussed on IMDb or here, no one provided convincing evidence. A 23 minutes hallucination is less convincing than a scientific experiment. Another totally ridiculous notion of yours is that simply because you have seen no evidence then there is none. Ten people go separately into the forest. When they return they report. Five saw a bear, the other five did not see any bear. What is the probability there is a bear in the forest? That first statement is delicious irony coming from you. However, I'd argue that in the case of the afterlife there is no evidence period. It has nothing to do with what I or anyone has seen. All of the various reports are much more simply explained by a brain doing what it does in a state of distress. Further, when you analyze stuff like NDEs from around the world, they are remarkably culture specific. If there was only one afterlife and NDEs allowed people to glimpse it, you'd expect the experiences would be much more similar rather than people seeing what they expect to see. Your forest/bear example is a rather bad analogy to make. Most everyone has seen bears, so we know they exist and that direct visual evidence can be had. We also know they're natural habitat are forests. So unless these five people are prone to lying, the probability is extremely high they saw a bear. How do you expect to translate this into an afterlife scenario? Most people haven't even claimed to have seen the afterlife, and those who have were usually in an extremely altered state (like near dying) when they did.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 2:24:21 GMT
No, it is not. There is a thing called baseball and a few people get baseball scholarship because it(and they) exist. God cannot be proven in either of those ways, or in fact any. No, you failed to cast any doubt at all on the existence of god and are left with trying to make one up of your own that couldn't exist. Huh? You have truly lost the plot Arlon. There is no evidence for God that you me or anyone else could possibly make up, especially not an atheist like me!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 2:36:01 GMT
That first statement is delicious irony coming from you. I am very certain I never said there is no such thing as relativity. I am also certain that I have to regularly remind you I never said there is no such thing as relativity. All I have said is that I have not had the privilege to see the evidence myself. If you would like to do the same sort of thing then never say there is no such thing as a god, only that you have not had the privilege of seeing the evidence. That's how the real scientists do it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 2:44:06 GMT
That first statement is delicious irony coming from you. I am very certain I never said there is no such thing as relativity. I am also certain that I have to regularly remind you I never said there is no such thing as relativity. All I have said is that I have not had the privilege to see the evidence myself. If you would like to do the same sort of thing then never say there is no such thing as a god, only that you have not had the privilege of seeing the evidence. That's how the real scientists do it. I'm not just referencing relativity. With God, the problem is more that nobody ever presents any evidence God exists despite how many believe he does. People attempting to present evidence only ever prove that they don't have a clue what qualifies as evidence. Further, unlike with relativity, the people that believe in God haven't been able to do things like invent GPS with that belief.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 2:55:43 GMT
I am very certain I never said there is no such thing as relativity. I am also certain that I have to regularly remind you I never said there is no such thing as relativity. All I have said is that I have not had the privilege to see the evidence myself. If you would like to do the same sort of thing then never say there is no such thing as a god, only that you have not had the privilege of seeing the evidence. That's how the real scientists do it. I'm not just referencing relativity. With God, the problem is more that nobody ever presents any evidence God exists despite how many believe he does. People attempting to present evidence only ever prove that they don't have a clue what qualifies as evidence. Further, unlike with relativity, the people that believe in God haven't been able to do things like invent GPS with that belief. As long as you keep using definitions of "god" forged by novices (on both sides) it will be easy to doubt such really exists. The GPS system would work more accurately if there were no such thing as relativity. Measurements would not have to be adjusted for relativity and could be used "raw." And again I am not saying there is no such thing as relativity, only that the existence of the GPS system is not proof of it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 3:01:47 GMT
I'm not just referencing relativity. With God, the problem is more that nobody ever presents any evidence God exists despite how many believe he does. People attempting to present evidence only ever prove that they don't have a clue what qualifies as evidence. Further, unlike with relativity, the people that believe in God haven't been able to do things like invent GPS with that belief. As long as you keep using definitions of "god" forged by novices (on both sides) it will be easy to doubt such really exists. The GPS system would work more accurately if there were no such thing as relativity. Measurements would not have to be adjusted for relativity and could be used "raw." And again I am not saying there is no such thing as relativity, only that the existence of the GPS system is not proof of it. What definition would you like me to use that allows you or anyone to provide evidence for him? Yes, that's your claim, but it's a claim you haven't proven. Right now, what we have are engineers saying they have to adjust for relativity to make GPS work. Who should I believe? Some self-proclaimed internet journalist or the people that actually make GPS systems?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 3:02:14 GMT
I'm not just referencing relativity. With God, the problem is more that nobody ever presents any evidence God exists despite how many believe he does. People attempting to present evidence only ever prove that they don't have a clue what qualifies as evidence. Further, unlike with relativity, the people that believe in God haven't been able to do things like invent GPS with that belief. As long as you keep using definitions of "god" forged by novices (on both sides) it will be easy to doubt such really exists. The GPS system would work more accurately if there were no such thing as relativity. Measurements would not have to be adjusted for relativity and could be used "raw." And again I am not saying there is no such thing as relativity, only that the existence of the GPS system is not proof of it. I think everyone shares a right to both seek evidence of God and to review and refute it, novices or not. Sadly there has never been any credible evidence for us novice atheists to review not refute. We live in hope.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 3:07:46 GMT
As long as you keep using definitions of "god" forged by novices (on both sides) it will be easy to doubt such really exists. The GPS system would work more accurately if there were no such thing as relativity. Measurements would not have to be adjusted for relativity and could be used "raw." And again I am not saying there is no such thing as relativity, only that the existence of the GPS system is not proof of it. What definition would you like me to use that allows you or anyone to provide evidence for him? Yes, that's your claim, but it's a claim you haven't proven. Right now, what we have are engineers saying they have to adjust for relativity to make GPS work. Who should I believe? Some self-proclaimed internet journalist or the people that actually make GPS systems? Defining god is problematic. It's like trying to describe the color green to a person blind from before birth. It's not a story that can be told with a bunch of Legos for illustration. I don't mind much what you believe about relativity, so feel free.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Mar 31, 2018 12:25:21 GMT
Evidence of a God would be impossible for the human brain to comprehend in any meaningful way. Even if one religion was achieving miracles every time they prayed, you could just as easily posit it was "the devil" doing it. You guys might want to just let go and get on the same page as smart atheists and theists alike and admit God cannot be proven or disproved.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 18:14:39 GMT
tpfkar Another totally ridiculous notion of yours is that simply because you have seen no evidence then there is none. Ten people go separately into the forest. When they return they report. Five saw a bear, the other five did not see any bear. What is the probability there is a bear in the forest? Substitute "Loch Ness Monster" for "bear". I can diagram sentences. It's not like I can't.
|
|