Afterlife?

MG Bryan wrote: No. Without certain presuppositions there is no verification or falsification of anything.

Are we crossing into pot talk philosophy now or are you going somewhere with this. I would suggest that any form of "technology" from stone spear heads to the computer you were typing on was born from an experimental, positive result that was repeatable.

You guys are making my head hurt And taking away my craigslist time. I'm trying to score a Jeep XJ.

Here, for those who really are curious: http://www.gotquestions.org/

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: No. Without certain presuppositions there is no verification or falsification of anything.

Are we crossing into pot talk philosophy now or are you going somewhere with this. I would suggest that any form of "technology" from stone spear heads to the computer you were typing on was born from an experimental, positive result that was repeatable.

Nope, just sticking to that fact that the basic principles of math which allowed us to develop these wonderful computers, aren't something that can be proven experimentally. You've made to too broad of an assertion by saying that everything has to be accounted for through repeatable experimentation.

Some Christians think the world is around 6000 years old and come up with stuff like this.

It doesn't mean there is no god, but this doesn't help his cause.

MGBryan, you say not everything has to be accounted for through repeatable experimentation. That's a little bit like saying 'you shall not question or you will be punished.'

Fletch1 wrote: You guys are making my head hurt And taking away my craigslist time. I'm trying to score a Jeep XJ. Here, for those who really are curious: http://www.gotquestions.org/

Go find that XJ! Stay away from the right hand drive and 4 banger versions.

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, they can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise. The difference between the atheist and the Christian in this sense is that the atheist may act ethically for certain reasons, but he has no ultimate reason for acting ethically because there is no ultimate moral authority that exists over each sphere of his life. Without this ultimate authority, each atheist defines morality on his own terms, although his morality is influenced by the remnants of morality from the image of God within, along with the strictures and constraints of the culture and society in which the atheist exists. The Christian, on the other hand, acts morally out of the knowledge of the moral law given by God in His Word and a love for the Law-giver Himself. When confronted with a situation that demands both the Christian and the atheist to make moral choices, a situation in which societal constraints are removed, the reaction of each will be vastly different. If a society deems it morally acceptable to kill unborn babies, for instance, the atheist sees no reason to oppose the practice. His own “moral law” even tells him it’s the compassionate thing to do in cases where the child is the result of rape or incest. The Christian, however, knows abortion is wrong because his moral choices are built upon the moral Law-giver who has declared all human life to be sacred because it is created in the image of God. The Law-giver has proclaimed, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and, for the Christian, there’s the end of it. So can an atheist act ethically? Certainly, but he has no ultimate reason to do so and no ultimate authority to look to in order to ensure his line is indeed straight and unbendable. **And one other point. As a Christian, I know unbelievers who are "nicer" people than some other Christians I know(who may not even be one). It gets me upset, but its the truth. Biblically however, being good isn't the way to salvation. Those Christians need to straighten up and fly right though. I work with unbelievers, not atheists though, that I love to death. Even if they were atheists I'd still love em'.

REALLY?!?! So basically you are saying that people who don't believe in a some big guy watching them in the sky will only do what society says is ok... That is ridiculous.

Basically the way I see it, I believe there is a guiding force in the universe perhaps we can that a god. But I certainly don't believe that I need to believe in a guy who got hung on the cross to save my soul. If god is all forgiving, why not just forgive people who have tried their best to live a good life (and by live a good life, I mean follow the golden rule because in my mind that is all that matters)? The way I see it religions in general have been basically a way to guide people sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

Brett_Murphy wrote: 20:13 says "You will not kill" in the KJV of the book. It says "Murder" in other versions. Which one is right?

In the context of the whole plethora of the OT, "murder" is the best fit for what is meant. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I can't speak with authority on the subject, but a quick internet search seems to support "murder" over "kill" amongst Hebrew scholars.

MG Bryan wrote: Nope, just sticking to that fact that the basic principles of math which allowed us to develop these wonderful computers, aren't something that can be proven experimentally. You've made to too broad of an assertion by saying that everything has to be accounted for through repeatable experimentation.

Math is a set of languages created by men to describe and support observable phenomena. It is the RESULT of experiment and a means to demonstrate results. Like English one can also use it to express an idea like "If I describe a circle... then I suppose the distance from the edge to the center has to have a certain relationship to the center" and I can "prove" this both mathematically and experimentally but the idea came from the mind of men, expressed in a language.

Calculus wasn't around until Newton needed to express something that other math languages (like Euclidean geometry) were inadequate for.

MG Bryan wrote: Nope, just sticking to that fact that the basic principles of math which allowed us to develop these wonderful computers, aren't something that can be proven experimentally.

Just wondering if you could clarify your assertion a bit...

What aspect of mathematics are you suggesting is not experimentally verifiable? As in, the concept of one plus one equalling two being proven by taking one stone and one stone and counting them both is not a proof because the transition to a physical medium muddies the waters? I'm just unclear about where specifically the problem lies.

Curmudgeon wrote: MGBryan, you say not everything has to be accounted for through repeatable experimentation. That's a little bit like saying 'you shall not question or you will be punished.'

No, that's nothing like what I'm saying. I'd prefer to not have words put in my mouth. What I'm saying is that to account for anything through experimentation, you must allow the basic tenants of math and logic to be presupposed. I'm NOT saying that experimentation isn't a good way to account for things; I am, however pointing out that it has limitations.

ultraclyde wrote: I notice that several people have said that they can't believe in something they can't see, or confirm through experimentation. I'm curious how this position classifies emotions like happy, sad, angy, etc.... Apexing a corner makes me happy. 600HP drag launches make me happy. lather rinse repeat. as I said, I've just been checkin in every so often, but it has been an enlightening thread so far.

From the national institutes of health: Brain regions and neuronal pathways Certain parts of the brain govern specific functions, such as the sensory (orange), motor (blue) and visual cortex (yellow). The cerebellum (pink) for coordination and to the hippocampus (green) for memory. Nerve cells or neurons connect one area to another via pathways to send and integrate information. The distances that neurons extend can be short or long. For example, point to the reward pathway (orange). This pathway is activated when a person receives positive reinforcement for certain behaviors ("reward") like improving your time on track or hitting an apex just right... Light up the orange area and you get a shot of dopamine - then you want to do it again and again - like crack...

ransom wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Nope, just sticking to that fact that the basic principles of math which allowed us to develop these wonderful computers, aren't something that can be proven experimentally.

Just wondering if you could clarify your assertion a bit... What aspect of mathematics are you suggesting is not experimentally verifiable? As in, the concept of one plus one equalling two being proven by taking one stone and one stone and counting them both is not a proof because the transition to a physical medium muddies the waters? I'm just unclear about where specifically the problem lies.

Do you have to repeat the action of taking two sepeate things and putting them in the same grouping and calling it a pair to verify the "1+1=2" concept?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Nope, just sticking to that fact that the basic principles of math which allowed us to develop these wonderful computers, aren't something that can be proven experimentally. You've made to too broad of an assertion by saying that everything has to be accounted for through repeatable experimentation.

Math is a set of languages created by men to describe and support observable phenomena. It is the RESULT of experiment and a means to demonstrate results. Like English one can also use it to express an idea like "If I describe a circle... then I suppose the distance from the edge to the center has to have a certain relationship to the center" and I can "prove" this both mathematically and experimentally but the idea came from the mind of men, expressed in a language. Calculus wasn't around until Newton needed to express something that other math languages (like Euclidean geometry) were inadequate for.

Don't patronize me. Numbers and equations are symbols of a concept. That concept, "mathematics," can't be experimentally proven. Any such attempt at that proof would require the use of the concepts you're attempting to prove.

in reply to 93EXCivic :

I can see how religion can be bad.

http://www.gotquestions.org/problem-of-good.html

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to Duke: So would it be morally right for you to allow me to take your sweet Miata when you are sleeping since I can't afford one right now and your an architect and most likely make way more money than me?

How does that follow in ANY way from what I just wrote?

[edit] Let me rephrase that: I could ALLOW you to take my Miata if I chose to. It's mine to dispose of as I see fit, and if I think you're deserving, I can certainly give it to you. But it's not moral of you to steal it from me because that is initiating a violation of my right to own it.

Thanks for the compliment, too.

In reply to scardeal:

It is good that Hebrew scholars are researching this, because didn't Jesus say to throw out everything that came before him? The OT should then be the provision of the Jewish faith, as it tells their story.

If I am remembering that correctly, somebody who was being as true to the teachings of Jesus as they could be would ignore anything in the Old Testament. I think that is where a lot of the absolute crap that causes religious strife comes from, anyhow, so maybe it isn't a bad idea.

MG Bryan wrote: Don't patronize me. Numbers and equations are symbols of a concept. That concept, "mathematics," can't be experimentally proven.

I beg to differ. I can conceptualize Pi but if I try to sell my concept to someone and some guy with a stick and piece of string goes to verify it and and it does not add up... then it was a flawed concept and proven to be so.

I am not patronizing you but it is possible I'm not understanding what you are trying to express or you are just wrong. I am just supposing that

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Don't patronize me. Numbers and equations are symbols of a concept. That concept, "mathematics," can't be experimentally proven.

I beg to differ. I can conceptualize Pi but if I try to sell my concept to someone and some guy with a stick and piece of string goes to verify it and and it does not add up... then it was a flawed concept and proven to be so. I am not patronizing you but it is possible I'm not understanding what you are trying to express or you are just wrong. I am just supposing that

I suppose that if I'm not getting my idea across we'll have to take a break from this while I consider a way to express it more clearly. BullE36 M3ting about cars is more fun anyway

ransom wrote: In reply to scardeal: I'm just perplexed that you're convinced that no atheist else feels as much joy as you (or the pope) do, and that the reason they don't is their lack of faith. If nothing else, when my experience as an atheist is *clearly* nothing like as bleak as yours before you found your faith, how can you dismiss the meaning I find in the world around me? That you could not find the meaning in everyday life without religion does not suggest to me that the meaning wasn't there to be found.

Perhaps it is some limitation of myself, but I cannot see how there can be meaning in anything if nothing endures. As far as I can tell, it's like looking into a black hole. I cannot voluntarily limit myself to this life. Perhaps I never could. It just seems too small a space in which to fit.

I'm not trying to trivialize your sense of meaning. I'm really not. Perhaps one day I'll meet an atheist that shatters my previous experience of atheists. Those little things are wonderful and I appreciate them now. And I'm glad you do.

I feel like I'm about to sound smug or judgmental, but I feel like I have so much more to appreciate and be thankful for and look forward to than without knowing a loving God and eternal life. I know you feel just fine, but I want you to be even better, to enjoy things more, to see all of what there is that's good and true and beautiful.

MG Bryan wrote: Do you have to repeat the action of taking two sepeate things and putting them in the same grouping and calling it a pair to verify the "1+1=2" concept?

Not me. While not a mathematician, to the best of my knowledge, we have proven that two separate things when put into a set result in a set with a count of two things in it. Which is really beside the point (the point not being whether I place too much faith in math or science, which could be true and would certainly be funny, but being the specific issue you have with the concept of experimental verification of math). I sloppily picked an example, and the reason I picked that example was that it was the first thing I could think of which raised the issue of transitioning from concept to experiment, since I thought that was one candidate for your issue with the concept of experimental proof of mathematical concepts.

Warm? Cold?

I'm not qualified to prove mathematics (whether or not that is possible). I just want to know where your issue with the concept lies. Forgive me if your question posed in answer to my question contains your answer; you're just going to have to be more blunt than that with me (if you care to get your idea across).

MG Bryan wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: MGBryan, you say not everything has to be accounted for through repeatable experimentation. That's a little bit like saying 'you shall not question or you will be punished.'

No, that's nothing like what I'm saying. I'd prefer to not have words put in my mouth. What I'm saying is that to account for anything through experimentation, you must allow the basic tenants of math and logic to be presupposed. I'm NOT saying that experimentation isn't a good way to account for things; I am, however pointing out that it has limitations.

So does everything. The unknown is a mystery. We do experiments to try to determine the true nature of something. Sometimes an experiment can lead us down a false path ('cold fusion', anyone?) and we spend a lot of time blundering about in the dark. But these experiments, when they are finally going in the right direction, allow us to increase our knowledge of what's going on around us. Once we know what something is and how it works, it's demystified.

Math is certainly a concept and its tenets are provable. We assign symbols to describe how many of something there are, when an equation is constructed from those symbols its answer is either right or it's wrong and that can be proven. If math's basic tenets could not be proven or were fluid, then there would be no way to descibe, say, the strength of concrete or predict when a material will fail. Yet that is certainly possible to do mathematically.

Logic can backfire, that is proven. That's because logic is an invention of the human brain which is most definitely fallible and is prone to bad interpretation. (I won't belabor all the ways 'logic' was used to 'prove' such things as some humans were inferior due to race, etc.) There have been numerous instances in scientific experimentation where logic said if A and B happened then C would certainly follow and oops, it didn't.

That does not mean logic is useless, though. It has its place if used carefully and dispassionately (that could be construed as using reason), also if someone is prepared to abandon the prevailing logic if all the evidence accumulated is shown to point in a different direction than logic originally sent them. That's very hard for some people to do.

oldtin wrote:

ultraclyde wrote: I notice that several people have said that they can't believe in something they can't see, or confirm through experimentation. I'm curious how this position classifies emotions like happy, sad, angy, etc.... Apexing a corner makes me happy. 600HP drag launches make me happy. lather rinse repeat. as I said, I've just been checkin in every so often, but it has been an enlightening thread so far.

From the national institutes of health: Brain regions and neuronal pathways Certain parts of the brain govern specific functions, such as the sensory (orange), motor (blue) and visual cortex (yellow). The cerebellum (pink) for coordination and to the hippocampus (green) for memory. Nerve cells or neurons connect one area to another via pathways to send and integrate information. The distances that neurons extend can be short or long. For example, point to the reward pathway (orange). This pathway is activated when a person receives positive reinforcement for certain behaviors ("reward") like improving your time on track or hitting an apex just right... Light up the orange area and you get a shot of dopamine - then you want to do it again and again - like crack...

Like this?

scardeal wrote: Perhaps it is some limitation of myself, but *I* cannot see how there can be meaning in anything if nothing endures. As far as I can tell, it's like looking into a black hole. I cannot voluntarily limit myself to this life. Perhaps I never could. It just seems too small a space in which to fit. I'm not trying to trivialize your sense of meaning. I'm really not. Perhaps one day I'll meet an atheist that shatters my previous experience of atheists. Those little things are wonderful and I appreciate them now. And I'm glad you do.

It makes no sense to me that only an infinite amount of time can matter (eternity) at all to the dismissal of the time we are, um, soaking in now. That anything less than everything is nothing.

Moreover, we do leave an impression by our having lived. It may be small, but there it is. And I find it a tidy fit with the nature of life, death, progress, change... We are influenced by those who came before us, and we influence those who come after us. By the conduit of those who are here now, all those who have been influence those who will be.

Which is deeper (in the "fetch me my waders" sense) than I usually go, but I still think it's true.

I know I'm important to people around me now, but that my influence has limits. And that's not a bad thing. Since I don't have anybody to ask universal forgiveness from (nor do I want to do so), it's just as good to know that my foibles will be lost to time as it is sad to know that my triumphs will.

scardeal wrote: Perhaps it is some limitation of myself, but *I* cannot see how there can be meaning in anything if nothing endures. As far as I can tell, it's like looking into a black hole. I cannot voluntarily limit myself to this life. Perhaps I never could. It just seems too small a space in which to fit.

That's what I think got humans to first consider an afterlife. It's painful to realize that in the grand scheme of things an individual means nothing.