[Hellbilly]

If we are talking about matter, sure, after you die you eliminate energy and are eaten by various organisms which in turn transform you into energy and matter (such as rat poop). But we were talking about human conscience. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Oh but they are. You're sort of on the right track there, though.

[Maladiq]

Oh but they are. You're sort of on the right track there, though.

I won't even bother.

[Hellbilly]

Well, goes a long way to prove that there's no unloading the burden of proof, because all it does is lead to false statements accepted as truth, and some bungled-up logic.

[Maladiq]

Well, goes a long way to prove that there's no unloading the burden of proof, because all it does is lead to false statements accepted as truth, and some bungled-up logic.

And this goes a long way showing how you are willing to be a self-righteous smart-ass. You fail at bringing any argument, you just hint at things and then try to show your "superior intellect" by giving half-ass'd answers, which are impossible to refute because lack of a central idea and so forth.

So I see no point in even trying.

[MikeLitoris]

If such a deity as god really exists why doesn't it do anything? I mean who would have unlimited power and still do nothing for eternity? Only a lazy, apathetic as*****

[Hellbilly]

And this goes a long way showing how you are willing to be a self-righteous smart-ass. You fail at bringing any argument, you just hint at things and then try to show your "superior intellect" by giving half-ass'd answers, which are impossible to refute because lack of a central idea and so forth.

So I see no point in even trying.

I've actually explained it a number of times in the past, but here goes in all its stupefying simplicity: if physics and chemistry completely explain how the human mind works, then it all can be reduced to a neural network and, ultimately, to a certain form and structure of energy (or whatever the smallest, totally indivisible little itty bit of the uni/multiverse turns out to be). Hence, when the same amount of energy is made into that same structure, the human mind can be reconstructed at any point in time, anywhere. Therefore, death is not the absolute end, and if this is true, since according to our understanding the universe acts as a closed system, nothing ever vanishes permanently as it can be, potentially at least, re-made. entropy might be a bitch, but as far as I know, what happens at the ending of the universe is still very much up to speculation, and it might result in another big bang which could mean the same energy is going for a second round.

So, there, quite conclusively, the two points were proven to be quite contradictory. If human consciousness is in its entirety explainable by science, then death is by no mean an absolute end to it. Simple, wasn't it?

Also, right back at ya with the self-righteous smart ass. It isn't very fun when someone acts all high and mighty and refuses to bear responsibility for proving what he's saying, is it? So again, I think I made my point pretty clear...

If such a deity as god really exists why doesn't it do anything? I mean who would have unlimited power and still do nothing for eternity? Only a lazy, apathetic as*****

I guess one could talk about unseen hands, pantheism and panentheism here. Ultimately, only a relatively small part of concepts of divinity consider the divine to be an external actor. Or maybe God's big on popcorn and reality TV, eh?

[asddsa]

I like such topics. We're going from Aristotle, through Plato, then Descartes, even Newton, right to Nietzsche, saying hi to Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle, hell, even some micro-excerpts from the String Theory, to go back to Democritus, with deism always somewhere there in the background, ready to flash at any time. It seems someone forgot to mention Pascal's Wager, though.

It's fascinating how such discussions always follow the same, quite chronological at that, pattern, even if the debaters are not aware they are practically role-playing all the way. Not saying anyone here is unfamiliar with the above names, really. But there are many similar polylogues, often casting people less erudite, to say it mildly, who, in the end, always say the same.

[ICFabian]

half-ass'd

And this, kids, is how you prove you don't know English.

[bauhaus]

Hello friends.

After being away for so long, I decided to come back, and see what my favorite forum is doing. Not so great it seems. After reading this thread, I feel deeply ashamed.

So, you've figured out there's no God. This makes sense to you. You realize that the Bible looks more like something written by Bronze-Age savages than by YHWH. You realize that the question -"Is there a god?" - makes as much sense as the question -"What happened before time began?".

Well aren't you guys clever.

Being an atheist doesn't guarantee someone is rational. You are like a member of the Atheistkult. You have a very narrow range of things you criticize, and you do that at great length. But you are not interested in what the world really is, how it works. You have your own belief structure and you are going to push that agenda to the ends of the Earth.

This egotistical, smarter-than-thou ultra-rational bullshit is why I am often ashamed to call myself an atheist.

[KGS]

With current knowledge, yes. Which is why I don't really understand why people feel such a need to jump the gun to conclusions. Might be that science and human understanding will never reach that level... but might be that they will.

no, that will never be possible,
the only way a human gets his knowledge is trough experience which is based in space and time (or space-time or whatever, that is not important), time presupposes a causality between the events/states in which every event is defined by the preceding one

if a undefined cause (such as god) existed it would have to be totally independent of time and space and in direct contact in things in themselves (without time and space acting as a medium for it) and thus it is beyond the scope of any possible experience and of any definition (that can only be created out of experience)

however, on the same ground it is impossible to disprove the existence of God as well, because we can say nothing about any realm transcending experience

[Hellbilly]

no, that will never be possible,
the only way a human gets his knowledge is trough experience which is based in space and time (or space-time or whatever, that is not important), time presupposes a causality between the events/states in which every event is defined by the preceding one

if a undefined cause (such as god) existed it would have to be totally independent of time and space and in direct contact in things in themselves (without time and space acting as a medium for it) and thus it is beyond the scope of any possible experience and of any definition (that can only be created out of experience)

however, on the same ground it is impossible to disprove the existence of God as well, because we can say nothing about any realm transcending experience

Whilst I agree with a lot of that, I don't think I totally agree when you say that the only way a human gets his knowledge is through experience; I think a lot of knowledge is not a priori; sure, some knowledge is required for that, but it is not based directly on experience.

Also, I don't think it is that far fetched to say that if something has an effect on our reality, something of the originator of said effect can be deduced from the effect itself; as such, if there is a god or divine power who has, or has had, some sort of interaction with our reality, universe, dimension, plane of existence or what have you, I think with time humanity may develop technology and understand enough to know this for sure.

[Bastardo]

Yeah, it's not far fetched, it's science. Either something is part of reality or it's not, if it is, there must be a way, however obscure, to detect it; if it isn't, there isn't even any ground to stand on when claiming its existence or talking about it.

[MikeLitoris]

And if it isn't a part of reality there would be no reason for us to care about it since it can't affect us in any way.

[KGS]

if it isn't, there isn't even any ground to stand on when claiming its existence or talking about it.

yes, that is true about god, because he cannot be part of the reality we (or any machines/theories we create) perceive

[Bastardo]

Are you claiming there is something that exist but doesn't manifest? How did people obtain the information in the first place, then? It has to manifest in some way.

[KGS]

i am claiming that it is impossible to say that it exists and that it is also impossible to say that it does not exist, because regardless of its existence, the reality perceived by humans would not change

[Hellbilly]

yes, that is true about god, because he cannot be part of the reality we (or any machines/theories we create) perceive

Sounds like a pretty narrow definition of godhood. Also, I must admit I can't really see the reasoning behind making this assumption. Why would a god or gods not be part of the reality we perceive?

[Bastardo]

Gods are supposedly perceived by people all the time, people are healed by god and all that, until we get down to talking evidence, then it all becomes divorced from reality and you can't (dis)prove it, and that's where all these useless philosophical gods come from.

[KGS]

Sounds like a pretty narrow definition of godhood. Also, I must admit I can't really see the reasoning behind making this assumption. Why would a god or gods not be part of the reality we perceive?

we perceive reality through (our senses and consequently) time and space, as I said above if god exists, he is outside of that sphere because there is no place for him in time;
even if some of our perceptions were caused by god, they would still be mere experience which can tell us nothing about its originator which stands outside of any possible experience (because he would be in contact with the things in themselves, and we humans are not)
and I am just restating Kant here, but I find no problems with his logic

[asddsa]

Sounds like a pretty narrow definition of godhood. Also, I must admit I can't really see the reasoning behind making this assumption. Why would a god or gods not be part of the reality we perceive?

I'm guessing he's talking about a hypothetical omnipotent god, whose almight breaks the known laws of physics and as such doesn't belong in our realm, and therefore cannot affect it in a way we, or any other beings from this realm, could notice, because such god's otherworldly actions could only be described using otherworldly definitions, which we cannot access, as we would be just as otherworldly, and therefore we would not belong to our realm, etc., etc. Impossibility defined by infinity.

/edit
Ha, ninja'd. At least I guessed right.