To those who believe in after-life

[JoeDawg]

Look, we don't need all this emotion do we? Surely if is a rational discussion, nobody should be laughing at anybody else's words - whether they spoke them or not.

Sorry, if I find your arguments humorous, but its an honest reaction.

For example, are you just tit-for-tatting me here, or could you expound upon what you think I misread?

I think I've explained my position well. I don't think your arguments are sound. I honestly don't see how someone could misunderstand the issue. It happens. But accusing me of not reading your posts. Thats also funny.

This is not true. The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about what was before, including whether there was anything or not.

Time is an aspect of the universe, even discussing what happened 'before' ignores the essential nature of what one describes when one is talking about a big bang. If nothing else, it was a bad analogy.

I'm talking about speculation about what was before the Big Bang. While we cannot examine it scientifically, we can speculate about it philosphically.

But by your logic, it is not worth speculating about at all.

Sure you can speculate, but you have no philosophical leg to stand on. No foundation to lay an argument on, so you might as well be discussing elves. If that's what you like to do, enjoy, but that's not philosophy. In order to discuss the nature of elves you have go on the assumption they exist first. Why make that assumption? What lead you there?

You see no shades of grey between intelligent, rational speculation and elves? More's the pity. Will you at least sit quietly while the rest of us who do see shades of grey have some discussion?

So, so rational.

I've never sat quietly in my life, but if that's your 'polite' way of telling me to shut my damn mouth... well... sorry, you're making me laugh again.

 

[Gliese_581c]

I'm going to have to agree with you but i owuld like to point out htat not even all of the earth-life qustions are answered by most relgions

 

[Gliese_581c]

one last thing 42

 

[JoeDawg]

one last thing 42

Ah yes, of course.

 

[DaveC426913]

But accusing me of not reading your posts. Thats also funny.

You created a straw man. I was talking about one thing (what was before the BB), you either deliberately or accidentally converted that into a discussion about the BB.

I asked you to reread so that you addressed what I said, not what you thought I said. What is funny about calling you out on a fallacious argument?

And laughing is a form of ad hominem. If you won't or can't have a rational discussion without it, then why don't you step back so the rest of us can?

Time is an aspect of the universe, even discussing what happened 'before' ignores the essential nature of what one describes when one is talking about a big bang.

Now you are having a philosophical discussion - without elves, without straw men and without ad hominems.

I've never sat quietly in my life, but if that's your 'polite' way of telling me to shut my damn mouth... well... sorry, you're making me laugh again.

I'm not telling you to shut your mouth, I'm telling you that if you've made your point, and that this is not worthy of discussion, then why are you still discussing it? This side thread is hijacking the OP's question.

And I guess if I'm going to stand by that, I'll stop too.

Let's get back to to OP's question shall we?

 

[X-43D]

Ponder this (to OP): In retrosepect of the theories that claim how the universe originated, what could possibly be the ultimate origin of the aforementioned? To go even further, what is the ultimate origin of anything? (i.e. what caused whatever cause the "big bang" and the like)

You can clearly see that the belief in higher entities may simply be result of humans searching for quick answers to the most important question we can only inquire with no prevail: Why and how did i come to existence?

Of all the matter this so called "universe" holds, i became a human being...whether it was a curse or honor is beyond my limited comprehension..

 

[JoeDawg]

You created a straw man. I was talking about one thing (what was before the BB), you either deliberately or accidentally converted that into a discussion about the BB.

And I stand by what I said, it is not a strawman. Implicit in the big bang theory is the idea that there is no space/time as we know it 'before' the big bang, since the big bang created space/time as we know it. So using the phrase 'before the big bang' is nonsensical. If you were saying that the idea of an afterlife was 'nonsensical' because of the implicit contradiction in life 'after' life has ended, then the big bang would have been a good example of that contradiction.

You are using self-contradicting language. That is not a strawman. You either don't understand the implications of a big bang theory, or you are ignoring them, which makes for a bad analogy.

And laughing is a form of ad hominem.

An ad hominem attack is when someone says you're stupid so you're wrong.
I'm laughing AT the things you are saying. Finding someone's argument faulty to the point of humor, is not ad hominem. I've said why I think you're wrong and that its funny. I've attacked your arguments, not you, so no ad hominem.

I'm not telling you to shut your mouth, I'm telling you that if you've made your point, and that this is not worthy of discussion, then why are you still discussing it?

Because you keep asking me questions?... and falsely accusing me of misrepresenting you. You're damn right I'm going to respond.

If you really want to get back to the original discussion, I couldn't stop you if I tried. But I've made the point I think this is a religious discussion. If/when the moderators agree they can lock the thread. I don't have nor want that power. But I have just as much right to post here as you do, whether you agree with me or not. And, polite or not, telling me to shut up, and come on, that is what you did, is generally not the way to get me to do so.

 

[Moonbear]

This thread has strayed far from the topic onto an argument over debate styles. It is closed.