To those who believe in after-life

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, I find your approach to be erroneous in essence. Philosophy is allowed to detach itself from science; we are still at the stage at which they are two different endeavors.

Sorry, but you've really got it backwards. Philosophy came first. The scientific method is an extension...both historically and fundamentally... of philosophy, which uses logic, observation and rational discourse to examine 'the world'. There is no detaching going on.

Maybe in the future, but certainly not now as you seem assert, will we be able to give a scientific answer to all questions; even this I doubt. Science is confined to our experience of reality, philosophy quite often tries to detach itself from this limit.

Its true, as science has discovered more and more, philosophy has changed focus, but its not about random speculation either.

Like I said with regards to beauty, which is still not really scientifically quantifiable... we can also discuss justice and honour, what is ethically right and wrong, and what is the nature of existence, what knowledge is...

Philosophy however is not about unsupported speculation or religious claims. Its about using human logic and rational discourse to examine the world and the nature of the world. If the science is available then philosophy relies on it, because our understanding of the physical world informs our philosophy.

In order to even get to the point where one can discuss elves or an afterlife, one has to move beyond rational discourse into the supernatural.

Reincarnation would be no more appropriate. You either believe it or you don't because it relies on logical premises that one gets from religion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, but you've really got it backwards. Philosophy came first. The scientific method is an extension...both historically and fundamentally... of philosophy, which uses logic, observation and rational discourse to examine 'the world'. There is no detaching going on.

Another straw man. You are either accidentally or deliberately corrupting what is being said to you, substituting your own words and then arguing against them. This is the same complaint I had.

werg22 said nothing about which one came first. The point he is making (if I may, werg22) is that science confines itself to verifiable, evidential observations, whereas philosphy does not confine itself so.

Its true, as science has discovered more and more, philosophy has changed focus, but its not about random speculation either.

We agree; it's NOT abot random speculation. Who said random? You!

Philosophy however is not about unsupported speculation or religious claims. Its about using human logic and rational discourse to examine the world and the nature of the world. If the science is available then philosophy relies on it, because our understanding of the physical world informs our philosophy.

I think you are making up your own definition of philosophy.

 

[Werg22]

We've been going off a tangent for quite a bit now, maybe we should report this discussion within a discussion. DaveC426913, I'm interested in your answer to post #21, if you deem it answerable.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't follow your logic either. All that I am asking is why do some religions (those that promote after-life) ask that everyone becomes a believer if, as you said, only those with a lifetime worth of wisdom may actually make sense of questions that otherwise render religion ambiguous. Why would a heretic, religiously speaking, be considered in the wrong if he is not yet capable of seeing the "truth"? Are you going along the lines of a Pascal's wager sort of thing?

Ah well. When you talk about heretics i..e those who do not believe in the same religion as you, I'm afraid I'm with you.

Any religion I might give consideration to is going to have to be tolerant of others' beliefs. In fact, more so - it would have to acknowledge that truths are personal.

 

[JoeDawg]

We agree; it's NOT abot random speculation. Who said random? You!

Absolutely. Whether elves exist, life after death, gods and godesses, there is no scientific basis for any of it. It is not similar in any way to a discussion of the Big Bang. The basis you keep denying is religion, which makes it little more than a random claim.

So what is there to discuss? I say its religion. I called it theology. You say its not. So what are you talking about? What are you investigating? And with what tools? Because science is one of the tools of a philosopher.

Philosophy doesn't 'detach' itself from science. The scientific method is one method of investigation that comes from the tradition of philosophical inquiry. Empirical Analysis is not the only one. Deductive reasoning, Inductive reasoning are two other examples.

But there is no reason, other than religion and its system of revelation to even entertain the idea of a life after death.

 

[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.