Do you really believe in existence of Paradise and Hell after death?

[Koko Ricky]

There's a huge problem with causality that we're dealing with here. Cause and effect makes sense for awhile. But when you get to the big bang, it falls apart. We know from direct observation that galaxies will be further apart in the future than they are now. Using what we know about physics, we've deduced that, in the far past, literally every particle was in a small space whose diameter is far less than that of a single proton. Weird stuff happens when that many particles are cramped into that small a space. Causality fucks things up because you then have to determine why there was a tiny dense ball of particles in the first place.

We can evoke God, but of course that creates a whole host of other problems, namely that the universe seems to have arisen from simplicity and an omnipresent, omniscient universe creator with a moral compass is waaaaaaay too complex to serve as a "first cause." Furthermore, the idea of a first cause implies that there's a beginning to the universe, and we have no reason to believe that's any closer to the truth than an infinitely old universe, or a universe that goes in loops or oscillations.

I suspect that cause and effect is a naive assertion that only holds up in isolated, localized scenarios like the ones we study. When it comes to the big picture, it is likely that there are forces are work which are too difficult for us to comprehend at this stage in our evolution.

And I've got news for you guys who don't think we're constantly hallucinating: We are. Our brains are a big bag of drugs that, on the fly, creates context for us. Yes, the world is objectively out there, existing, but our interpretation of it is largely hallucinatory. We only see a tiny, tiny little circle of perception in the middle of our vision; the rest is black and white, ill-defined and contains lots of blind spots that our brains fill in, much like the "content aware" function in Photoshop.

[HorrorMovieRei]

yukib1t said:

"EE" is starting to once again feel like "Religion and Politics".

Atleast it's a civil discussion as far as I can tell.

[Budoka]

Mechazawa said:

Theoretical physics and "spacetime" is just that; theoretical and not relevant to the discussion. We are talking about facts, axioms, only. Not theories people have. Don't muddy up the discussion with your conjecture and superstition.

If that's the case, why do our satellites have to compensate for general relativity in order to work right? Oh wait, you didn't know that. Not to mention that, with the recent discovery of gravitational waves, every single prediction made by the theory of general relativity has now been confirmed. So yes, spacetime is indeed a fact, although probably not quite the actual reality.

Are you sure you have quite the right notion of how scientific theories work? Of course they're almost never literally true, or else they wouldn't evolve, but they aren't "just theory" either, far from it. But I guess Quasar and Doomkid clarified the flaw in this line of reasoning already.

By the way, it is in fact possible for something to come from nothing: see for example quantum fluctuations.

@GoatLord: some of your posts have been more weird than anything, but I have to admit this last one is pretty much right on point.

[Mechazawa]

Budoka said:

If that's the case, why do our satellites have to compensate for general relativity in order to work right? Oh wait, you didn't know that. Not to mention that, with the recent discovery of gravitational waves, every single prediction made by the theory of general relativity has now been confirmed. So yes, spacetime is indeed a fact, although probably not quite the actual reality.

Coincidence. You threw some numbers out and some of them happened to match. That doesn't prove something to be true. That isn't how truth works. If you draw cards from a deck and I start naming cards, sure, eventually I am going to get some right. That doesn't make my method for doing it correct nor does it mean I can read minds. Again, you are using superstition and hocuspocus to try to claim truth. Nobody said a theory isn't useful; but it by definition can't be the truth because its always disputable. The primary characteristic of the truth is that it is indisputable, if it were disputable it would cease to be the definition of what is true. Unless of course you siply try to change the definition of truth; which Christians and scientists alike love to do. Christians say what ever is written in the book that was made up at the council of Nicea is true; scientists say there is no truth (essentially). Both have their own methodologies for dismissing the need for proof and truth.

Budoka said:

Are you sure you have quite the right notion of how scientific theories work? Of course they're almost never literally true, or else they wouldn't evolve, but they aren't "just theory" either, far from it. But I guess Quasar and Doomkid clarified the flaw in this line of reasoning already.

Yes, they are almost never literally true, hence they are not relevant to any discussion about the truth. Any knowledge based on the assumption that a scientific theory is true is not valid for determining the truth of anything because the premise of that knowledge is unproven. You have a guess; that is all. Saying that is the best you can do is no different than Christianity; its an excuse for you not having the truth. It is not different than me inventing some theory out of my ass and finding a handful of cases where it aligns up and then proclaiming I have found the truth. That isn't how the truth works.

Budoka said:

By the way, it is in fact possible for something to come from nothing: see for example quantum fluctuations.

First of all, the theory of quantum fluctuations doesn't say matter comes from nothing, rather matter changes. Then scientists redefine the terms so that it sounds like matter is being created when it may not be. (yay for inconstancy of terminology!) Secondly, it is still a theory. So you have faith that the theory of quantum fluctuations is true and then you go around saying matter comes from nothing. Finally, of course matter comes from nothing, that is what creation is. There is nothing; and then there is something. The part we have to think about is how; 1. since the matter came into existence then we know it didn't always exist. Since nothing can "create itself" (it doesn't exist, hence it doesn't have the attribute of creating) then it must be that something other than that matter brought it into existence. This is elementary logic. If parts are missing from the cake, and it wasn't always eaten, and it didn't eat itself, then something else must have eaten it.

[/quote]

Doomkid said:

I missed the part where you gave evidence that this "non-matter creator of matter" exists.


Literally every murderer just got off the hook with this line of reasoning. "You can't PROVE I wasn't hallucinating when I murdered those kids!"

If matter doesn't exist; then what created the first bit of matter couldn't itself have been matter (because it didn't exist yet). That is the proof. Children even acknowledge this (until they grow up and are taught bullshit.) Go test them.

Yes, science can be crazy like that.

[Budoka]

Linking cause to effect equals coincidence? The fact CBR was predicted with near 100% accuracy, that GPS - requires - compensation for relativity in order for us to use it, that every single one of Einstein's predictions (and there are quite a few) turned out be correct, is ALL coincidence? That's outright ridiculous. You're pretty much resorting to desperate sophistry at this point...

As for truth being objective, well obviously it is. However, as I said, there is no such thing as a single, unified truth that describes all of existence in the first place. Reality just isn't simple enough for that.

As for "what created the first bit of matter", saying it wasn't matter doesn't prove it was anything at all.

[Mechazawa]

Budoka said:

Linking cause to effect equals coincidence? The fact CBR was predicted with near 100% accuracy, that GPS - requires - compensation for relativity in order for us to use it, that every single one of Einstein's predictions (and there are quite a few) turned out be correct, is ALL coincidence? That's outright ridiculous. You're pretty much resorting to desperate sophistry at this point...

Humans coming to existence specifically how they are with reference to the exact chemical requirements for their bodies to exist and function and where they are with with reference to the exact conditions on earth and in space that they need to exist and with the attributes they have and the very exact requirements for them to exist and to continue existing and to have consciousness..is ALL coincidence? You're pretty much resorting to desperate sophistry at this point...

[Voros]

In fact, none of us are presenting evidence to support our "decisions"

[Budoka]

Mechazawa said:

Humans coming to existence specifically how they are with reference to the exact chemical requirements for their bodies to exist and function and where they are with with reference to the exact conditions on earth and in space that they need to exist and with the attributes they have and the very exact requirements for them to exist and to continue existing and to have consciousness..is ALL coincidence? You're pretty much resorting to desperate sophistry at this point...

I made no such claim, you're projecting. At any rate, whether a controlling factor, or, more likely, multiple distinct controlling factors, were behind all of that or not, not knowing what those potential factors were doesn't give you license to say "God did it". If your explanation for something can be summed up to "A wizard did it", then it explains nothing.

[Voros]

We did it.

Something gave us the most basic form of matter and we grew from it because of the changing conditions of the universe every day.

What this something is just might be the universe itself. MIGHT.

[Koko Ricky]

Interesting argument about quantum fluctuations being an example of something coming from nothing. So-called virtual particles constantly pop in and out of existence, even in the supposed vacuum of space. It is literally impossible (through any means that we know of) to completely remove every single particle from any given area of spacetime topology, because these virtual particles will, assuredly, show up! What's also interesting is that, even if you could somehow remove this quantum foam--which I suspect would violate all sorts of "laws"--you would still have the topology. Just because there's nothing in it doesn't mean the shape and quality of spacetime isn't there.

I also agree that incredible similarities between observed phenomena and predictive theories does not equal truth. Truth is simply not within our grasp, unless we're talking about abstracts we constructed (such as 2+2=4, which has to be true because the rules we used to set up the abstract ensure that the answer will be 4). Classical physics, for instance, is only "true" until you get to the quantum realm, where you then have to evoke an entirely new set of so-called truths, which we have an awful lot of trouble scaling up to the macro level.

So, if we consider physical and quantum laws to be abstracts that we constructed, then those laws are true in the sense that the math ensures X will happen because of Y circumstances. But in physical reality, there's much more to it; the laws are just approximations. Think about fluid dynamics, for instance. When we study fluids, we're approximating the data of massive numbers of particles all at once, because we can predict the behavior of groupings of particles in certain situations pretty well. But it is absolutely impossible, at this point in time, to take the mass/charge/spin/other qualities of every single particle into account. You get nowhere trying to do that unless you're tracking the position of literally one or two particles simultaneously.

And shit, just think about how limited our sensory inputs are. Not just what we can touch and hear, but what we can see. Our eyes show us the world in only three dimensions (plus time), for instance. There are theories (such as M-theory) that predict the existence of up to 10 dimensions (plus time) or even more. Check out the 10th Dimensional Blogger for more info, it's very interesting. I have witnessed what I believe to be higher dimensional vision, under very specific circumstances, as it perfectly matches the way higher dimensional geometry is rendered on a computer, and I have to say that it is extremely difficult to function when the dimensions are higher than three + time. Everything has unfolded, extra geometry to it, at perpendicular angles to the previous dimensions, something our poor little ape brains simply can't process.

[dew]

Mechazawa said:

Budoka said:

If that's the case, why do our satellites have to compensate for general relativity in order to work right? Oh wait, you didn't know that. Not to mention that, with the recent discovery of gravitational waves, every single prediction made by the theory of general relativity has now been confirmed. So yes, spacetime is indeed a fact, although probably not quite the actual reality.

Coincidence. You threw some numbers out and some of them happened to match. That doesn't prove something to be true. That isn't how truth works. If you draw cards from a deck and I start naming cards, sure, eventually I am going to get some right. That doesn't make my method for doing it correct nor does it mean I can read minds. Again, you are using superstition and hocuspocus to try to claim truth.

That was one of the most retarded things I've read in EE - and there have been many masters of the stupid before you. You, sir, are King of Morons, a literal obscurant that yells "this doesn't prove anything" in the face of an undeniable proof.

Then you actually have the gall to accuse Budoka of what you're doing yourself in spades - desperate sophistry. You are completely out of your depth, but you cling to the discussion, because you somehow feel superior for being a religious student of sociology or whatever.

You are a ridiculous clown, even Xerge made more sense than you. Go back to trolling Zandronum.

[Mechazawa]

So, the atheists, upon having their belief system utterly deconstructed, result to insults.

Face it, you believe in absurdities. Atheists hold scientific theories above all else; yet a theory is nothing more than a guess someone had but couldn't prove. That's it. Embellishing it and trying to make it sound complex doesn't change that. It's opinions you place *faith* in. Theories which sometimes match up with reality and because they sometimes match up you put faith in them; it is no different than someone listening to an alleged fortune teller who gets it right a few times. His words line up with what you know a couple times and boom you are suddenly hooked.

Atheism fits in every single way with Christianity.. the only difference is some of the terms are renamed. Modern day superstitious spooks.

You can't even provide one response, just one, that isn't the rechanting of some theory. One piece of anything that isn't based on a theory. You can't do it. You are stuck rehearsing scientific theories you hold in faith as fact no different than a bible thumper quoting bible verses. Both of which have no proof for their validity! You want to say the scientific mehod is true, and thus theories made with it are true? Okay, prove it. Prove the scientific methodology of inquiry is true.

[Budoka]

Mechazawa said:

Atheists hold scientific theories above all else; yet a theory is nothing more than a guess someone had but couldn't prove. That's it.

I've already proven that this is false, and the best you could do in response was project your own fallacious escape hatch on me. I then not only showed to you that was not guilty of it, but that it had no relevance either way, and apparently you have nothing to say to any of that. Instead, you just use yet another escape hatch, by accusing everyone who's been critical of your position of something only dew has done (not that he's wrong, you ARE acting like a manchild, and my pointing that out does nothing to negate my actual points). So yeah, don't even try.

[dew]

Now I know you're just trolling, asshat. Not even the cretin that runs the Islamic State would be idiotic enough to mix "science" with "atheism" so freely, but nice of you to try.

There is no point in debating someone as stubborn and nonsensical as you, so why should I continue the charade? Being nice and deconstruct utter bullshit logically and in a calm manner is only reserved for those who deserve it, not trolls who are in it just to deface threads. Go back to Zandronum.

[j4rio]

Science is an opposite of belief. Sure, maybe you need some belief even as a scientist, but in the end, what any science tries to prove is objective knowledge basing on reproducible experiments that instead of requiring belief to understand rely on data. You're free to disregard it, it's actually very easy to disregard anything you have literally no clue about and try to excuse it with insulting my view on reality. I always find funny how people do that on the internet, using a computer plugged into electric outlet, at least go preach into the streets so you don't lose that bit of credibility.

[Mechazawa]

Budoka said:

I've already proven that this is false

But.. you didn't. You said a bunch of coincidences lined up and that was that. I am telling you that because a theory gets it right half the time doesn't prove it to be true. You are indeed, false. Having to explain why a theory is not truth (which I have already done in this thread) would be a waste of time. I'll not repeat myself.

j4rio said:

Science is an opposite of belief. Sure, maybe you need some belief even as a scientist, but in the end, what any science tries to prove is objective knowledge basing on reproducible experiments that instead of requiring belief to understand rely on data. You're free to disregard it, it's actually very easy to disregard anything you have literally no clue about and try to excuse it with insulting my view on reality. I always find funny how people do that on the internet, using a computer plugged into electric outlet, at least go preach into the streets so you don't lose that bit of credibility.

I don't disregard science, it is actually pretty useful. I am disregarding these atheists petty attempts at trying to use science to answer questions with absolute certainty, something science is incapable of doing. But, none the less people still let the waste flow from their mouths.

You guys have no answer and you are angry and trying to gang up and throw around insults. It's okay. I can understand the reaction you get when the folly of your belief systems are broken down. I am really done with this thread this time, none of you will be able to provide a meaningful response anyways. No point in arguing with the atheist orthodoxy.

[dew]

Mechazawa said:

(my 2c is in, these threads always turn into crapfests, im out)

Mechazawa said:

I'll not repeat myself.

And yet you're still here, spouting the same trollish garbage that even actual religious people would have trouble taking seriously. How about fucking off for real this time?

[Budoka]

I'm pretty sure you've already repeated your own broken arguments quite a few times already. And like I said, relativity didn't make correct predictions "half the time", it got literally everything it predicted exactly right, and that totals quite a few predictions. There is no intellectually honest way anyone can write that off as coincidence. Give it up.

trying to use science to answer questions with absolute certainty

That's not us, that's you. Yet more projection.

[HavoX]

Mechazawa said:

*worthless crap*

[jazzmaster9]

Oh man im still subscribed to this? For me a persons belief in Afterlife, Heaven and Hell can boil down to conviction and how he percieves the world and whats in it. Its not really something you can grasp or explain via scientific formulas(which for me being an engineering student, i know way too much of those).

[Koko Ricky]

I think atheists, scientists, psychonauts, materialists and Christians are all ridiculous and absurd. It really doesn't matter what we pick, we're just going with the story we like the best.

[Wovenloaf]

Mechazawa, if the scientific explanations given to you for the origin and progression of things are nonsense, what is the right one according to you, and on what basis and reasoning? Something having been called and used as a "theory" doesn't mean it hasn't been verified in the years since, and certainly not by some magic luck/coincidence.

Mechazawa said:

Humans coming to existence specifically how they are with reference to the exact chemical requirements for their bodies to exist and function and where they are with with reference to the exact conditions on earth and in space that they need to exist and with the attributes they have and the very exact requirements for them to exist and to continue existing and to have consciousness..is ALL coincidence? You're pretty much resorting to desperate sophistry at this point...

Not coincidence, and I don't think any of us are calling it that. More like literally billions of years of coalescing adaptation, struggle, and death. It certainly wasn't a smooth ride. We're still on that long, slow journey, and one could easily make the argument that we've been taking a few steps back lately.

Try to actually follow through with this subtopic this time instead of just silently abandoning it and moving to a new one while trying to tie it all together with your "superstitious atheists" incredulity. Speaking of "insults with no answers"...

[MrGlide]

Yes, but I assume that it's nothing like we imagine considering it'd have to be another dimension or that we would actually understand what was going on considering the way we percieve life is through our bodies sensories. And if not we rot in the ground and won't know the difference anyway. I'm not to hung up on it.

[sudo459]

GoatLord said:

I think atheists, scientists, psychonauts, materialists and Christians are all ridiculous and absurd. It really doesn't matter what we pick, we're just going with the story we like the best.

So, as far as atheists go,you think not believing something because you have no reason to is ridiculous? That's ridiculous.
Also,you seem to think that people have no reason to believe what they believe, like it's all completely made up. I honestly think a loving god is preferable to no god, but I think don't think he exists. So clearly its not the one "I like best".

GoatLord said:

And I've got news for you guys who don't think we're constantly hallucinating: We are. Our brains are a big bag of drugs that, on the fly, creates context for us. Yes, the world is objectively out there, existing, but our interpretation of it is largely hallucinatory. We only see a tiny, tiny little circle of perception in the middle of our vision; the rest is black and white, ill-defined and contains lots of blind spots that our brains fill in, much like the "content aware" function in Photoshop.

Okay, granted, we can't have absolute certainty of anything. But no where ever has knowledge been defined as requiring absolute certainty, and when it has, the definition becomes useless. I believe that we are bound to the universe only by our perceptions. We can't know the true nature of the universe with any sort of absolute certainty. Okay, granted. Now, I still believe that what we experience is really what is there. I know, I know, the brain is weird and does crazy tricks, and I'm not talking about that. I mean, I have literally no reason to believe that, generally speaking, the true nature of the universe is not how we perceive it to be. The reason is, is that even though we can't be absolutely certain of the true nature of the universe, and that we are bound by our perceptions and interpretations of said perceptions, the true nature of the universe could still be how we perceive it. I hope this makes sense. If it doesn't, feel free to ask me to clarify.

[Deleted_Account]

I don't believe in life after death, heaven and hell.

[EduXYZ]

Piper Maru said:

I don't believe in life after death, heaven and hell.

[insanoflex312]

GoatLord said:

I think atheists, scientists, psychonauts, materialists and Christians are all ridiculous and absurd. It really doesn't matter what we pick, we're just going with the story we like the best.

I like the story that I can demonstrate and the one that makes logical sense given what we can demonstrate. I don't like the stories that have claims people just pulled out of their asses and then treat as absolute fact. But, meh, being able to prove your claims is no better than just making stuff up out of thin air, right? Us dogmatic science believers with our evidence and BS. Going around thinking, "just because we can actually prove what we claim, we can say with confidence that its most likely correct"? Bah! That's stupid! Nobody knows anything about anything! We are disconnected from the external world and only perceive it through senses...oh wait, darn, I don't really know that since I had to rely on science to tell me...

Drugs are chemicals. Your brain is chemicals. Taking drugs alters your brain chemically. Um.. drugs ... do something else... can't think of what it is... alter your mind? Yeah that's right! Alter your mind! Come on people, really think about this. If chemicals can alter your chemical brain and thus your mind, what do you think the mind really is? Magical? Yeah, sounds right...

[VGamingJunkie]

If your brain was 100% matter, you couldn't account for free will. You can't explain why I chose to type this out right now, because our minds would have no more free will than a soda can has the free will to decide whether or not to fizz when opened. It can't be all chemical reactions or we wouldn't have the kind of self awareness we do because no element or compound in the universe is capable of self awareness. The only way you can create life is from existing life, Scientists can't even make a simple amoeba when they go out of their way to try to force it to happen.

[sudo459]

MetroidJunkie said:

I don't like the idea of the mind being a process of the brain because it implies we don't have free will and is therefore false.

Well then I guess freewill doesn't exist then, does it?

I believe freewill exists, just not in the sense that we usually think of it. We make what we call "choices", even though they are just by-products of a chemical brain. We want to think of ourselves as something grander than chemicals, but there is no reason to believe otherwise.

[Tritnew]

To me, It's best not to fear death. I mean, we'll ALL die someday, and that's the reality of It.

I, for one, will be honest with my beliefs and say that I'm Agnostic. Do I believe that there'll be a Paradise on the other side? As long as It's all true and I get to be with my lost loved ones, sure. If I've been a mad little cunt and go to Hell, may as well see If the DOOM Demons are there and chat with them and be friends with them, like a sitcom of sorts.

Maybe I'm looking at this positively, because that's the best way to look at It... Expect for Hell, I guess. To me, all Religion Is just... Shit, It's trying to pull In naive people and say "There's a second life! If you want that life, believe In the lord and savior!", and I feel that's just wrong on so many levels. Because you don't really need Religion to believe In God.

To me? I think the Bible Is just a storybook, but I believe God Is there. I'm sure that's how most people feel. But since I feel... He just might not be there, or he's some ghost or something, then I'm Agnostic (I guess that wouldn't count In this case, eh?).

That's just my two cents In this.