Poll: Poll: Do you believe in an afterlife?

[The Halk]

I have a phd in understanding the scientific method. I refer you to the Problem of Induction which explains to what it is I refer:



Maybe but that is not to say that religious people do not have other experiences that point them towards that view.

They are evolving their arguments in keeping with our current understanding of things. This in itself is not a barrier to or an argument against their belief in a god but an evolution of it.

You seem to think that because I am defending religious belief that I am religious? I am more interested in pointing out to you the error ofsome of your own beliefs . I am merely trying to show that all explanations including the scientific are prone in certain respects to the same problems and difficulties as the religious. Sleep paralysis as far as I am concerned is simply what it is. At least in this day and age I don't see any reason for religious conflict with it.

You having a PHD in understanding the scientific method doesn't hold true when what you are saying demonstrates a lack of understanding.

The scientific method - which I have explained above - is not subject to the inductive reasoning fallacy. The scientific method is a way in which we test deduced ideas to see if they can be found to be untrue, and again as I said above, when it finds something that still is not proven to be untrue it's accepted as the best explanation for the present, until it's later disproved.

I'm not really sure where that point came from, or where it was going. I have found some of what you have said in your posts to be unclear, and the meaning of what you have said to be cryptic. Are you trying to say that people who deduce there is no god because no evidence points to one are making a mistake? I would agree if they are saying "There are absolutely no gods", however if they say "There isn't a shred of evidence, human culture has gods in full retreat all throughout history, it's extremely doubtful that any could possibly exist and I'm going to continue with my life as if they did not" is not fallacious.

I don't seem to think you are religious. I asked a question. I still don't know the bleeding answer because you're in defensive mode rather than discussion mode. I'm trying to be frank and open, and pleasant about this, I'm not trying to score points. If you read my post above you will hopefully see that I'm trying to understand you and making a guess at what you were trying to say.

 

[crinkleshoes]

They are evolving their arguments in keeping with our current understanding of things. This in itself is not a barrier to or an argument against their belief in a god but an evolution of it.

Everything gets better with practise, even manipulation.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Fine, now show me the Epistemology and the Ontology to support your gods?

I can use big words, too

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

This is getting so boring, I'm even having to google how to spell that.

Which by definition belies the "all people who believe in gods are idiots" claim.

I'll use something as equally ridiculous then... The exceptions make the rule!

I can't actually believe that this needs to be said:

I was taking the ****... it's not an over-generalisation if the majority contribute to the generalisation

Pfft. It simply implies a lack of ability to convey your opinion objectively.

I have, you mis-interpret and devolve it. There's no point anymore... I may aswell just poke fun at everything.

 

[ethan]

You having a PHD in understanding the scientific method doesn't hold true when what you are saying demonstrates a lack of understanding.

The scientific method - which I have explained above - is not subject to the inductive reasoning fallacy. The scientific method is a way in which we test deduced ideas to see if they can be found to be untrue, and again as I said above, when it finds something that still is not proven to be untrue it's accepted as the best explanation for the present, until it's later disproved.

All of empirical science is subjuct to the inductive reasoning fallacy. You have just quoted the difficulty and applicability of it above?:

we test deduced ideas to see if they can be found to be untrue, and again as I said above, when it finds something that still is not proven to be untrue it's accepted as the best explanation for the present, until it's later disproved.

Every time you test, unless it is mathematical, you can never know if there will be a differentiation to the result you may have repeatedly confirmed time and time again. You cannot predict the future from the past no matter the result and therefore you could never know if your explanation for what it is you are testing is the correct one; false or otherwise. You therefore have to accept that your explanation/theory alongwith its understanding, is correct one using faith: Nothing else. The lack of understanding is entirely yours.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Are you trying to say that all science is effected by what we're looking for in the first place?

How silly... I'm sure some has been influenced by this, but any proper science has to live up to peer scrutiny and extensive testing.

If it can't be repeated time and time again, it means nothing. There is strong evidence for scientific "facts".

There is 0 evidence for anything spiritual.

 

[ethan]

Everything gets better with practise, even manipulation.

Something of which science isn't exempt from either I'll hope you realise?

 

[The Halk]

You therefore have to accept that your explanation is correct using faith: Nothing else. The lack of understanding is entirely yours.

No. For the third time you accept what you cannot disprove as the most likely thing and continue. It would be faith if you accepted it as the absolute truth and beyond any doubt - but that isn't the scientific method.

mavity, for example, may fall away when we explore quantum physics further. We may find that many of the laws of physics are just simplifications, and that the truth is considerably more complicated and where we had several simple equations, we may find we have fewer equations which are far, far more complex.

 

[TNGL]

I don't know if it's only me that thinks this, but I find death quite a scary thought. I'm here and I'm aware I'm here, when I'm sleeping, I'm here but I'm not aware I'm here. When I die, I'm still here but I don't think I'll be aware I'm here; but this is for eternity. Put simply I believe you're here forever, in what form I don't know.

I've never really told anybody my thoughts on death. But with regards to life after death, why are people not able to tell people about their life before death? I know that there's been cases where young children have walked through a town they've never visited before, but are able to recall certain street names and where certain things are and this is something I can't explain; perhaps it is a sign of life after death, but it just doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[ethan]

No. For the third time you accept what you cannot disprove as the most likely thing and continue.

Even the provisional acceptance of the "most likely thing" still involves its acceptance as an act of faith. ????????

 

[Jack Bauer]

Even the provisional acceptance of the "most likely thing" still involves its acceptance as an act of faith. ????????

I'm coming in to this a touch late so I could be missing some of your points above, but, as much as I see that it does require some faith when making assumptions about any future event. There is a big difference between faith without evidence as is the case for an afterlife (at least from my point of view, I'm sure some may disagree) and faith in a conclusion based on statistical analysis of the outcome observed during similar events in the past. The latter has a degree of confidence and it takes a slight altered definition of the word faith to apply it here.

 

[Castiel]

Come back when you have an understanding of the mathematics. Would be happy to have a chat with a maths grad about this

Do you have an understanding of the mathematics?..it would seem that is in question.

Your out-dated quote deceives you. The mass & density are both quatifiable.

Proven wrong by the discovery of Hawking radiation.

A significant number of small black holes lose their mass and effectively density over time. They lose more than they gain through a type of evapouration. Primordial black holes (the type they're trying to produce at Cern) lose theirs the quickest and that's why they don't last very long.

If their density was truly infinite - they could not do this.

When producing calculations though, becuase they're so (relatively) small, they can usually be treated as a single point.

Black holes are also more likely to be donut-shaped, not a single point.

I have a masters degree in astrophyics. I could dig my hole deeper?

You might want to spell Astrophysics first....

Does the Hawking Radiation theory really negate Gravitational or Spacetime Singularities?

Are you not confusing Black Holes with the Spacetime Singularites within them?

Also what about the size of the Black Hole and how does that relate to temperature and Black Hole Evaporation?

And does not the theory relating to Hawking Radiation date back to the 1970's.....surely the Astrophysicists at the Goddard Space Centre would be aware of this....

Also how does this relate to the flat topology of the Universe as implied by the WMAP data?

 

[PermaBanned]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread - how on earth does this tie in with the idea of an afterlife?

 

[Radiation]

I see two possibilities being most likely, one is no afterlife, the combination of things that make us a conscious individual are a one off, the other is infinite time and space, when you die time passes instantly from your perspective, universes may come and go but eventually the right combination happens and you awake in some new form.

 

[Twirlywoos]

Of course I believe in an after life OP, it's one of the tenants of my faith.

 

[crinkleshoes]

You might want to spell Astrophysics first....

Ah yes... missing the type of an s late at night is a good way to continue a debate

- Does the Hawking Radiation theory really negate Gravitational or Spacetime Singularities?
No, it shows they're quantifiable as the singularity is of course equivalent to its event horizon.

- Are you not confusing Black Holes with the Spacetime Singularites within them?
Do you even know what you're referring to?

- Also what about the size of the Black Hole and how does that relate to temperature and Black Hole Evaporation?
I commented on this above smaller = faster evapouration, but can be influenced by surrounding matter and it's ability to grow

- And does not the theory relating to Hawking Radiation date back to the 1970's.....surely the Astrophysicists at the Goddard Space Centre would be aware of this....
Well done wikipedia mogul, yes - but the acceptance of the theory is more recent than its inception.

- Also how does this relate to the flat topology of the Universe as implied by the WMAP data?
A bit ambiguous... how does what relate to the topology?
I highly doubt hawking radiation has much of an effect on the shape of the detectable universe Do you even know what you're typing about?

 

[Angilion]

It's sometimes debated but let's have a poll to see how many people really believe.

Dons, could you please make this a poll? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

No, it won't:

1) Yes, I do believe.
2) No, I believe that there isn't an afterlife.
3) No, I don't believe either way.

(2) and (3) are completely different answers but "A simple 'yes' or 'no'" puts them both down as the same answer.

I answered 'no' because I don't believe. I try not to treat things as being true when I have no evidence for them and no reason to treat them as being true. I think faith is silly and wrong.

 

[Zefan]

I personally think there's more to us than meets the eye. Science can't prove / disprove it, and religion or beliefs are about having a huge amount of faith - which is an amazing trait to have if you're able to have it. However it cannot prove / disprove it either.

My faith isn't strong enough to be swayed in any direction. I am sure there is more to life than we know, and I'd like to believe there is more out there, however, I falter

Pretty much exactly the same here dude. For all my finger pointing and laughing at certain aspects of certain religious beliefs and practices, I'm actually pretty "spiritual" in that sense. I'm totally aware that the reason I think that there is more to us than we know is most likely that my brain is fooling itself, but it doesn't stop me thinking it.

 

[PermaBanned]

I feel the more i learn about science the less i subscribe to that philosophy. I used to like Physics then 'give or take' Biology and Chemistry, but since studying them at A level it's like they've all slotted into place. I don't see how you can take one without the others. When you learn and actually comprehend the subjects everything that seemed so alien before makes so much sense you wouldn't believe it. It's like a picture, that comes more and more into focus the more you learn. You might get a topic in one subject and say "Hmm, i don't really understand why that's the case but whatever," and then in another learn something that seems trivial then suddenly realize "Oh, of course that's how that works!" And really that's just scratching the surface.

 

[Castiel]

Ah yes... missing the type of an s late at night is a good way to continue a debate

- Does the Hawking Radiation theory really negate Gravitational or Spacetime Singularities?

No, it shows they're quantifiable as the singularity is of course equivalent to its event horizon.

So Spacetime Singularities are no longered regarded theoretically as infinite?

Are you absolutely sure that a singularity is always quantifiable by the Event Horizon.....what about Naked Singularities?

- Are you not confusing Black Holes with the Spacetime Singularites within them?
Do you even know what you're referring to?

More to the point, do you?

- Also what about the size of the Black Hole and how does that relate to temperature and Black Hole Evaporation?
I commented on this above smaller = faster evapouration, but can be influenced by surrounding matter and it's ability to grow

You missed the ball there......is it not true that not all black holes are net emitters of radiation...thus Hawkings theory doesn't actually negate the infinities involved at all?

And if it does can you point me to the literature that states this?

- And does not the theory relating to Hawking Radiation date back to the 1970's.....surely the Astrophysicists at the Goddard Space Centre would be aware of this....

Well done wikipedia mogul, yes - but the acceptance of the theory is more recent than its inception.

Funny, it seems that the Goddard Space Centre has a different view about what it accepted in 2001...the same date as the article I posted earlier that you state is wrong:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/011125b.html

- Also how does this relate to the flat topology of the Universe as implied by the WMAP data?

A bit ambiguous... how does what relate to the topology?

I highly doubt hawking radiation has much of an effect on the shape of the detectable universe Do you even know what you're typing about?

You claimed that Hawking Radiation proves that infinity doesn't exist.......I am asking how that relates to the unbounded (therefore infinite) flat topology of universe as demonstrated by WMAP?

Does this not simply negate your claim that there is no such thing as infinity, when it appears that you are the only Astrophycist who thinks so.

I understand what Hawking Radiation is and how it relates to black hole evaporation.......I dont see how it relates to proof that there is no infinity and I don't think you fully understand this either.....


I may not be a mathematician, but I know what I'm typing though.....the interesting part is that the person sat next to me was a Physicist (a real one)..... He is a member, I'll ask him to talk to you directly about your claims......

 

[spudbynight]

People who claim to belive in gods are all idiots in my opinion.

I believe in God - does this mean you believe I am an idiot?

I find this comment to be highly insulting. Taking your subsequent posts I believe it was not your intent to cause this offence. I am reading things correctly?