Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 85. (Read 89022 times)

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

im not an atheist (deist to be exact) but yea everything you said is true
i mean, how can an almighty being that says he wants to save people, kill people?
so basically in the noah's ark story he killed everyone except for noah and his family because all of them are sinful
they say he's the god of love, then why kill people? because he loves them?
he "gave" us free will then punishes us by using it
and people say he gave up Jesus and let him die for our sins
for what reason? he's still gonna "punish" people for doing wrong things anyway, so i find it useless
really, christians?

That's not a point/argument, it is merely a rhetorical question.

The initial cause would have to be self-caused, but this is seemingly absurd and unthinkable by us.
However, we are led to conclude a first cause by inductive reasoning, and to suppose any cause is to suppose a first cause.
We are compelled to regard sense impressions as the effect of some cause.
"If it is not the first cause, then by implication there must be a cause behind it, which thus becomes the real cause of the effect. Manifestly however complicated the assumptions, the same conclusion must be reached. We cannot ask how the changes in our consciousness are caused, without inevitably committing ourselves to the hypothesis of a First Cause."
Spencer's treatise: http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

That's not a point/argument, it is merely a rhetorical question.
The initial cause would have to be self-caused, but this is seemingly absurd and unthinkable by us.
However, we are led to conclude a first cause by inductive reasoning, and to suppose any cause is to suppose a first cause.
We are compelled to regard sense impressions as the effect of some cause.
"If it is not the first cause, then by implication there must be a cause behind it, which thus becomes the real cause of the effect. Manifestly however complicated the assumptions, the same conclusion must be reached. We cannot ask how the changes in our consciousness are caused, without inevitably committing ourselves to the hypothesis of a First Cause."
Spencer's treatise: http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

This brings me back to my original point which was "how can there be a first cause if everything must have a cause?". This was the point to which you responded "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!", but I'd like to hear a better reasoned argument than that.

Actually, Spencer specifically disagrees with my claim that "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!" in his essay First Principles and he explicitly lays out his logic. I suspect that you did not actually read the essay, so why should I explain his logic to you if you were not willing to read it from the horse's mouth?   Now that I think about it further, I am more inclined to agree with Spencer, so I am retracting this claim of mine.  

My main claims are based in evidence and they soundly refute the statements made in the OP, but it seems to me that you would prefer not to discuss them.

I was talking about the specific claims of yours that "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!" is a valid response to a question about the logic of Spencer's claims.

Here are the main claims for me:
My assertion that simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, that the brain is actually a computing machine connected to a spirit.
My assertions regarding anomalous perception that was documented in a medical setting (perception/awareness during a period when the brain is known to be non-functional).

Well, my second claim can surely be tested and in fact has been tested; the results point squarely towards the validity of my first claim.

I am happy to discuss my claims in detail, starting with the main ones.  

Let's stick to my main claims for our conversation subject.

I'm discussing your claims, not those of the OP.

I'm hoping that you'll realise that an unfalsifiable statement - one that in principle cannot be tested -- is pointless.

Again, changing the subject. I'm not the OP, and I was having a different discussion with you.

(Quoted text from Wikiquote)

Louis Pasteur (27 December 1822 - 28 September 1895) French microbiologist, chemist, pioneer of the "Germ theory of disease", discoverer of molecular asymmetry and stereo-chemistry, and inventor of the process of Pasteurization.
Louis Pasteur believed as did many other scientists on this page that science led to the belief in God. He also did not believe that life arose naturally from matter. He thought it more likely that life existed first and matter arose from life. Pasteur said:
Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.

...

Science brings men nearer to God.

...

I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?

So let's consider OP's statement; is it worth considering?

Part of OP's claim can be falsified, another part cannot be falsified. OP claims that:
1) The evidence convincingly shows that you existed "as nothing" for an eternity.
2) You existed "as nothing" for an eternity, and
3) You will return to an existence "as nothing" for an eternity.

The first point has been falsified; OP is no longer responding to me because of the impressive evidence that I have presented since I started posting here. Simple mechanism cannot yield the brain, so OP's claim about "nothingness" is false. The rest of OP's claim is not worth considering. Instead, OP should consider using cycles as an explanation for awareness rather than promoting something that cannot be falsified.