Poll: after life or oblivion
Oblivion duh
Reincarnation as human only
Resurrection only
I would be a ghost trolling humans
Reincarnation Hindu or Buddhist style
I dont know
heaven or hell and then resurrection
other
[Show Results]
 
afterlife or oblivion ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 07:22 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(25-03-2016 06:49 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 06:44 PM)Leo Wrote:  What movie you are talking about ?

I think it was a game I used to play.

a PC game ?

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2016, 04:39 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(25-03-2016 06:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 11:16 AM)Leo Wrote:  Oblivion is the most likely choice.Yes

Which character?
Khajiit

Idk if anyone hear had listened over time to the non prophets podcast which is by aca that does the atheist experience. But one of the podcasts best openings was an impression of a khajit merchant.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
30-03-2016, 05:05 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2016 05:18 PM by Nagoda.)
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
I voted I don't know- in this respect I'm agnostic about the whole thing, but atheist in respect to the objective existence of gods, demons, angels etc. There is no way of knowing what happens- we can guess, but really that's it. People who claim that there's nothing after death or that there's an afterlife are both making faith claims that have no hard, solid evidence to back them up.

IMO all an Atheist can really say is that there's a strong possibility that there is nothing, but they cannot claim that it is definitive, that it will happen, or that they have near certainty it will happen because we currently lack the scientific means to test and verify this hypothesis. That could change, and great if it does, but it's my opinion that if Atheists are going to tout that the only rational means of belief is by believing something with hard, sold scientific evidence to back it up, agnosticism in regards to this question is the only logical conclusion you can come to by taking that stance simply because these claims are not verifiable by scientific methods currently- to claim there is no afterlife while maintaining that any and all beliefs must be supported by solid evidence is a pure contradiction in terms, and outright hypocrisy IMO.

That said there's another option which I don't think anyone's brought up yet- that in a sense, both could be true. Some scientists (I think they study quantum theory/physics, but can't remember off the top of my head) have theorized that dying is like being sucked into a black hole- time keeps slowing down so much continually that you never reach the event horizon, which in this case would be death. According to this theory from the perspective of the people around you have died, but from your own perspective you have not and will never reach the point of death.

We also know that there is a hell of a lot of brain activity before someone dies- and there have been numerous claims of people witnessing dying people claim they can see their loved ones with them, a bright light, angels, etc. Itis my opinion that because beliefs inform our brain's interpretation of things, strong belief in an afterlife may cause the brain to create an experience of an afterlife if this theory is correct, and because in this scenario you never reach death as your perception of time is just continually regressing slower and lower, you experience what is for you an eternity in which this experience of an afterlife created by your brain thanks to your strong convictions never ends.

If people believe they are going to Heaven, they may experience that forever, for people who believe they are destined for a literal Hell it could be far worse, and for someone who strongly believes there is nothing, aka most Atheists, there may indeed be nothing, but all scenarios could be true depending on the beliefs of the individual who is dying. What this means for agnostics like myself, I have no idea, but that means if this theory is correct, it would seem to be the most interesting and open ended of the outcomes.

Now, I know what most of you are going to respond with, it's all in your head, it's not real, your brain is hallucinating right before you die! However consider this: because your brain interprets reality, and that everything we experience is the brain's construct/interpretation of reality and is not what's there as far as what's outside of our experience as three dimensional beings(for instance we only touch the magnetic field of an object and never actually come into contact with it, or that we're made mostly of space) since the available scientific evidence we have available to us points to that conclusion, our entire experience of life is in our heads as it's how we experience life as humans. For us, from our perspectives, it is real, it is our reality.

Which then brings up the quandary of "well if our entire experience of reality is in fact a hallucination created by our brains, can we really call something a hallucination when everything else is?" How are we defining what's "real" and what's a "hallucination"? If reality is in fact a big smoke and mirrors game, do we have any business making such a distinction?

My view is that if everyone's experience of reality is completely subjective, which means that for believers who believe they have experienced literal demons those demons are real to their brains, and for people who don't believe and do not have that experience that their experience of reality as interpreted by their brains is equally real and valid for them.

Of course, this also includes experiences of God, which means that if experiences of God are all in your head just like everything else you experience as a human being, God by this definition for believers is real and a part of their individual brain's construct of the world. If we as Atheists are going to claim that religious experiences of God are hallucinations and are not real, but that everything else interpreted by our brain in our individual experiences of reality is, we are contradicting ourselves.

The evidence we have available shows us that you cannot have it both ways. If Atheists are going to insist that God is a hallucination, then they are going to have to admit that everything else is too, and that nothing we experience is real (which means that the Buddhists and Hindus are right in a sense). But if you are going to claim that your experience of the world is for you what constitutes reality and use any sort of reality language to describe your experience of the world, you cannot claim that God is all in a Theist's head and that because of that God is a hallucination.

What is real depends on primarily two things: 1) which dimensions you exist in and experience and 2) whether or not you have a mechanism for interpreting how you experience those dimensions (for humans, a brain). To speak of an objective reality is a complete and utter fallacy: the scientific evidence we have available suggests that there is none.

Keep in mind I'm an Atheist saying this, not a Theist.

To sum it all up, there is a great moment in the final Harry Potter movie that has one of my favourite quotes ever and illustrates my point quite nicely: Harry gets killed by Voldemort and has an experience of the afterlife. Dumbledore is there, as is a horrible shriveled up baby that is supposed to represent Voldemort. At the very end of the scene Harry turns to Dumbledore and asks, "Professor, is this all in my head?".

Dumbledore's response continues to speak volumes to me:

"Of course it is Harry, that doesn't make it any less real."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 12:42 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2016 12:47 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  People who claim that there's nothing after death or that there's an afterlife are both making faith claims that have no hard, solid evidence to back them up.

The conclusion that nothing happens after death is supported by literally everything that we know about life and consciousness.

(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Some scientists (I think they study quantum theory/physics, but can't remember off the top of my head) have theorized that dying is like being sucked into a black hole- time keeps slowing down so much continually that you never reach the event horizon, which in this case would be death.

No, they haven't.

(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Now, I know what most of you are going to respond with, it's all in your head, it's not real, your brain is hallucinating right before you die! However consider this: because your brain interprets reality, and that everything we experience is the brain's construct/interpretation of reality and is not what's there as far as what's outside of our experience as three dimensional beings(for instance we only touch the magnetic field of an object and never actually come into contact with it, or that we're made mostly of space) since the available scientific evidence we have available to us points to that conclusion, our entire experience of life is in our heads as it's how we experience life as humans. For us, from our perspectives, it is real, it is our reality.

Solipsism is not a tenable philosophical position.

(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Of course, this also includes experiences of God, which means that if experiences of God are all in your head just like everything else you experience as a human being, God by this definition for believers is real

That is why it is a very, very poor definition.

(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  To speak of an objective reality is a complete and utter fallacy: the scientific evidence we have available suggests that there is none.

Utterly false in every respect.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-03-2016, 06:29 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2016 06:45 PM by Nagoda.)
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 12:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  People who claim that there's nothing after death or that there's an afterlife are both making faith claims that have no hard, solid evidence to back them up.

The conclusion that nothing happens after death is supported by literally everything that we know about life and consciousness.

(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Some scientists (I think they study quantum theory/physics, but can't remember off the top of my head) have theorized that dying is like being sucked into a black hole- time keeps slowing down so much continually that you never reach the event horizon, which in this case would be death.

No, they haven't.

(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Now, I know what most of you are going to respond with, it's all in your head, it's not real, your brain is hallucinating right before you die! However consider this: because your brain interprets reality, and that everything we experience is the brain's construct/interpretation of reality and is not what's there as far as what's outside of our experience as three dimensional beings(for instance we only touch the magnetic field of an object and never actually come into contact with it, or that we're made mostly of space) since the available scientific evidence we have available to us points to that conclusion, our entire experience of life is in our heads as it's how we experience life as humans. For us, from our perspectives, it is real, it is our reality.

Solipsism is not a tenable philosophical position.

(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Of course, this also includes experiences of God, which means that if experiences of God are all in your head just like everything else you experience as a human being, God by this definition for believers is real

That is why it is a very, very poor definition.

(30-03-2016 05:05 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  To speak of an objective reality is a complete and utter fallacy: the scientific evidence we have available suggests that there is none.

Utterly false in every respect.

1) The evidence we have available suggests that yes, consciousness ends as far as it being a thing produced by the brain at death when the brain dies. But that's where the evidence stops. It does not speak to whether or not consciousness can exist outside of the brain after death- that is unknown and untestable and unverifiable by scientific means- there is no solid evidence to suggest that it can or can't because there's no way of testing for it (currently).

You can say that you do not personally believe in an afterlife because there is no evidence to support it's existence, that's fine, that's my own position in regards to a God that exists as a sentient being external to myself. But you cannot claim that there is nothing, you can only say that you believe there is nothing due to lack of evidence. What happens at death and what happens after death are two completely separate issues entirely. If you tell someone that there will be nothing after they die, be aware that you are making a claim with no evidence to back it up.

2) Yes, there are scientists who believe in the death is like a black hole theory as I'll call it, and I am currently looking for my sources. When I find them I will post them.

3) I was not arguing solipsism- that I alone and my mind alone exists. I am arguing that what is "real" and how we experience reality is entirely subjective- also known as anti-realism. There's a big difference between the two. If you're arguing that solipsism is untenable, that's simply your opinion.

4) If the definition of God I gave is poor, then that means how we define what is real and what isn't is also very poor (which I suggested), since everything is subjective to our individual experiences.

5) No, you are quite wrong on saying that reality isn't objective is "utterly false". Take sight as an example: how you see the world (and also therefore by seeing something how you claim it is real), is entirely subjective. Certain animals can see more colours than we can, some only see in black and white, and some have ocular lenses that are very different than ours (flies for instance)- what is real for them in terms of what they're seeing, what they're experiencing, is very very different. By our definition reality is all about what we experience and how we experience it- what about people who have synesthesia and can see sound? People who are blind? Are you going to say that their realities, their experiences of the world are not real simply because their brains are different from yours and don't conform to most people's experiences?

What about animals who can hear more sounds than we can? How do other forms of life experience smell or touch? Can we assume it's the same way we do? If hypothetically, in the future, we discover that life can exist beyond the first three dimensions, can you honestly assume that it's going to experience reality in the same way we do, or that that experience is invalid? Yes we know that stuff exists and is there, I'm not saying that it doesn't, but how we experience that stuff is determined entirely by our senses which are subjective to both the individual and the species that individual is a part of.

There is no such thing as an objective reality because reality requires a brain to be experienced as far as we can tell, and therefore every claim we make about it is entirely subjective based on both our experiences as individuals and what most of us have in common in our experiences as a species, but again, that can change depending on which species you belong to.

As long as there are brains to interpret the information that is out there, as long as there are mechanisms that slant the experience in a certain way, the nature of reality is entirely subjective- what we claim is "real" is based on our senses, but how those senses are experienced can change depending on the species in question. There is no such thing as an objective reality simply because as long reality is experienced through the interpretation of a brain, it cannot ever be experienced. Period. Full stop.

And if we cannot ever experience it, and all our data on it is going to be skewed by our experiences and interpretations as three dimensional homo sapiens, than we cannot say what it is, or how it is, or even if it exists because our brains bias our experience in a certain way. What is real for you is not the same as what's real for a cat or dog. Objectivity cannot be spoken of precisely because anything that is alive that has a brain cannot experience said objectivity because their brains interpret the data in a manner that is unique to them. What is real depends on who you are and what you are. Which means that all realities are equally valid- to say other wise is arrogance and entirely spieciesist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 06:57 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 06:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  1) The evidence we have available suggests that yes, consciousness ends as far as it being a thing produced by the brain at death when the brain dies. But that's where the evidence stops. It does not speak to whether or not consciousness can exist outside of the brain after death- that is unknown and untestable and unverifiable by scientific means- there is no solid evidence to suggest that it can or can't because there's no way of testing for it (currently).

Baloney. All of the evidence indicates that consciousness is a product of the brain.
There is no consciousness without a functional brain.

Quote:You can say that you do not personally believe in an afterlife because there is no evidence to support it's existence, that's fine, that's my own position in regards to a God that exists as a sentient being external to myself. But you cannot claim that there is nothing, you can only say that you believe there is nothing due to lack of evidence. What happens at death and what happens after death are two completely separate issues entirely. If you tell someone that there will be nothing after they die, be aware that you are making a claim with no evidence to back it up.

See above. No brain, no consciousness.

Quote:2) Yes, there are scientists who believe in the death is like a black hole theory as I'll call it, and I am currently looking for my sources. When I find them I will post them.

I am waiting with bated breath. Drinking Beverage

Quote:3) I was not arguing solipsism- that I alone and my mind alone exists. I am arguing that what is "real" and how we experience reality is entirely subjective- also known as anti-realism. There's a big difference between the two. If you're arguing that solipsism is untenable, that's simply your opinion.

We have objective evidence of reality. You ignore it at your peril.

Quote:4) If the definition of God I gave is poor, then that means how we define what is real and what isn't is also very poor (which I suggested), since everything is subjective to our individual experiences.

There is no good definition of God.
No, everything is not subjective. To say so is nonsensical.

Quote:5) No, you are quite wrong on saying that reality isn't objective is "utterly false". Take sight as an example: how you see the world (and also therefore by seeing something how you claim it is real), is entirely subjective. Certain animals can see more colours than we can, some only see in black and white, and some have ocular lenses that are very different than ours (flies for instance)- what is real for them in terms of what they're seeing, what they're experiencing, is very very different. By our definition reality is all about what we experience and how we experience it- what about people who have synesthesia and can see sound? People who are blind? Are you going to say that their realities, their experiences of the world are not real simply because their brains are different from yours and don't conform to most people's experiences?

That is utterly incoherent. Light objectively exists, brains objectively exist, etc.

Quote:What about animals who can hear more sounds than we can? How do other forms of life experience smell or touch? Can we assume it's the same way we do? If hypothetically, in the future, we discover that life can exist beyond the first three dimensions, can you honestly assume that it's going to experience reality in the same way we do, or that that experience is invalid? Yes we know that stuff exists and is there, I'm not saying that it doesn't, but how we experience that stuff is determined entirely by our senses which are subjective to both the individual and the species that individual is a part of.

More incoherence. Our senses sense objective reality as do other animals' senses.

Quote:There is no such thing as an objective reality because reality requires a brain to be experienced as far as we can tell, and therefore every claim we make about it is entirely subjective based on both our experiences as individuals and what most of us have in common in our experiences as a species, but again, that can change depending on which species you belong to.

Oh, really? Reality exists without you. Get over it.

Quote:As long as there are brains to interpret the information that is out there, as long as there are mechanisms that slant the experience in a certain way, the nature of reality is entirely subjective- what we claim is "real" is based on our senses, but how those senses are experienced can change depending on the species in question. There is no such thing as an objective reality simply because as long reality is experienced through the interpretation of a brain, it cannot ever be experienced. Period. Full stop.

See above. You do not understand the difference between subjective and objective.

Quote:And if we cannot ever experience it, and all our data on it is going to be skewed by our experiences and interpretations as three dimensional homo sapiens, than we cannot say what it is, or how it is, or even if it exists because our brains bias our experience in a certain way. What is real for you is not the same as what's real for a cat or dog. Objectivity cannot be spoken of precisely because anything that is alive that has a brain cannot experience said objectivity because their brains interpret the data in a manner that is unique to them. What is real depends on who you and what you are. Which means that all realities are equally valid- to say other wise is arrogance and entirely spieciesist.

No.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
31-03-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
Is Nagoda a sock puppet?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 08:08 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 06:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  The evidence we have available suggests that yes, consciousness ends as far as it being a thing produced by the brain at death when the brain dies. But that's where the evidence stops. It does not speak to whether or not consciousness can exist outside of the brain after death

Yes, it does.

Consciousness is brain activity. Brain activity does not occur following brain death.

(31-03-2016 06:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Yes, there are scientists who believe in the death is like a black hole theory as I'll call it

Then present them.

(31-03-2016 06:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I was not arguing solipsism... I am arguing that what is "real" and how we experience reality is entirely subjective- also known as anti-realism. There's a big difference between the two.

No, there isn't. "Anti-realism" is functionally solipsism under another name, and solipsism is an incoherent position that relies not only on its proponents not understanding the definitions of terms like "is" or "exists", but rejecting the concept of definition in its entirety. It is worthless, idiotic, and hasn't been taken seriously for centuries.

(31-03-2016 06:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If the definition of God I gave is poor, then that means how we define what is real and what isn't is also very poor

No, it doesn't.

(31-03-2016 06:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  There is no such thing as an objective reality because reality requires a brain to be experienced as far as we can tell

"Experience requires an experiencer" in no way undermines the idea of an objective, external reality.

I don't think you understand what the words you are trying to use mean.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-03-2016, 08:24 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2016 08:34 PM by Nagoda.)
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 06:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 06:29 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  1) The evidence we have available suggests that yes, consciousness ends as far as it being a thing produced by the brain at death when the brain dies. But that's where the evidence stops. It does not speak to whether or not consciousness can exist outside of the brain after death- that is unknown and untestable and unverifiable by scientific means- there is no solid evidence to suggest that it can or can't because there's no way of testing for it (currently).

Baloney. All of the evidence indicates that consciousness is a product of the brain.
There is no consciousness without a functional brain.

Quote:You can say that you do not personally believe in an afterlife because there is no evidence to support it's existence, that's fine, that's my own position in regards to a God that exists as a sentient being external to myself. But you cannot claim that there is nothing, you can only say that you believe there is nothing due to lack of evidence. What happens at death and what happens after death are two completely separate issues entirely. If you tell someone that there will be nothing after they die, be aware that you are making a claim with no evidence to back it up.

See above. No brain, no consciousness.

Quote:2) Yes, there are scientists who believe in the death is like a black hole theory as I'll call it, and I am currently looking for my sources. When I find them I will post them.

I am waiting with bated breath. Drinking Beverage

Quote:3) I was not arguing solipsism- that I alone and my mind alone exists. I am arguing that what is "real" and how we experience reality is entirely subjective- also known as anti-realism. There's a big difference between the two. If you're arguing that solipsism is untenable, that's simply your opinion.

We have objective evidence of reality. You ignore it at your peril.

Quote:4) If the definition of God I gave is poor, then that means how we define what is real and what isn't is also very poor (which I suggested), since everything is subjective to our individual experiences.

There is no good definition of God.
No, everything is not subjective. To say so is nonsensical.

Quote:5) No, you are quite wrong on saying that reality isn't objective is "utterly false". Take sight as an example: how you see the world (and also therefore by seeing something how you claim it is real), is entirely subjective. Certain animals can see more colours than we can, some only see in black and white, and some have ocular lenses that are very different than ours (flies for instance)- what is real for them in terms of what they're seeing, what they're experiencing, is very very different. By our definition reality is all about what we experience and how we experience it- what about people who have synesthesia and can see sound? People who are blind? Are you going to say that their realities, their experiences of the world are not real simply because their brains are different from yours and don't conform to most people's experiences?

That is utterly incoherent. Light objectively exists, brains objectively exist, etc.

Quote:What about animals who can hear more sounds than we can? How do other forms of life experience smell or touch? Can we assume it's the same way we do? If hypothetically, in the future, we discover that life can exist beyond the first three dimensions, can you honestly assume that it's going to experience reality in the same way we do, or that that experience is invalid? Yes we know that stuff exists and is there, I'm not saying that it doesn't, but how we experience that stuff is determined entirely by our senses which are subjective to both the individual and the species that individual is a part of.

More incoherence. Our senses sense objective reality as do other animals' senses.

Quote:There is no such thing as an objective reality because reality requires a brain to be experienced as far as we can tell, and therefore every claim we make about it is entirely subjective based on both our experiences as individuals and what most of us have in common in our experiences as a species, but again, that can change depending on which species you belong to.

Oh, really? Reality exists without you. Get over it.

Quote:As long as there are brains to interpret the information that is out there, as long as there are mechanisms that slant the experience in a certain way, the nature of reality is entirely subjective- what we claim is "real" is based on our senses, but how those senses are experienced can change depending on the species in question. There is no such thing as an objective reality simply because as long reality is experienced through the interpretation of a brain, it cannot ever be experienced. Period. Full stop.

See above. You do not understand the difference between subjective and objective.

Quote:And if we cannot ever experience it, and all our data on it is going to be skewed by our experiences and interpretations as three dimensional homo sapiens, than we cannot say what it is, or how it is, or even if it exists because our brains bias our experience in a certain way. What is real for you is not the same as what's real for a cat or dog. Objectivity cannot be spoken of precisely because anything that is alive that has a brain cannot experience said objectivity because their brains interpret the data in a manner that is unique to them. What is real depends on who you and what you are. Which means that all realities are equally valid- to say other wise is arrogance and entirely spieciesist.

No.

Few things Chas:

If you are arguing that objective means that there is something there that exists, I'll grant you that, and I'll recant my previous statement and modify it to this: we cannot speak of an objective reality beyond the fact that things exist.

What is real is based how we experience those things. If you want to argue that there's an objective reality where stuff exists, sure, I'll accept that, but as far as how it's seen, touched, smelt etc, which is what helps us define what's real for us most of the time, the details of what the thing is, are subjective. Because our experiences are subjective to us and our species, can we really determine what that "objective reality" is other than it exists if our perspectives are skewed by our brains and our limitations in regards to how experience the universe as three dimensional beings? That's what I'm asking here- if we can't determine what objective reality looks like, then we can't speak of it beyond the fact that it exists, but we don't know what "it" really is.

Secondly, whether or not a definition of God is good or not is pure subjective opinion. You can say that you believe there are no good definitions, but you cannot claim that there are none- you have a bias as an atheist that sets you against the very concept of God, as do I: of course you're going to say there are no good definitions, you're biased against the thing being defined actually existing. We cannot make objective statements like this precisely because we have a bias.

Thirdly, the question of where consciousness arises from is not solved, and it baffles scientists to this day. We have no idea whatsoever where consciousness comes from, at this point we can guess, and the debate is still going on. This is not a shut and closed case. You are interpreting the evidence towards a particular conclusion which you favour based on your individual bias.

Finally, yes the Universe would exist if I wasn't around, I don't dispute that. But would it exist if there was no life at all inside it? Consider the fact that recently scientists have found evidence that what happens to quantum particles in the past is determined by how we measure and observe them in the future. Until that point, reality for those particles is in an abstract no man's land and does not come into existence until the observation is made.

If no life ever existed to observe said particles, or if all life we were wiped out in the universe at some point in the future, would reality and the universe continue to exist?

Now, this could be an illusion created by our limitations as three dimensional beings that doesn't allow us to see the whole picture as it were. That's definitely, possible, but it's also possible that it's not. I know you've said previously that effects on quantum particles don't come into effect in the macro world, but I'd like to bring something else to your attention. There's a new theory which seems to question whether not the big bang actually happened. To quote the article I linked to:

"In another proposal that harks back to a now-discarded theory, Das and Ali propose that the universe is filled with a quantum fluid made up of gravitons, particles that probably have no mass themselves but transmit gravity the way photons carry electromagnetism. The follow-up paper suggests that in the early universe these gravitons would have formed a Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of particles that display quantum phenomena at the macroscopic scale. Moreover, the paper argues that this condensate could cause the universe's expansion to accelerate, and so explain dark energy, and might one day be the only surviving component of the universe."

If those gravitons require an observer to observe them so they can effectively exist in the past, including going all the way back to the universe's creation, how can the Universe come to be if the observers' existence requires the universe to be created, but the universe's creation requires the observers to exist? If sentient life ceased to exist in the universe, would that cause the universe's creation to be wiped from existence and erase reality as we know it because the gravitons that created the universe would revert back to a state of 'limbo'?

Reality itself has become a chicken or the egg paradox if both those theories are true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 07:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Is Nagoda a sock puppet?

No I am quite real. Cando musos is a wonderful site, I'm on there myself. There's no need for insult or denigration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: