Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Carlos Allende

Religion versus Fiction

894 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Habitat

I heard an Nobel winning physicist say information is "never lost". If so, an afterlife becomes a lot easier to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Golden Duck
38 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I couldn't care less what Cox believes in, and I don't even know I'd say I "believe" in God myself, it being a completely undefined ,and must also be an undefinable proposition or we'd have to account for what lay outside the definition. But clearly few scientists are prepared to make the kind of bold "guesses" P101 is apt to. What I would say is that rational thinking can't account for the enigma of existence, and that is the sole reason God was "invented". The afterlife is a more defined proposition, but similarly can't be disproved.

You care so little about Cox you had to declare he would agree with you. Be careful - there's a user posting in this thread who said he doesn't like name stoppers or red herrings. I hope he didnt read what you you wrote.

Cox seems to be saying that the question of God is of no consequence.

What you continue call "P101's guesses" are laws and theories of physics. They predict there is no afterlife. Your fridge runs based on those laws.

Personally, I think I hope for an afterlife, but even the supernatural would have the obey the natural laws of physics to interact with the natural world. It's a hope for one of those gaps that science continues to knock down. 

What's the enigma of existence?  In the end the question is of no consequence. 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
19 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I heard an Nobel winning physicist say information is "never lost". If so, an afterlife becomes a lot easier to explain.

Not a household name though, right?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Not a household name though, right?

No, that is for people who can convince the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
13 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You care so little about Cox you had to declare he would agree with you. Be careful - there's a user posting in this thread who said he doesn't like name stoppers or red herrings. I hope he didnt read what you you wrote.

Cox seems to be saying that the question of God is of no consequence.

What you continue call "P101's guesses" are laws and theories of physics. They predict there is no afterlife. Your fridge runs based on those laws.

Personally, I think I hope for an afterlife, but even the supernatural would have the obey the natural laws of physics to interact with the natural world. It's a hope for one of those gaps that science continues to knock down. 

What's the enigma of existence?  In the end the question is of no consequence. 

You are endorsing the P101 "science rules out afterlife" dogma ? Be careful, he says it might all be revised if new information comes to hand. Science does not predict "no afterlife" but I would say it doesn't support one either. Not that I am hanging out for any news. I already know the answer. As to the how and why, I  know not. The enigma of existence is hardly inconsequential, it is the reason religion exists. To fill the gap where rational thinking no longer works. Not that any kind of rationalization works, and religious tales are all rationalizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No, that is for people who can convince the masses.

Dial in for your vote for Universal Idol now

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Is it this post? 

Yep. 

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

If so it speaks to the physical/chemical properties of the brain, but doesn't disprove the afterlife.

What other properties are known to, or are theorised to exist? 

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

What if the afterlife is due to an energy we can't detect?

That's covered in that post, as both Sean Carroll and Brian Cox say:

  • There is no force that can maintain that complexity, if there was we could detect it. If it was too weak to detect it would not be capable of maintaining the complexity of the brain. 

I can't see why that conclusion would be incorrect? The LHC is a convincing supporting apparatus which well supports that statement. Is there any valid theory to challenge that conclusion or a theory that some such force connected to our brains should exist? 

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

What if our brain data goes somewhere, but leaves the exact amount of energy behind?

A copy? 

What suggests that might be the case? What would be a precedent in nature? 

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Does printing a picture from a computer mean the computer lost energy?

Its data, ours is chemical. We have gone so far as to film a mouse actually chemically storing a memory in its brain. We know where the data is, and that it is extremely complex. Such a structure would be difficult to replicate in its entirety unnoticed. I don't see why that would or should be the case? 

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Can the computer know where the printed picture Is? 

Without an IP or mac address, that picture isn't getting printed. 

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

True a computer know's when it prints, and if there is a printer, but the analogy should imply there has to be doubt. Which means there can not be a refutation, only a implied conclusion.

Then what about the analogy that unless obvious steps are taken to backup data, it's lost? 

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

True. But could not a machine be built that could create a thunder like noise, and yet be invisible to those on the ground. Thus, if we stretch things an explanation can be given. You can call it apologetics, or just making stuff up, but logically it also creates doubt. If only a tiny bit. 

I shan't do so as I'm sorry but you lost me there. 

If we built a machine that replicated the noise of Thunder, how would that prove the Thor/hammer theory? 

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Science can weigh in and declare an individual occurrence of thunder to be non-Thor related, if it is observed. Otherwise you're assuming.

I would say not. We can deduce such fairly easily. We know there is atmosphere because we are breathing, and we know that electricity (lightning) splits air creating a vacuum resulting in the sound of thunder, so we can observe the lightning and deduce the time it would take for the thunderclap to arrive at hearing distance. We know a must lead to b must lead to c and can be predicted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Einstein was able to capture the imagination of the masses with something unprecedented that portrayed the world in a new way, Any scientist that could make a similar breakthrough that would explain the very matter of existence, would trump that. It won't happen because no-one can even imagine such a thing. People were able to get their heads around Einstein's discoveries to at least some extent., if no can imagine it, it can't capture that imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
57 minutes ago, Habitat said:

What ? You told me the science is In, correct weight, pay the winner !

Prove it wrong then. You claim to be science orientated. If so, you must know that is how it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

I couldn't care less what Cox believes in, and I don't even know I'd say I "believe" in God myself, it being a completely undefined ,and must also be an undefinable proposition or we'd have to account for what lay outside the definition. But clearly few scientists are prepared to make the kind of bold "guesses" P101 is apt to. What I would say is that rational thinking can't account for the enigma of existence, and that is the sole reason God was "invented". The afterlife is a more defined proposition, but similarly can't be disproved.

It certainly couldn't account for it thousands of years ago. Its ridiculous to suggest that would be the case. That in no way validates God concepts. 

As for your blind support of afterlife theory, you have no credibility, nothing to support your views. Just a bad guess. It's plain to see you avoid the science because you got nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It certainly couldn't account for it thousands of years ago. Its ridiculous to suggest that would be the case. That in no way validates God concepts. 

Creation myths of all kinds only exist because rational thinking is limited to within a system. It can't explain the existence of the system. Rational thinking is nothing new., hence creation myths are nothing new.  It is just a filler that tries to stop up the gap. No rationalization will work, and all religions and creation myths are rationalizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
12 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Einstein was able to capture the imagination of the masses with something unprecedented that portrayed the world in a new way, Any scientist that could make a similar breakthrough that would explain the very matter of existence, would trump that. It won't happen because no-one can even imagine such a thing. People were able to get their heads around Einstein's discoveries to at least some extent., if no can imagine it, it can't capture that imagination.

You honestly missed all the noise about Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing? Agree with it or not, Dawkins compares it to On the Origin of Species, and dramatically suggests it might be cosmology’s “deadliest blow to supernaturalism”. 

Now I'm not saying that is or is not the case. What I am saying is that there was a big noise. You apparently missed it. Krauss did world tours on the subject and the Dawkins / Krauss feature, The Unbelievers is based on it. 

It happened Rip Van Winkle. You must have been tuned into the Bold and the Beautiful in between morse code episodes and missed it all :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

You honestly missed all the noise about Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing? Agree with it or not, Dawkins compares it to On the Origin of Species, and dramatically suggests it might be cosmology’s “deadliest blow to supernaturalism”. 

Now I'm not saying that is or is not the case. What I am saying is that there was a big noise. You apparently missed it. Krauss did world tours on the subject and the Dawkins / Krauss feature, The Unbelievers is based on it. 

It happened Rip Van Winkle. You must have been tuned into the Bold and the Beautiful in between morse code episodes and missed it all :lol:

They would have probably interrupted the B & B to bring the staggering news to the public, but alas, no such scoop appeared. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
33 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Creation myths of all kinds only exist because rational thinking is limited to within a system. It can't explain the existence of the system. Rational thinking is nothing new., hence creation myths are nothing new.  It is just a filler that tries to stop up the gap. No rationalization will work, and all religions and creation myths are rationalizations.

That's why QMs virtual particles are a very difficult concept to understand and in your case accept. Our brains are wired for the macro, not the micro. Leading physicists are our pioneers into this new world. QM is not what we consider 'rational'. But it does offer the most likely answer to existance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

They would have probably interrupted the B & B to bring the staggering news to the public, but alas, no such scoop appeared. 

I bet they did, you probably slept through it :lol:

It was huge news. World tours even. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
54 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are endorsing the P101 "science rules out afterlife" dogma ? Be careful, he says it might all be revised if new information comes to hand. Science does not predict "no afterlife" but I would say it doesn't support one either. Not that I am hanging out for any news. I already know the answer. As to the how and why, I  know not. The enigma of existence is hardly inconsequential, it is the reason religion exists. To fill the gap where rational thinking no longer works. Not that any kind of rationalization works, and religious tales are all rationalizations.

Why do you keep giving @psyche101 the credit for ruling out the afterlife?

I've speculated you would need to find a gap for Carroll, Cox, Shermer, et al to be shown to be wrong. It's a similar situation to the Collatz Conjecture.

While you say you know what you know - but, not how or why - you've never said why it's impossible for you to be wrong.

Did you change your behaviour for the sake of the afterlife? If it doesn't demand consideration, it's inconsequential. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
17 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Why do you keep giving @psyche101 the credit for ruling out the afterlife?

I've been assuming that it's because I'm extremely charismatic and likeable 

:lol:

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just as long as you understand the opinion of “no good reason” IS NOT the same thing as “disproves”. The latter is untrue. 

'Disprove' is a judgment call though.  What is an example of something that has been disproven?  Have you truly exhausted all possibilities where whatever that thing is could be true?  How? 

If we believe creationism has been disproven then I don't know why we wouldn't say that the afterlife (as typically depicted) has been disproven, they seem to use parallel reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

'Disprove' is a judgment call though.  What is an example of something that has been disproven?  Have you truly exhausted all possibilities where whatever that thing is could be true?  How? 

If we believe creationism has been disproven then I don't know why we wouldn't say that the afterlife (as typically depicted) has been disproven, they seem to use parallel reasoning.

To your first point, as it’s not my argument to begin with you’re asking the wrong person. To your second point I would agree as the latter is dependent on the idea that the former exists and is responsible for its existence. 

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   2 members

    • Pettytalk
    • Golden Duck