Originally Posted by manaya

oh wow .. tat was fast =P

Ok a better question, What is the likelihood of there being an afterlife? Explain

On a philosophical note, the afterlife has to exist because it is after life. I guess, it is truly death; the only thing which is honest and faithful. If you are talking about heaven or hell, that is a completely different concept, which leans more towards religion.

I'd die happy the day people accept the fact that religion is just a fairy tale.

Originally Posted by funkdmonkey

I'd die happy the day people accept the fact that religion is just a fairy tale.

Does that statement include the notion of God as well?

Originally Posted by pinkshuniza

Does that statement include the notion of God as well?

Being the most integral part of religion ... im guessing yes ?

- Abhi

Originally Posted by pinkshuniza

Does that statement include the notion of God as well?

Yes, I say it does. Most people who haven't learned much about religion or "spirituality" don't separate "god" from religion".

Either way, our world would be a better place without either.

EDIT: I realize that my statement implies that a god exists, which I actually don't believe. I believe that since there is no evidence for the existence of a god or any god-like figure, that one must not exist. Until someone proves the existence of a god-like figure, I won't believe in one. I also am not "spritual" or "religious" in any other way.

Originally Posted by manaya

Ok a better question, What is the likelihood of there being an afterlife? Explain

I like believing in reincarnation. Sooooooooooo I guess that sort of counts?
I say it is high because come on, being a human can be boring. Don't you want to be a hummingbird or a butterfly or an elephant? ORRRRRRR e-coli o.O

Originally Posted by Duarch

I say it is high because come on, being a human can be boring. Don't you want to be a hummingbird or a butterfly or an elephant? ORRRRRRR e-coli o.O

I hope you're joking, because just wanting something doesn't make it happen. :S

Originally Posted by Taunton

I hope you're joking, because just wanting something doesn't make it happen. :S

This is religion.
Of course it does!

Originally Posted by lawleypop

This is religion.
Of course it does!

LOL tell me about it! F video games, religion is where fantasy becomes reality! :p

Saying that 'god' doesn't exist is almost meaningless unless you define your terms. Theistic? Deistic? etc.

It is also presumptuous considering many men much more intelligent than you or I have thought long and hard about these questions and there is no consensus.

Originally Posted by hmmmcurious

Saying that 'god' doesn't exist is almost meaningless unless you define your terms. Theistic? Deistic? etc.

It is also presumptuous considering many men much more intelligent than you or I have thought long and hard about these questions and there is no consensus.

Why does intelligence level matter if it's impossible to prove "god?" (This is a legitimate question)

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Why does intelligence level matter if it's impossible to prove "god?" (This is a legitimate question)

greater intelligence => greater ability to reason => arguments that are logically sound.

That is what I meant. Really, all I'm trying to say is that the issue is really complicated. We can debate it up and down, as people have for centuries. I think to say that we have the answer and everyone else is wrong is ignorant. But that is just my opinion.

Originally Posted by hmmmcurious

greater intelligence => greater ability to reason => arguments that are logically sound.

That is what I meant. Really, all I'm trying to say is that the issue is really complicated. We can debate it up and down, as people have for centuries. I think to say that we have the answer and everyone else is wrong is ignorant. But that is just my opinion.

Or, one can say that there is no reasoning to religion. One doesn't have to be considered intelligent to be able to say "What if" and draw a conclusion based off that.

There is a consensus...the 'problem of God' is what's called not-decidable. Believe it or not, it's a problem of Mathematical Logic, and so I present a theorem:


Theorem: God can be neither proven nor disproven

Really when I say God here, I'm refering to anything supernatural...and by supernatural of course, I mean 'not detectable by science.'

This is broken into essentially 4 parts:

Lemma 1: You can never prove God exists.

Case 1: God does not exist

-You can't prove that which does not exist, so no proof exists.

Case 2: Goes does exist

-Any proof of God using scientific (or say, mathematical) means would require manipulation of God...but given that God exists in this case, that contradicts what God is, ie. we can't manipulate or have any power over God. So again, no proof exists.

Lemma 2: You can never disprove God exists.

You can actually use an almost identical proof as the one for Lemma 1 (and just change a few words) but here's a more technical (and hopefully more convincing) proof (since this appears to be the side drawing more controversy):

Proof:

Basic Idea: Suppose you had a method of proof, which extended to the 'supernatural.' That is, we had enough (say scientific) power to make claims regarding things which are supernatural. Well, we certainly can't do this today, we'd have to completely refine science to be well...not science.

Its principles would then no longer be based on strict axioms or measurements, and your proof would consist of things which are not verifiable, and so would not be 'proof' since there would be discrepancies.

So the proof, though it may be a valid argument on an individual level, is not a proof.

Of course not everyone will buy this, so here's the more detailed explanation:

Rigorous Details:

I can create 2 different formal systems, one of which shows 2 + 2 = 4, and one of which shows 2 + 2 = 3.

AXIOM: ^p^^ q ^^
RULE OF INFERENCE: If x is a string, then so is ^x^.
INTERPRETATION:
# of ^ in a row gives a number
p is +
q is =

So our axiom is 1 + 2 = 2. Applying the rule once, we get 2 + 2 = 3.

For the 'proper' system, we have to change the axiom from ^p^^q^^ to ^p^^q^^^.


So what I've done is given two different 'possible answers' to 2 + 2. How do we know which is right?

Well, we have to prove one of our systems is the 'correct' one. But unfortunately, the only way to prove something completely true is to prove our axioms...using those very axioms, which is cyclic reasoning.

Or to think about it another way, you need to show that, both, your formal system is consistent (ie. doesn't produce any 'false theorems') and complete (ie. everything is provable, either true or false.)

But good old Kurt Godel (specifically, his first incompleteness theorem) tells us, this is impossible:

"Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...ness_the orem


So we have no way of proving that 2 + 2 = 4, and can only deduce it as a theorem within one specific formal system.


So what does this mean? Well, now if we have a formal system which disproves God...how do we know there isn't another one out there, which proves God? Infact, it's very easy to make one of each type:

System 1:
AXIOM: God exists.

System 2:
AXIOM: God does not exist.

How do we prove that either system is 'more correct' than the other? ... we can't, because it would require consistency and completeness, which is a contradiction.



So we can't disprove God either. (infact, this also shows we can't prove God)


----------------------


So what am I trying to say here? Basically that whether you believe in God, or believe there is no God, you believe in absence of proof...and to 'wait for proof' to start investigating the other side, is fruitless...you'll never get the opportunity.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Until someone proves the existence of a god-like figure, I won't believe in one.

No offense, but this is kind of a ridiculous statement...because if someone proves the existence of God...then you won't believe. You'll know. That's not what faith is.

We've had discussions in the past, and I'm pretty sure you believe in the concept of TT (pi), so I'm going to reasonably guess that you believe in the concept of 'infinity' or in other words, 'things growing without bound.' ... but why? What 'scientific evidence' is there behind things being infinite? Or, in the context we were discussing, something having 'a length of pi' ?

Simple: Someone sat down and made an axiom. We assume infinity exists, because we believe it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity


Why is this any different from someone sitting down and making an "Axiom of God?" Infact, that's in some sense how I treat faith and religion...as a set of axioms.

(I noted on here months back that I was writing a book over the past two summers on this very topic...of course it's at a standstill right now)

So what I'm arguing here is, believing in Infinity is no less absurd than believing in God.

Originally Posted by hmmmcurious

Saying that 'god' doesn't exist is almost meaningless unless you define your terms. Theistic? Deistic? etc.

It is also presumptuous considering many men much more intelligent than you or I have thought long and hard about these questions and there is no consensus.

I don't need to define my terms. I don't believe in any supernatural being that can't be tested for or otherwise proven to exist.

There's no evidence. That's my argument. You can't "prove" something doesn't exist (like a leprochaun) but you can prove it does exist (like a horse, or a dinosaur). So, until it's proven, then I have no reason to believe.

I frankly don't care what other "more intelligent" (based on what reasoning? eff that!) people have said, nothing that they have said has been convincing to me (and I am quite well read on this topic).