Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Do you believe in life after death?
  • Subject: Do you believe in life after death?
Subject: Do you believe in life after death?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

He who wishes for peace must first prepare for war.

The faster you die, the less time you have to worry about what happens when you die.

  • 01.01.2013 12:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

He who wishes for peace must first prepare for war.

The force will be with you, always.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 1:10 PM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 12:50 PM PDT

Don't LOL if you aren't L'inOL.

Halo: Reach
Halo 3
Halo ODST

Yes, but only 'cause i'm scared

  • 01.01.2013 12:50 PM PDT

I am not concerned with that which cannot be proven.

  • 01.01.2013 12:51 PM PDT

There is no death,there is the force

  • 01.01.2013 1:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

He who wishes for peace must first prepare for war.


Posted by: Edmi Wohusee
No. There's enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise.


It's more probable that God is real.

The Kalam cosmological argument advanced by Dr. Craig can be formulated as follows[1]:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2. The Universe began to exist
C. Therefore, the Universe had a cause

1. is seemingly indisputable. As Craig put it, out of nothing, nothing comes! To deny this premise goes against reason and thousands of years of human observation and experience; indeed, to question it we must also question why things like a glass of orange juice or a cat do not just randomly appear out of nothing.

2. is more controversial, however there are good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that the Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point. On the scientific side, there is a startling and rapidly growing pile of evidence indicating that the Universe began to exist from literally nothing at the big bang. This theory is supported by repeated observations such as red shift showing that the Universe is still expanding from the big bang, and thermodynamics. On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite. Indeed imagine for a moment if I took an infitine number of dollar bills and lined them up in order of serial number, then imagine that I took out all of the dollar bills with even serial numbers and lined them up in a seperate line, what would be the results? I would also have an infinite number of even numbered dollar bills--a logical contradiction since that would entail that infinity minus infinity equals infinity! But clearly this is absurd! The idea that infinity can exist in reality is simply philosophically bankrupt, causing the mathmetician David Hillbert to conclude[2]:

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea..."

From these facts the conclusion logically follows. But what exactly does this conclusion entail? What could have possibly caused the Universe? We can logically deduce that whatever caused the Universe was outside of it (obviously, for nothing can logically create itself). The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds. But since numbers cannot cause anything, the cause must therefore be a mind. Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally but rather supernaturally. It must be above time, above space, and imensly if not all powerful in order to iniate the creation of all things from literally nothing. It follows then from the Cosmological argument that you have a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, imensely powerful, personal mind. Clearly this strongly confirms the God hypothesis.

II. Fine tuning

As scientists discover more about our world and it's beginnings they are discovering more and more that the paremeters allowing life to evolve are incredibly narrow and specific. Boa & Bowman[3] explain that, for example, if the strong nuclear force was off by 1% the Universe would be either all hydrogen or contain no Hydrogen at all, if the gravitational force was slightly stronger stars would be "so hot that they would burn out too quickly and unevenly [for life]", or if the electromagnetic force was weaker electrons would fly away before the could be bound into molecules, or if slightly stronger atoms would not be able to share, again leading to no molecules and thus no life. And so on and so forth. Indeed, even the initial beginning of the Universe has been fine tuned for the existence of life! In fact, the mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated that if the initial expansion rate after the big bang was altered by the absurdly small degree of 1 in 10^10123[4], life would not exist. So remarkable is it that our Universe contains these sets of values that even Stephen Hawkins concluded[5]: "...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".

Since its been proven both scientifically and philosophically that the Universe must have had an absolute beginnng, the continued observations of the extremely specific conditions for life to exist strongly disconfirms naturalism.
even more absurdly specific. For example, to even have a life permitting galaxy certain conditions must be met, for example the galaxy likely must be a spiral[6],[7] and must be far enough away from other galaxies that they do not interfere gravitationally with one another. Any life permitting star must be on the fringe of a spiral arm so that they are not too close to other stars, or too far to obtain many heavy elements needed for the creation of planets[8], and the star must be the right size and right distance from other stars in order to sustain life. A life permitting solar system needs to have planets certain distances away, ect and any the individual planets must be certain distances from the star and other planets and have an atmosphere and orbit consitent enough to substain life constantly. All this for just life, let alone intelligent life which constitutes .00000001% of all the species on Earth[9], a number best described as 0.

Moreover since science has failed to give a reasonable explanation for the abiotic generation of life, the fine tuning of the Universe and the existence of life strongly indicate design from an intelligent and powerful mind. One can do no better than to once again quote Dr Craig: "The odds against the fine tuning occurring by accident are so iincomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced"




III. Metaphysics

Smith and Kendzierski explain that the fundamental question of existence is "why are there any existents at all, actual or possible?"[10] They argue further that the question continues to why are there two existents? Or three? Or any other number? The conclusion they draw is that existents exist because there is a cause. This seems to line up with human experience and mainstream philosophy, but the conclusion they draw from this is one profound but seemingly indisputable: "the cause of multiple being is uncaused"[11]. Indeed, how could it be anything else? The implication of this is enourmous, the fact that anything at all exists requires some kind of first cause, an uncaused cause from which all other existents, actual or possible, come into being.

Multiplicity (that existents exist seperately- even though two atoms may have the exact same numbers of particals, they are not the same existent, or else there would only be one atom) has to be caused-- possible existants (for example, any future children one will have) cannot actualize themselves, cannot bring themselves into being, or else they would be actual, not possible. They must be brought into being by a cause. Everything that did not at one point exist (including everything that physically exists) was brought into being by some cause ad infintum until we reach the final cause--the uncaused cause that brought all else into being. This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe, what else could have caused all other existents? An intelligent creator meets this criteria, nothing else does. The authors further explain that we can only fully indentify: "the cause of [existence], God. Short of God we only identify causes in the sense that they circumscribe the area...bad food makes on sick, but what is "bad" in bad food? Bacteria no doubt. But what is bad in them? So we go on. Thus the attempt to answer 'whodunit' is successful only to the extent indicated, but the demonstration that someboy or something within a circumbscribed area did the job can be successful, but the demonstration that God causes multiple existences is the only instance of complete identification of a cause." [emphasis mine][12]

A first cause, God, is the only explanation for multiple existents.

It follows from these arguments that theists are amply justified in their claim that God does indeed exist.


http://debate.org/debates/It-is-probable-that-God-exists/8/

  • 01.01.2013 1:19 PM PDT

Are the mods comatose or something?

  • 01.01.2013 1:24 PM PDT

Posted by: Dropship dude
No, acnboy. Spartain Ken 15 is a lesser being. Much like the bacteria that lives in your shi­t.
Posted by: mike120593
My shi­t bacteria takes offense to that comparison.

Don't make me lel. You won't like me when I lel.

Posted by: InClusions>kalam

  • 01.01.2013 1:27 PM PDT


Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: mav1972kit
We can't say for sure. Souls probably give us an even greater perception of things, by expanding on our sixth sense.

Souls? Please explain why a "soul" is necessary to give a biological organism life. I believe enough knowledge has been gathered in the realms of neurology to deem our complex neural networks the reason we can have thought, not some transcendant shadow of a body that superimposes our physical one.


....Do you usually talk like this? If you do, I envy you, however:

The biological organism already has life, but it needs a soul, just like a car needs a driver. The soul is our universal ID, that dwells within a body. The brain controls us, as long as our soul still dwells in it. The soul may leave at death.

Also, you do realise that this is still, only the twenty-first century. A while ago, we used to believe in spontaneous generation occuring in nature. What we know now, does not completely eliminate the possibility of otherworldly powers.

  • 01.01.2013 1:27 PM PDT


Posted by: Halofreak60175
Are the mods comatose or something?

I've seen, like 5 threads get locked while this one was active, yet this one is still going.

  • 01.01.2013 1:28 PM PDT

Yeah, sure. Anyone who says no is dumb >:(

  • 01.01.2013 1:28 PM PDT


Posted by: Halofreak60175
Are the mods comatose or something?

Maybe, or they might just be sitting there and laughing at the flamewars.

OT: My answer is yes and no. I am a firm believer in Christian mortalism, which basically says that immediately after death, there is nothing. Later on, you're resurrected for judgement. In a sense, I don't, but in another sense, I do.

  • 01.01.2013 1:29 PM PDT

Varsity rower

I refuse to believe this is the only life we get to live.

  • 01.01.2013 1:30 PM PDT

Posted by: Dropship dude
No, acnboy. Spartain Ken 15 is a lesser being. Much like the bacteria that lives in your shi­t.
Posted by: mike120593
My shi­t bacteria takes offense to that comparison.

Don't make me lel. You won't like me when I lel.

Posted by: mav1972kit
Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: mav1972kit
We can't say for sure. Souls probably give us an even greater perception of things, by expanding on our sixth sense.

Souls? Please explain why a "soul" is necessary to give a biological organism life. I believe enough knowledge has been gathered in the realms of neurology to deem our complex neural networks the reason we can have thought, not some transcendant shadow of a body that superimposes our physical one.


....Do you usually talk like this? If you do, I envy you, however:

The biological organism already has life, but it needs a soul, just like a car needs a driver. The soul is our universal ID, that dwells within a body. The brain controls us, as long as our soul still dwells in it. The soul may leave at death.

Also, you do realise that this is still, only the twenty-first century. A while ago, we used to believe in spontaneous generation occuring in nature. What we know now, does not completely eliminate the possibility of otherworldly powers.
Why does it need a soul? We already know the body works just fine without assuming one exist, Occam's razor should tell you that no extra assumptions are necessary.

Also, it is still an entirely unreasonable position to believe in supernatural powers. Yes, we may be wrong, but that does not excuse ignoring the total lack of evidence for them.

  • 01.01.2013 1:30 PM PDT

~:O>~~

Countless of people have died in history and yet there are still people walking around,

yes...

There is life after death.

  • 01.01.2013 1:31 PM PDT

Posted by: x Foman123 x

Posted by: TH3_AV3NG3R
What house has a rocket pod, has legs, and has a long narrow barrel that probably shoots something powerful?

Sounds like you're describing the lower half of my body, actually.


Posted by: Carthurlane
Countless of people have died in history and yet there are still people walking around,

yes...

There is life after death.

icwatudidthere.

  • 01.01.2013 1:32 PM PDT

"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."

Yes, I do. OP, I think this topic is awfully close to the line. Be careful.......

  • 01.01.2013 1:32 PM PDT

I would post what I think but I would need to post some verses but I don't wanna do that.

  • 01.01.2013 1:34 PM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

Posted by: InClusions
Posted by: Edmi Wohusee
No. There's enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise.


It's more probable that God is real.

The Kalam cosmological argument advanced by Dr. Craig can be formulated as follows[1]:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2. The Universe began to exist
C. Therefore, the Universe had a cause

1. is seemingly indisputable. As Craig put it, out of nothing, nothing comes! To deny this premise goes against reason and thousands of years of human observation and experience; indeed, to question it we must also question why things like a glass of orange juice or a cat do not just randomly appear out of nothing.

2. is more controversial, however there are good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that the Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point. On the scientific side, there is a startling and rapidly growing pile of evidence indicating that the Universe began to exist from literally nothing at the big bang. This theory is supported by repeated observations such as red shift showing that the Universe is still expanding from the big bang, and thermodynamics. On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite. Indeed imagine for a moment if I took an infitine number of dollar bills and lined them up in order of serial number, then imagine that I took out all of the dollar bills with even serial numbers and lined them up in a seperate line, what would be the results? I would also have an infinite number of even numbered dollar bills--a logical contradiction since that would entail that infinity minus infinity equals infinity! But clearly this is absurd! The idea that infinity can exist in reality is simply philosophically bankrupt, causing the mathmetician David Hillbert to conclude[2]:

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea..."

From these facts the conclusion logically follows. But what exactly does this conclusion entail? What could have possibly caused the Universe? We can logically deduce that whatever caused the Universe was outside of it (obviously, for nothing can logically create itself). The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds. But since numbers cannot cause anything, the cause must therefore be a mind. Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally but rather supernaturally. It must be above time, above space, and imensly if not all powerful in order to iniate the creation of all things from literally nothing. It follows then from the Cosmological argument that you have a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, imensely powerful, personal mind. Clearly this strongly confirms the God hypothesis.

II. Fine tuning

As scientists discover more about our world and it's beginnings they are discovering more and more that the paremeters allowing life to evolve are incredibly narrow and specific. Boa & Bowman[3] explain that, for example, if the strong nuclear force was off by 1% the Universe would be either all hydrogen or contain no Hydrogen at all, if the gravitational force was slightly stronger stars would be "so hot that they would burn out too quickly and unevenly [for life]", or if the electromagnetic force was weaker electrons would fly away before the could be bound into molecules, or if slightly stronger atoms would not be able to share, again leading to no molecules and thus no life. And so on and so forth. Indeed, even the initial beginning of the Universe has been fine tuned for the existence of life! In fact, the mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated that if the initial expansion rate after the big bang was altered by the absurdly small degree of 1 in 10^10123[4], life would not exist. So remarkable is it that our Universe contains these sets of values that even Stephen Hawkins concluded[5]: "...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".

Since its been proven both scientifically and philosophically that the Universe must have had an absolute beginnng, the continued observations of the extremely specific conditions for life to exist strongly disconfirms naturalism.
even more absurdly specific. For example, to even have a life permitting galaxy certain conditions must be met, for example the galaxy likely must be a spiral[6],[7] and must be far enough away from other galaxies that they do not interfere gravitationally with one another. Any life permitting star must be on the fringe of a spiral arm so that they are not too close to other stars, or too far to obtain many heavy elements needed for the creation of planets[8], and the star must be the right size and right distance from other stars in order to sustain life. A life permitting solar system needs to have planets certain distances away, ect and any the individual planets must be certain distances from the star and other planets and have an atmosphere and orbit consitent enough to substain life constantly. All this for just life, let alone intelligent life which constitutes .00000001% of all the species on Earth[9], a number best described as 0.

Moreover since science has failed to give a reasonable explanation for the abiotic generation of life, the fine tuning of the Universe and the existence of life strongly indicate design from an intelligent and powerful mind. One can do no better than to once again quote Dr Craig: "The odds against the fine tuning occurring by accident are so iincomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced"




III. Metaphysics

Smith and Kendzierski explain that the fundamental question of existence is "why are there any existents at all, actual or possible?"[10] They argue further that the question continues to why are there two existents? Or three? Or any other number? The conclusion they draw is that existents exist because there is a cause. This seems to line up with human experience and mainstream philosophy, but the conclusion they draw from this is one profound but seemingly indisputable: "the cause of multiple being is uncaused"[11]. Indeed, how could it be anything else? The implication of this is enourmous, the fact that anything at all exists requires some kind of first cause, an uncaused cause from which all other existents, actual or possible, come into being.

Multiplicity (that existents exist seperately- even though two atoms may have the exact same numbers of particals, they are not the same existent, or else there would only be one atom) has to be caused-- possible existants (for example, any future children one will have) cannot actualize themselves, cannot bring themselves into being, or else they would be actual, not possible. They must be brought into being by a cause. Everything that did not at one point exist (including everything that physically exists) was brought into being by some cause ad infintum until we reach the final cause--the uncaused cause that brought all else into being. This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe, what else could have caused all other existents? An intelligent creator meets this criteria, nothing else does. The authors further explain that we can only fully indentify: "the cause of [existence], God. Short of God we only identify causes in the sense that they circumscribe the area...bad food makes on sick, but what is "bad" in bad food? Bacteria no doubt. But what is bad in them? So we go on. Thus the attempt to answer 'whodunit' is successful only to the extent indicated, but the demonstration that someboy or something within a circumbscribed area did the job can be successful, but the demonstration that God causes multiple existences is the only instance of complete identification of a cause." [emphasis mine][12]

A first cause, God, is the only explanation for multiple existents.

It follows from these arguments that theists are amply justified in their claim that God does indeed exist.


http://debate.org/debates/It-is-probable-that-God-exists/8/

> 2013
> Still using the Kalam cosmological argument
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I also love the Stephen Hawking quote-mining. It's like you're deliberately trying to come across as being wrong.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 1:38 PM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 1:36 PM PDT

46% of the Flood is retarded.

  • 01.01.2013 1:37 PM PDT


Posted by: Bungie Sam
Yes. Life will continue to exist beyond my apparent death.


Well, what if life is actually existent around you, a dream of yourself if you will.

And death is merely you waking up.

  • 01.01.2013 1:37 PM PDT


Posted by: random no337
Posted by: mav1972kit
Posted by: WinyPit82
Posted by: mav1972kit
We can't say for sure. Souls probably give us an even greater perception of things, by expanding on our sixth sense.

Souls? Please explain why a "soul" is necessary to give a biological organism life. I believe enough knowledge has been gathered in the realms of neurology to deem our complex neural networks the reason we can have thought, not some transcendant shadow of a body that superimposes our physical one.


....Do you usually talk like this? If you do, I envy you, however:

The biological organism already has life, but it needs a soul, just like a car needs a driver. The soul is our universal ID, that dwells within a body. The brain controls us, as long as our soul still dwells in it. The soul may leave at death.

Also, you do realise that this is still, only the twenty-first century. A while ago, we used to believe in spontaneous generation occuring in nature. What we know now, does not completely eliminate the possibility of otherworldly powers.
Why does it need a soul? We already know the body works just fine without assuming one exist, Occam's razor should tell you that no extra assumptions are necessary.

Also, it is still an entirely unreasonable position to believe in supernatural powers. Yes, we may be wrong, but that does not excuse ignoring the total lack of evidence for them.


The person's soul needs to be in the body for people to experience it.



As for lacking evidense, either of us could be wrong. I agree with us lacking evidense, but, that is faith, and I'm free to believe in faith. Hell, I agree with evidence, but it all just ends up as a matter of decision.

But you know, believing in an afterlife gives you the best reward, while not believing, and being right gives you nothing.

  • 01.01.2013 1:49 PM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

Posted by: mav1972kit
But you know, believing in an afterlife gives you the best reward, while not believing, and being right gives you nothing.

...Seriously? Pascal's Wager? Do you even logic?

  • 01.01.2013 1:58 PM PDT


Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: mav1972kit
But you know, believing in an afterlife gives you the best reward, while not believing, and being right gives you nothing.

...Seriously? Pascal's Wager? Do you even logic?


I, really don't have anything to lose by believing.

  • 01.01.2013 2:00 PM PDT


Posted by: mav1972kit

Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: mav1972kit
But you know, believing in an afterlife gives you the best reward, while not believing, and being right gives you nothing.

...Seriously? Pascal's Wager? Do you even logic?


I, really don't have anything to lose by believing.


Pascal's wager is ridiculous though. There is as much evidence for a god that grants you eternal life if you believe in him than a god who only grants you eternal life as long as you never eat any chicken. Or maybe if you do believe in whatever you believe in, god sends you to hell. We don't know anything about it and there's no scientific evidence either way so its pointless to try and defend some specific conclusion/belief.

So you really have nothing to gain, because there are an infinite number of possibilities.

  • 01.01.2013 2:06 PM PDT