• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

What do you think happens after death?

religion philosophy death spirituality afterlife reincarnation consciousness nothingness oblivion karma

  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#121 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,669 posts
  • -253
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 31 October 2017 - 08:33 PM

Shadowhawk:Are all things real testable with the scientific method?  What is three?  Is it real?  Did you test it?  Numbers are abstract objects and cam be used to describe the cosmos but Science did not make them anymore real than they were at the Big Bang.  By the way, the Big Bany is not repeatable.  That is why there is a philosophy of science.  Have you ever heard of the Kalam argument

 Nickthird: I think you are very confused about this, and I have no idea what you have in mind. Science is generally used to predict: if A then B, based on some experience. I have no idea why you are talking about numbers or "real" things here at all.

 

Well you seem to be saying real thing are  testable.  Some real thing are not testable by the scientific method.   Did you use the scientific metnod to prove the scientific method is the only way to dscover truth.?

 

Certain aspects of the big bang are being repeated at the large hadron collider in Europe. The big bang is a theory that can be tested today. For example, you calculate from that theory that the processes of the big bang would produce a certain ratio of particles and you can test that ratio in the universe today.

Here is the thing with science as opposed to religion. If someone predicts from the theory of the big bang that you can travel in time, nobody would build a time machine, and nobody would trust that deduction even if the logic is valid. They would indirectly empirically test its components as much as possible, and only then would it be used in real life. With religion some guy shits some words out of his mouth and the sheep blindly follow.  

Actually the theory of the big Bang came long before the hadron collider and is not repeatable by the collider.  I don't think you used the scientific method to base your comment on religion. Where is your proof?  How come many of the leading scientists in history were religious?

 

  

So how did you use this on Science itself.  What pproof do you have that science is the only way to truth and how did you scientifically prove science is the only way?  By the way I was a history major in my undergraduate work and I wonder how it is repeatable?  Some things are beyond this test and they are real..

In practice the only reason people trust science is because you see it working all the time. You use it because it has worked in the past. Science is empirically tested. Don't take this the wrong way and assume I mean that all that science produces is correct - no it is not. By definition no theory can ever be proven in science and no theory is the "truth". Science is not a simple or black and white as that. It will never claim to have found the ultimate explanation because that is not the goal of science. The goal of science is simply to predict: if A then B. The theory is just a mental tool used to think about the prediction, but the theory is not the main product of science at all, and its goal is never to come up with a story, that is always up to personal interpretation.

If something is not testable some people will claim it cannot be real by the definition of the word real which is: "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."  

  So you didn't test it or use the scientific method.?  You have a pragmatic test to justify your view?  Some very good scientists were Nazis and they built some very efficient gas chambers and rockets.  They worked in practice.  How does Science work with ethics? 

Indeed to its credit Science often shows conclusions of scientists to be wrong.  Science is a method not a conclusion.  So can you claim Science and Religion are opposed when you yourself are starting to acknowledge its limitations.

  

Did you prove this scientifically or is it your faith?  Why is Logical Positivism, A PHILOSOPHY,  now out of favor?

It is my empirical observation that sometimes you cannot rely on experience in social context. I suppose that makes that deduction scientific. A faith is when you trust someone else blindly to make decisions for you, I am not doing that. 

Try this defination of faith.  Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  It is a belief based upon incomplete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.  “Faith” Involves Making An Inference From Evidence to belief.  The difference between faith and superstition is that the first uses reason to go as far as it can and then believes; the second shuns reason entirely—which is why superstition is not the ally, but the enemy of true religion.  Faith is the most reasonable inference from evidence
 

 

 



#122 nickthird

  • Registered User
  • 154 posts
  • 11
  • Location:in between homes

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:42 AM

Some real thing are not testable by the scientific method. Did you use the scientific metnod to prove the scientific method is the only way to dscover truth.?

 

So you didn't test it or use the scientific method.?

 

You are clearly not reading my replies.

 

 

 

Some very good scientists were Nazis and they built some very efficient gas chambers and rockets.  They worked in practice.  How does Science work with ethics? 

The scientific method has nothing to do with ethics. However, there are ethics boards whenever experiments involve humans or animals (usually in bio/chem science).

 

 

 

Science is a method not a conclusion.  So can you claim Science and Religion are opposed when you yourself are starting to acknowledge its limitations.

Are you saying that religion is not opposed to science because it is a conclusion and science has no conclusions about the truth in this life? Man you really need to be more clear...

 

The scientific method can help you estimate what would happen if you follow religion because it is used for prediction. It is true that the scientific method has no opinion on heaven or hell in essence, but it can sure tell you that doing any religious stuff in this life will get you nothing while you are alive. Positivism, if one chooses to adopt it, has an opinion on religion, and it is that religion should be ignored because it is meaningless.

 

The methods by which the religious and scientific minds reach a conclusion on what to do in this life are opposed, as I explained before.

 

Try this defination of faith.

How about you try the dictionary definition.



#123 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,669 posts
  • -253
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 03 November 2017 - 09:45 PM

The scientific method has nothing to do with ethics. However, there are ethics boards whenever experiments involve humans or animals (usually in bio/chem science).re you saying that religion is not opposed to science because it is a conclusion and science has no conclusions about the truth in this life? Man you really need to be more clear..

 

 No.  Is that clear.?  Are Ethics which judge some acts real?   Because there were many good Nazi scientists who or what judges them and their acts?  Something not scientific like a moral code?

 

 The scientific method can help you estimate what would happen if you follow religion because it is used for prediction. It is true that the scientific method has no opinion on heaven or hell in essence, but it can sure tell you that doing any religious stuff in this life will get you nothing while you are alive. Positivism, if one chooses to adopt it, has an opinion on religion, and it is that religion should be ignored because it is meaningless. The methods by which the religious and scientific minds reach a conclusion on what to do in this life are opposed, as I explained before.

 

So what is that scientific  estimate?    Science has no opinion on anything.  It is a method not a position.  You on the other hand do have opinions which are not to be mistaken for science.    Don't mistake the philosophy  of positivism for science, as you said it is an opinion.  You have said many things that are not science.

 

 How about you try the dictionary definition of faith.

 

Which dictionary?


Edited by shadowhawk, 03 November 2017 - 10:01 PM.


#124 nickthird

  • Registered User
  • 154 posts
  • 11
  • Location:in between homes

Posted 06 November 2017 - 11:36 PM

"

No.  Is that clear.?  Are Ethics which judge some acts real?   Because there were many good Nazi scientists who or what judges them and their acts?  Something not scientific like a moral code?

"

The Nazis did in part do scientific work torturing people and behaving unethically. A lot about what we know about the limits of human beings comes from the data collected when the Nazis murdered, mutilated and tortured innocents (like putting people in ice and waiting to see when they die and at what temperature).

 

The judges in science are your peers, it is called peer-review. When you submit a paper they pick random people from your expertise to review it and give you feedback.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about ethics being "real" that is just not the appropriate word to describe something like ethics. That's like asking is a sentence real. I can also ask is the letter a vivid? is a house fast? is justice moist? all those questions are meaningless because you are accessing a property that the noun doesn't have.

 

"

So what is that scientific  estimate?    Science has no opinion on anything.  It is a method not a position.  You on the other hand do have opinions which are not to be mistaken for science.    Don't mistake the philosophy  of positivism for science, as you said it is an opinion.  You have said many things that are not science.

"

There have been some studies where the scientific method has been applied to test religion, they pretty much all failed. See here and here for example. In addition, many findings of science contradict religious claims about the world and life as we know it.

 

Yes, science is not an opinion, however you would be hard pressed to find a serious scientist who does not apply positivism.

 

"

Which dictionary?

"

If you google "define: faith" you get:

"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

 

 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: religion, philosophy, death, spirituality, afterlife, reincarnation, consciousness, nothingness, oblivion, karma

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users