GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff

[Steophan]

@Stoid

Read the page I quoted from, he explains it better than I can. Although I think it speaks for itself - you are arguing from knowledge only of “the science of the day”, without any allowance that science will continue to advance, and that advance might lead to new information and understanding, exactly the way it has previously. I covered this in the OP…this IS the damn OP, for god’s sake!

No, I’m arguing from logic, and the truth value of a logical proposition is not modified by the science of the day. So, to state it again, a spiritual afterlife is logically impossible because nothing can, by definition, exist but be completely intangible, yet the spirit described by everyone who believes in it is intangible.
A physical afterlife is scientifically impossible, which as I’ve repeatedly noted is subject to change.

No amount of science can make 1+1=3, can make X=notX, or anything else that is logically impossible.

[Czarcasm]

@Stoid

I disagree.

I’m coming from possibility, you are coming from rigid certainty. I think the first one who has the responsibility to cite is the one making rigidly certain assertions. If you disagree, I’m open to an argument for your disagreement.

You are coming from possibility? Possibility of what, exactly? Please describe this “soul” that you believe is possible, so that others can test to see if you are correct.

[Kozmik]

@Lobohan

I know you didn’t ask me, but I’d tell that person that he’s high and should lie down.

How do you know that I didn’t ask you?
You might say, “There doesn’t need to be a reason for the cosmos to exist.”

And I say, “What about *you *and I?”

[Czarcasm]

@Kozmik

How do you know that I didn’t ask you?
You might say, “There doesn’t need to be a reason for the cosmos to exist.”

And I say, “What about *you *and I?”

Yeah, you seem to have a truckload of pseudo-intellectual questions.
I don’t suppose you’ve come to any solid conclusions?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Czarcasm

You are coming from possibility? Possibility of what, exactly? Please describe this “soul” that you believe is possible, so that others can test to see if you are correct.

Are you saying you’re unable to live with uncertainty or mystery? That you won’t even consider the possibility of something, unless someone will describe or explain to you exactly what that something would be?

[Czarcasm]

@Thudlow_Boink

Are you saying you’re unable to live with uncertainty or mystery? That you won’t even consider the possibility of something, unless someone will describe or explain to you exactly what that something would be?

Tell me something-If I tell you that the Heuermet Field determines which shoe you put on first when you get up, would you be willing to consider it possible?

[Lobohan]

@Kozmik

How do you know that I didn’t ask you?

Because you quoted Czarcasm.

You might say, “There doesn’t need to be a reason for the cosmos to exist.”

I do in fact say that.

And I say, “What about *you *and I?”

What about us? We’re sacs of chemicals that can love. Sometimes supernovae produce sacks of chemicals that can love.

What’s confusing you here?

[Kozmik]

@Lobohan

Because you quoted Czarcasm.

So? I’ve quoted Czarcasm before.

[Kozmik]

@Lobohan

I do in fact say that.

I say that, too. Yet questions remain. What’s the reason for you and me?

@Czarcasm

I don’t suppose you’ve come to any solid conclusions?

Either the cosmos exists or you and I exist.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Kozmik

I say that, too. Yet questions remain. What’s the reason for you and me?

Why do you think there has to be a reason?

Either the cosmos exists or you and I exist.

All three exist.

[Czarcasm]

@Kozmik

I say that, too. Yet questions remain. What’s the reason for you and me?

Either the cosmos exists or you and I exist.

That’s so…heavy, dude!

[Kozmik]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

All three exist.

How?

[Fantome]

@Kozmik

How?

Are you really asking how we and the Universe exists at the same time? You realize most people believe both us and the Universe exists at the same time so why not just tell us what you’re getting at.

[Kozmik]

@Fantome

Are you really asking how we and the Universe exists at the same time? You realize most people believe both us and the Universe exists at the same time so why not just tell us what you’re getting at.

Can all three, or any three, not exist?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Kozmik

How?

Huh?

Can all three, or any three, not exist?

Sure.

[Lobohan]

@Kozmik

Can all three, or any three, not exist?

You know you’re just incoherent at this point, right?

[Fantome]

You said, “Either the cosmos exists or you and I exist.” You realized that was a provocative statement yet didn’t explain what you meant by it. Dio replied “All three exist”, which is what most of us accept. You then ask “how” instead of explaining what you’re getting at and when I ask you to do that, you ask me another question. All the game playing going on in GD lately is getting really annoying. Just explain what “Either the cosmos exists or you and I exist” means already and knock off the bullshit.

[Kozmik]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Sure.

Please explain.
(My question is for you. I know you don’t make attacks on any posters and you’ve been a good contributor to the OP)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I’m not sure what you expect me to explain. The universe could not exist by not existing. So could I, and so could you. There is no discernable reason that the universe has to exist, and even less that we do.

[Stoid]

@Czarcasm

Yeah, you seem to have a truckload of pseudo-intellectual questions.
I don’t suppose you’ve come to any solid conclusions?

Forgive me if I’m mistunderstanding, but I detect a sneer in this question, as though questions are somehow “less than” conclusions. If that’s your intended meaning, I’d like you to explain it, since I find it startling.