Why I'm an atheist

[qwik2learn]

This brings me back to my original point which was "how can there be a first cause if everything must have a cause?". This was the point to which you responded "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!", but I'd like to hear a better reasoned argument than that.

That's not a point/argument, it is merely a rhetorical question.
The initial cause would have to be self-caused, but this is seemingly absurd and unthinkable by us.
However, we are led to conclude a first cause by inductive reasoning, and to suppose any cause is to suppose a first cause.
We are compelled to regard sense impressions as the effect of some cause.
"If it is not the first cause, then by implication there must be a cause behind it, which thus becomes the real cause of the effect. Manifestly however complicated the assumptions, the same conclusion must be reached. We cannot ask how the changes in our consciousness are caused, without inevitably committing ourselves to the hypothesis of a First Cause."
Spencer's treatise: http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

[1714479201]

1714479201

[1714479201]

1714479201

[1714479201]

1714479201

[BADecker]

This brings me back to my original point which was "how can there be a first cause if everything must have a cause?". This was the point to which you responded "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!", but I'd like to hear a better reasoned argument than that.

That's not a point/argument, it is merely a rhetorical question.
The initial cause would have to be self-caused, but this is seemingly absurd and unthinkable by us.
However, we are led to conclude a first cause by inductive reasoning, and to suppose any cause is to suppose a first cause.
We are compelled to regard sense impressions as the effect of some cause.
"If it is not the first cause, then by implication there must be a cause behind it, which thus becomes the real cause of the effect. Manifestly however complicated the assumptions, the same conclusion must be reached. We cannot ask how the changes in our consciousness are caused, without inevitably committing ourselves to the hypothesis of a First Cause."
Spencer's treatise: http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

Not necessarily. Consider that the first cause would have to be at a time when there was no universe. Why? Because everything that we have found in the universe acts by cause and effect. We have found nothing that acts without cause and effect. We barely understand the concept of no cause and effect.

Cause and effect are universe "traits." Cause and effect might be something that exist outside of the universe, but we know absolutely nothing about that. So, the first cause might NOT need to be self-caused. The first cause might have been made to exist through some entirely different means and methods than we have thought of or could ever think of.

[ZOOM007]

you are an atheist because you did not trust any relifion or believe in any religious things. first you should learn it and then read and do research it then apply it on your practical life then you will be fine.

[organofcorti]

This brings me back to my original point which was "how can there be a first cause if everything must have a cause?". This was the point to which you responded "Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible!", but I'd like to hear a better reasoned argument than that.

That's not a point/argument, it is merely a rhetorical question.

Rhetoric?  I am asserting that if you believe that everything must have a cause, then there cannot be a first cause. You have to change your belief to "everything *except* the first cause must have a cause", as you've done below.

The initial cause would have to be self-caused, but this is seemingly absurd and unthinkable by us.
However, we are led to conclude a first cause by inductive reasoning, and to suppose any cause is to suppose a first cause.
We are compelled to regard sense impressions as the effect of some cause.
"If it is not the first cause, then by implication there must be a cause behind it, which thus becomes the real cause of the effect. Manifestly however complicated the assumptions, the same conclusion must be reached. We cannot ask how the changes in our consciousness are caused, without inevitably committing ourselves to the hypothesis of a First Cause."
Spencer's treatise: http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

This is just special pleading -- an additional rule made in order to make the "everything must have a cause" rule work. It invalidates the "everything must have a cause" rule.

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

[Krayshock]

im not an atheist (deist to be exact) but yea everything you said is true
i mean, how can an almighty being that says he wants to save people, kill people?
so basically in the noah's ark story he killed everyone except for noah and his family because all of them are sinful
they say he's the god of love, then why kill people? because he loves them?
he "gave" us free will then punishes us by using it
and people say he gave up Jesus and let him die for our sins
for what reason? he's still gonna "punish" people for doing wrong things anyway, so i find it useless
really, christians?

[organofcorti]

im not an atheist (deist to be exact) but yea everything you said is true
i mean, how can an almighty being that says he wants to save people, kill people?
so basically in the noah's ark story he killed everyone except for noah and his family because all of them are sinful
they say he's the god of love, then why kill people? because he loves them?
he "gave" us free will then punishes us by using it
and people say he gave up Jesus and let him die for our sins
for what reason? he's still gonna "punish" people for doing wrong things anyway, so i find it useless
really, christians?

You've just asked for a very long, involved and illogical and self-contradictory post from a forum member well-known for such. Learn from my mistakes and don't bother arguing with him/her.

[qwik2learn]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

[organofcorti]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

[qwik2learn]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

[organofcorti]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

[BADecker]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

You talk so silly. Everybody has seen multitudes of things that have come from other things. Yet, NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing.

If science focused on turning this into a law, it would become one of the greatest scientific laws of all. The reason science doesn't focus on it to make it a law is, it is so extremely apparent. It would be like saying liquid water is wet. Nobody makes "liquid water is wet" into a scientific law, because everyone knows it, not because it couldn't be easily made into a scientific law.

[organofcorti]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

You talk so silly. Everybody has seen multitudes of things that have come from other things. Yet, NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing.

If science focused on turning this into a law, it would become one of the greatest scientific laws of all. The reason science doesn't focus on it to make it a law is, it is so extremely apparent. It would be like saying liquid water is wet. Nobody makes "liquid water is wet" into a scientific law, because everyone knows it, not because it couldn't be easily made into a scientific law.

Your statement "NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing" as evidence of the impossibility of something coming from nothing, is invalid.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Never having seen something is not proof of non-existence. There are many much more convincing arguments that that.

[BADecker]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

You talk so silly. Everybody has seen multitudes of things that have come from other things. Yet, NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing.

If science focused on turning this into a law, it would become one of the greatest scientific laws of all. The reason science doesn't focus on it to make it a law is, it is so extremely apparent. It would be like saying liquid water is wet. Nobody makes "liquid water is wet" into a scientific law, because everyone knows it, not because it couldn't be easily made into a scientific law.

Your statement "NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing" as evidence of the impossibility of something coming from nothing, is invalid.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Never having seen something is not proof of non-existence. There are many much more convincing arguments that that.

Now you want to throw out all science theory, right?

The odds! Even science has an upper limit for the odds. If it hasn't happened in one out of some-great-big-number, even science says it doesn't exist.

[organofcorti]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

You talk so silly. Everybody has seen multitudes of things that have come from other things. Yet, NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing.

If science focused on turning this into a law, it would become one of the greatest scientific laws of all. The reason science doesn't focus on it to make it a law is, it is so extremely apparent. It would be like saying liquid water is wet. Nobody makes "liquid water is wet" into a scientific law, because everyone knows it, not because it couldn't be easily made into a scientific law.

Your statement "NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing" as evidence of the impossibility of something coming from nothing, is invalid.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Never having seen something is not proof of non-existence. There are many much more convincing arguments that that.

Now you want to throw out all science theory, right?

The odds! Even science has an upper limit for the odds. If it hasn't happened in one out of some-great-big-number, even science says it doesn't exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You might be able to find evidence of absence some other way, but simply never having noticed something before does not prove that something does not exist.

Come on! This is high school stuff. Why are you even pretending to argue against it?

[BADecker]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

You talk so silly. Everybody has seen multitudes of things that have come from other things. Yet, NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing.

If science focused on turning this into a law, it would become one of the greatest scientific laws of all. The reason science doesn't focus on it to make it a law is, it is so extremely apparent. It would be like saying liquid water is wet. Nobody makes "liquid water is wet" into a scientific law, because everyone knows it, not because it couldn't be easily made into a scientific law.

Your statement "NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing" as evidence of the impossibility of something coming from nothing, is invalid.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Never having seen something is not proof of non-existence. There are many much more convincing arguments that that.

Now you want to throw out all science theory, right?

The odds! Even science has an upper limit for the odds. If it hasn't happened in one out of some-great-big-number, even science says it doesn't exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You might be able to find evidence of absence some other way, but simply never having noticed something before does not prove that something does not exist.

Come on! This is high school stuff. Why are you even pretending to argue against it?

What is that number again? Is it 10 to the fortieth? If it hasn't happened in 10 to the fortieth (or whatever that number is again) it is impossible, scientifically. Look it up. Standard high school science.

[qwik2learn]

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

It comes down to deduction, and you and I are already in agreement about everything having a cause:

Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

Helpful resource for precise thinkers: http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

[Saksham]

You're not scared of a place that doesn't exist, you're not hopeful for a place that doesn't exist, you don't go to a building on a particular day to do something useless, and that's all I can think of at the top of my head.

[Krayshock]

im not an atheist (deist to be exact) but yea everything you said is true
i mean, how can an almighty being that says he wants to save people, kill people?
so basically in the noah's ark story he killed everyone except for noah and his family because all of them are sinful
they say he's the god of love, then why kill people? because he loves them?
he "gave" us free will then punishes us by using it
and people say he gave up Jesus and let him die for our sins
for what reason? he's still gonna "punish" people for doing wrong things anyway, so i find it useless
really, christians?

You've just asked for a very long, involved and illogical and self-contradictory post from a forum member well-known for such. Learn from my mistakes and don't bother arguing with him/her.

Okay then :3
I will just enjoy people posting and arguing with each other then haha
Religion really makes people go crazy

[organofcorti]

I'd like to point out that I don't think that "everything must have a cause" is wrong -- just that a "first cause" can not be proven a necessity.

In that case, perhaps we are in agreement!
Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

I reject the teleological argument as makes some assumptions that are not the result of a line of argumentation or logic. Generally, the teleological argument attempts to show there is a design-based reason for things being a particular way. A simple (and somewhat silly) example would be claiming that the reason a metal plate heats up in the sun is because God wills it so, rather than because photons hitting it. Another more relevant example is the difference between or Lamarckian rather and Darwinian evolution.

This is a sort argument doesn't start from a null hypothesis, but rather takes for granted that there is design in the universe and then attempts to provide examples of how this is the case.

AFAIK teleological hypotheses are not falsifiable or at least if any do suggest a way that they could be falsified I haven't read them. As I mentioned before, it is pointless to discuss something that is not falsifiable since neither side has any way to prove their point.

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

You talk so silly. Everybody has seen multitudes of things that have come from other things. Yet, NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing.

If science focused on turning this into a law, it would become one of the greatest scientific laws of all. The reason science doesn't focus on it to make it a law is, it is so extremely apparent. It would be like saying liquid water is wet. Nobody makes "liquid water is wet" into a scientific law, because everyone knows it, not because it couldn't be easily made into a scientific law.

Your statement "NOBODY has seen even one thing come from nothing" as evidence of the impossibility of something coming from nothing, is invalid.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Never having seen something is not proof of non-existence. There are many much more convincing arguments that that.

Now you want to throw out all science theory, right?

The odds! Even science has an upper limit for the odds. If it hasn't happened in one out of some-great-big-number, even science says it doesn't exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You might be able to find evidence of absence some other way, but simply never having noticed something before does not prove that something does not exist.

Come on! This is high school stuff. Why are you even pretending to argue against it?

What is that number again? Is it 10 to the fortieth? If it hasn't happened in 10 to the fortieth (or whatever that number is again) it is impossible, scientifically. Look it up. Standard high school science.

You just totally made that up. Unless you have a link for that? Dictionary.com won't be your friend here, I think.

[organofcorti]

What has been falsified is the idea that we came from "eternal nothing". The OP is not willing to defend his philosophical materialism, and neither is anyone else in this thread.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Has it been falsified? I haven't seen that. I'm not even sure how you could come up with an experiment that could prove things either way.

OP still has not answered how HE KNOWS that awareness ends at physical death, he only tells us to "face it" as if HE KNOWS it were true. Why won't OP face the results of the AWARE study which have verified an instance of awareness after physical death?

Now I have supplied this discussion with the context it needed; hopefully you (organofcorti) can help me to get the OP to answer for his absurd claims!

It's impossible to know whether or not awareness ends at death, and pointless to argue about since what happens after irrevocable death is unknown. Make up whatever story makes you happy, as long as you don't try to convince anyone else of its "truth".

Personally, Occam's razor has trained me to find the simplest, least weirdly baroque explanation in any situation, and in this case it is that consciousness ends with death.

Feel free to believe your own thing -- just realise that any explanation about what happens after death is just as valid as any other.

As you say, both his and your standpoints are essentially philosophical in nature. This is probably why you'll never be able to agree -- neither side is falsifiable, so it comes down your personal preferences.

It comes down to deduction, and you and I are already in agreement about everything having a cause:

Like I mentioned, "The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence."

This line of reasoning refutes the OP's claim that humanity's true home is "eternal nothing".

Helpful resource for precise thinkers: http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

Why? if you follow the "everything must have a cause" concept back infinitely far you have a universe that does not have a beginning (a beginning in the sense of something coming from nothing). I don't think your statement refutes anything, really. It seems to be as valid as any other untestable claim, such as the OP's claim. You guys really are arguing about things which we can never know anything about. Why bother?