6 ms·

How is it possible to provide evidence for something that, by definition, lies outside the empirically observable universe? Militant atheism is just as comical

How is it possible to provide evidence for something that, by definition, lies outside the empirically observable universe? Militant atheism is just as comical as all-knowing theism when faced with the sheer incomprehensibility of existence. The reality is we have no idea what existence entails, and any claims that one does are meant to assuage one's ego more than anything else.

jeremyjh 5y ago
Yes and how can you prove there is not an invisible pink dragon in my garage?
- tsol 5y ago
  If he were to really care to disprove that, he could check your garage. The point is some information isn't available to us at all, there's no evidence any particular way
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeremyjh 5y ago
    If he looks in my garage he won't see it, but I already said it was invisible. The point is anyone can make up a nice story that can't be disproven, but it is the positive claim that requires evidence.
fastball 5y ago
Since when does an afterlife by definition exist outside the empirically observable universe?
burnished 5y ago
What question does a belief in an afterlife answer? If you didn't start with that belief, what observation could you make to come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife? I think you are making these two positions to sound equivalent, but I really don't think that is the case.
- wyattpeak 5y ago
  Irrespective of the reality of an afterlife, the very fact that the vast majority of cultures seemingly independently developed theories about it suggests that people do, in fact, come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife without starting with the belief. People like to talk about religion as though it's all indoctrination, but the argument really doesn't hold up. Religions that focus on proselytism seem to spread faster, which is unremarkable, but religion definitely seems to form spontaneously.
  - ux-app 5y ago
    >but religion definitely seems to form spontaneously. A lot of things form spontaneously, art, technology, language have all developed spontaneously and independently many times in the past 100,000 years. Religion isn't special in this regard.
    - wyattpeak 5y ago
      Sure, I didn't suggest it was. I was only arguing against this: > If you didn't start with that belief, what observation could you make to come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife? Clearly, lots of observations lead people to the conclusion that there is an afterlife, independent of starting with that belief.
  - burnished 5y ago
    Consider a religion as a set of beliefs about the world. That it shows up spontaneously has more to do with the creatures it occurs in than external forces.
- RubyRidgeRandy 5y ago
  >> If you didn't start with that belief, what observation could you make to come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife? I always appreciate the parable of the flame in Buddhism. If you use a lighter to produce a flame, where did that flame come from? where does it go? If you use it again, is that flame the same or is different? You realize that the flame is really just a distinction we make of matter that has always been there and it doesn't go anywhere, just changes. I don't mean this to say that "you" are just changing when you die, but to question what "you" really are. I think consciousness is an interesting area we still struggle to understand. It's weird that no physical thing can be "about" something but that thoughts can be. I can think of george washington riding a unicycle, but does that mean there is a neuron in my brain that physically is that mental picture? Lastly, there is a contingency problem with matter. If all physical things are contingent upon a cause, then the physical universe must be caused by something that is immaterial. If you think about math, does it really exist? If I ask if "four" exists, there certainly is a english word, "four" and a grouping of lines (4) there can be four of something but these are all just representative of four'ness. So does four really exist and if not why is math so effective at explaining our universe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes... If the universe is contingent upon an immaterial cause, I don't think it's out of reach to imagine that cause as an Aristotelian god. All that to say, I think there's reason to be skeptical about any certainty in knowing what happens when we die. Hopefully it's something interesting or I won't be around to find out!
xsace 5y ago
If there is an afterlife possible in our universe, the information necessary for it must be compatible with its physics. But so far, down to particle physics, nothing seems compatible with the idea of an out of body soul that is able to process this information.
anotherman554 5y ago
An afterlife doesn't by definition exist outside the empirically observable universe. Lots of people historically thought they could communicate with the dead with seances and such. One of the disappointments of the modern scientific age is the fact such efforts failed to live up to scientific scrutiny.
clusterfish 5y ago
Anyone who has seen another person die has a pretty good idea of what happens after death from empiric observation. Anything else is just wishful thinking, coping with one's own mortality.
tkot 5y ago
Surely there is no escape from solipsism but since it's all-encompassing then how much actual value does it provide? I mean, we can annotate every observation and every thought ever with "for all we know it could be just an illusion" and live as if we were constantly being tricked by a deceitful daemon Descartes-style but why should we do it, what is there to gain? I could agree that monism / strict materialism is as baseless as any other view but I think its terseness deserves a bit more respect than being called "comical", if only for the sake of its elegance. It's trivial to provide a longer description / a more complicated model of reality that will have as much explanatory power as a simpler one. It's much more challenging to find a shorter / simpler one that will work just as well. Yes, I am aware that my assumption that challenging things are somehow more commendable than non-challenging things is completely baseless too :)

jeremyjh 5y ago

Yes and how can you prove there is not an invisible pink dragon in my garage?

tsol 5y ago
If he were to really care to disprove that, he could check your garage. The point is some information isn't available to us at all, there's no evidence any particular way
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jeremyjh 5y ago
  If he looks in my garage he won't see it, but I already said it was invisible. The point is anyone can make up a nice story that can't be disproven, but it is the positive claim that requires evidence.

fastball 5y ago

Since when does an afterlife by definition exist outside the empirically observable universe?

burnished 5y ago

What question does a belief in an afterlife answer? If you didn't start with that belief, what observation could you make to come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife? I think you are making these two positions to sound equivalent, but I really don't think that is the case.

wyattpeak 5y ago
Irrespective of the reality of an afterlife, the very fact that the vast majority of cultures seemingly independently developed theories about it suggests that people do, in fact, come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife without starting with the belief. People like to talk about religion as though it's all indoctrination, but the argument really doesn't hold up. Religions that focus on proselytism seem to spread faster, which is unremarkable, but religion definitely seems to form spontaneously.
- ux-app 5y ago
  >but religion definitely seems to form spontaneously. A lot of things form spontaneously, art, technology, language have all developed spontaneously and independently many times in the past 100,000 years. Religion isn't special in this regard.
  - wyattpeak 5y ago
    Sure, I didn't suggest it was. I was only arguing against this: > If you didn't start with that belief, what observation could you make to come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife? Clearly, lots of observations lead people to the conclusion that there is an afterlife, independent of starting with that belief.
- burnished 5y ago
  Consider a religion as a set of beliefs about the world. That it shows up spontaneously has more to do with the creatures it occurs in than external forces.
RubyRidgeRandy 5y ago
>> If you didn't start with that belief, what observation could you make to come to the conclusion that there is an afterlife? I always appreciate the parable of the flame in Buddhism. If you use a lighter to produce a flame, where did that flame come from? where does it go? If you use it again, is that flame the same or is different? You realize that the flame is really just a distinction we make of matter that has always been there and it doesn't go anywhere, just changes. I don't mean this to say that "you" are just changing when you die, but to question what "you" really are. I think consciousness is an interesting area we still struggle to understand. It's weird that no physical thing can be "about" something but that thoughts can be. I can think of george washington riding a unicycle, but does that mean there is a neuron in my brain that physically is that mental picture? Lastly, there is a contingency problem with matter. If all physical things are contingent upon a cause, then the physical universe must be caused by something that is immaterial. If you think about math, does it really exist? If I ask if "four" exists, there certainly is a english word, "four" and a grouping of lines (4) there can be four of something but these are all just representative of four'ness. So does four really exist and if not why is math so effective at explaining our universe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes... If the universe is contingent upon an immaterial cause, I don't think it's out of reach to imagine that cause as an Aristotelian god. All that to say, I think there's reason to be skeptical about any certainty in knowing what happens when we die. Hopefully it's something interesting or I won't be around to find out!

xsace 5y ago

If there is an afterlife possible in our universe, the information necessary for it must be compatible with its physics. But so far, down to particle physics, nothing seems compatible with the idea of an out of body soul that is able to process this information.

anotherman554 5y ago

An afterlife doesn't by definition exist outside the empirically observable universe. Lots of people historically thought they could communicate with the dead with seances and such. One of the disappointments of the modern scientific age is the fact such efforts failed to live up to scientific scrutiny.

clusterfish 5y ago

Anyone who has seen another person die has a pretty good idea of what happens after death from empiric observation. Anything else is just wishful thinking, coping with one's own mortality.

tkot 5y ago

Surely there is no escape from solipsism but since it's all-encompassing then how much actual value does it provide? I mean, we can annotate every observation and every thought ever with "for all we know it could be just an illusion" and live as if we were constantly being tricked by a deceitful daemon Descartes-style but why should we do it, what is there to gain? I could agree that monism / strict materialism is as baseless as any other view but I think its terseness deserves a bit more respect than being called "comical", if only for the sake of its elegance. It's trivial to provide a longer description / a more complicated model of reality that will have as much explanatory power as a simpler one. It's much more challenging to find a shorter / simpler one that will work just as well. Yes, I am aware that my assumption that challenging things are somehow more commendable than non-challenging things is completely baseless too :)