Varieties of Theism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, Pantheism, and More

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I know what you're saying, and I'm telling you it isn't equal. Just because we don't understand scientifically these matters does not give your theory of an afterlife any weight. The truth is, we have no idea how much weight it carries.

The fact that "we have no idea how much (both) weight carries" proves its equality.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I did not want to say this but have you looked at all of my posts(on the thread)?

Very well, then I guess I have to repeat the process. It goes without saying, but feel free to counter.

What is *this* "reality"? An unproven state of conditions commonly perceived as "natural".
What is science? The ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.

If you connect the attribute of "reality"'s unproven condition with its scientific sets of laws, what you get is the system of the "reality".

However, in truth, what you only get is a system of a *possible* false reality. This *possibility* is where I center my argument. If "reality" itself is non-*solid* fact, how much can its "science" be? This is what I meant by a science over a "science". Around the unproven "science" we have, we *may* have that *truer* science that allows our natural "laws" bended.

Inter alia, I give you amnesty to correct me.

Congratulations, you have shared the basic tenets of your beliefs, which I may now inform you originated more than 2400 years ago. In short, what you have is mere philosophy, and philosophy which is antithetical to the spirit of human inquiry, at that. You have, as yet, no logical proofs or evidence for your philosophy, and are content merely to believe without having the drive to truly understand the basis of your own beliefs.

Welcome to the 21st Century, kid.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Congratulations, you have shared the basic tenets of your beliefs, which I may now inform you originated more than 2400 years ago. In short, what you have is mere philosophy, and philosophy which is antithetical to the spirit of human inquiry, at that. You have, as yet, no logical proofs or evidence for your philosophy, and are content merely to believe without having the drive to truly understand the basis of your own beliefs.

Welcome to the 21st Century, kid.

Some people/philosophers may have actually gone batshit insane once they realized and understood their own philosophies.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

The fact that "we have no idea how much (both) weight carries" proves its equality.

... That's not how it works. Like I said, I don't know what the odds of a unicorn impaling me right now are, does that mean it is a 50/50 shot?

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

... That's not how it works. Like I said, I don't know what the odds of a unicorn impaling me right now are, does that mean it is a 50/50 shot?

"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Congratulations, you have shared the basic tenets of your beliefs, which I may now inform you originated more than 2400 years ago. In short, what you have is mere philosophy, and philosophy which is antithetical to the spirit of human inquiry, at that. You have, as yet, no logical proofs or evidence for your philosophy, and are content merely to believe without having the drive to truly understand the basis of your own beliefs.

Welcome to the 21st Century, kid.

Thank you for welcoming me . (I'm not a kid btw gramps.) ....I have said this too many times but I will say it again. "I do not wish to "reasonably" prove my beliefs." What I'm only stating is the basic fact of 50/50 originating *from* "science" which relates to commonly-accepted "reason".

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

... That's not how it works.

That's not how it works with this "science"...but perhaps.

Like I said, I don't know what the odds of a unicorn impaling me right now are, does that mean it is a 50/50 shot?

I think so..

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

....I have said this too many times but I will say it again. "I do not wish to "reasonably" prove my beliefs." What I'm only stating is the basic fact of 50/50 originating *from* "science" which relates to commonly-accepted "reason".

Thank you for admitting that your beliefs are not based on logical processes. Your honesty is much appreciated, and noted.

On the other hand, I am still interested in how you managed to come up with that '50/50' proposition. How did you reason your way to such a conclusion? What evidence do you have to make it a fact?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Thank you for admitting that your beliefs are not based on logical processes. Your honesty is much appreciated, and noted.

Aren't all beliefs not based on "logical processes"? After all, believing is not the same as knowing.

On the other hand, I am still interested in how you managed to come up with that '50/50' proposition. How did you reason your way to such a conclusion? What evidence do you have to make it a fact?

The fact of indefiniteness.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Aren't all beliefs not based on "logical processes"? After all, believing is not the same as knowing.

In other words, you are content to believe passively, without feeling the need to try and learn how reality works, and whether it does confirm your own beliefs. Noted.

The fact of indefiniteness.

And how does that translate into '50/50'? What mathematical equations did you utilize to get at that probability level?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

In other words, you are content to believe passively, without feeling the need to try and learn how reality works, and whether it does confirm your own beliefs. Noted.

Where did you get this from? I didn't speak of such. Believing is different from Knowing. Our main functions and understanding of reality are based on this belief.

You cannot prove or disprove beliefs. What you can only do is believe and have faith---most do this, if instinctively, "automatically".

And how does that translate into '50/50'? What mathematical equations did you utilize to get at that probability level?

There are no mathematical equations. If you really want one, its pie=pie.

Assuredly(joking aside), its simple connections of definition. The fact of indefiniteness creates the fact of "not knowing" thus, it creates a simple possibility of 50/50---"now knowing" translates to that, does it not? Its either there is afterlife or there isn't.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Where did you get this from? I didn't speak of such. Believing is different from Knowing. Our main functions and understanding of reality are based on this belief.

You cannot prove or disprove beliefs. What you can only do is believe and have faith---most do this, if instinctively, "automatically".

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Let's play trivia. Guess the person who came up with this quotation.

There are no mathematical equations. If you really want one, its pie=pie.

Assuredly(joking aside), its simple connections of definition. The fact of indefiniteness creates the fact of "not knowing" thus, it creates a simple possibility of 50/50---"now knowing" translates to that, does it not? Its either there is afterlife or there isn't.

So according to you, the existence of an afterlife is equivalent to that of the fate of Schrödinger's cat. It is....an admittedly amusing thought, if not particularly useful.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

This is already understood----well-nigh to the point of labeling it "common sense". I really don't get what your point is.

So according to you, the existence of an afterlife is equivalent to that of the fate of Schrödinger's cat. It is....an admittedly amusing thought, if not particularly useful.

Its not according to me, its basic. Its a definite fact created by another definite fact. If you don't have any more questions or counter-statements, then I suggest bringing your humor with you elsewhere.
What is your point?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

This is already understood----well-nigh to the point of labeling it "common sense". I really don't get what your point is.

The point is, unlike the scientists whose works you are constantly attempting to undermine with a personal philosophy based on the Theory of Forms, you are content to sit on your ass and passively believe, instead of going out into the world and understanding the reality which underpins your beliefs.

And you dared to claim that those of your fellow Muslims who are less "disciplined" about their faith should have their titles revoked. Hypocrite much?

Its not according to me, its basic (like, 1 + 1 = 2). If you don't have any more questions or counter-statements, then I suggest bringing your humor with you elsewhere.
What is your point?

The point is that, if one aims to prove that an abstract concept like an afterlife could possibly exist, then the burden of proof already falls on the one who wishes to prove the existence of such an abstract concept. In that regard, I don't think it's purely 50/50 anymore. Of course, your mileage may vary.

EDIT: Whatever. I'm tired from a whole day of this. Bedtime.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

The point is, unlike the scientists whose works you are constantly attempting to undermine with a personal philosophy based on the Theory of Forms, you are content to sit on your ass and passively believe, instead of going out into the world and understanding the reality which underpins your beliefs.

And where did this come from? We were not in the issue of "passive belief"but if you wish to head there then lets.

Humans, like "scientists", will inevitably have that constant period of "questioning"---for that is what humans are, curious beings. To be a scientist, doesn't mean requiring the removing of the religion. That is why there are several religious scientists.

My example: I have my religion but I still believe that progress in this "reality" is important. I questioned my faith several times but never thought of removing it. This is because of the"practical" worldly benefits my religion gives me and the fact that it cannot be disproved(or proved of course).

And you dared to claim that those of your fellow Muslims who are less "disciplined" about their faith should have their titles revoked. Hypocrite much?

(Due to Misunderstanding but) Insulting much? Its not discipline in regards to faith. Its discipline with "fasting", 5 times praying, and other "laborious" type of discipline.

The point is that, if one aims to prove that an abstract concept like an afterlife could possibly exist, then the burden of proof already falls on the one who wishes to prove the existence of such an abstract concept. In that regard, I don't think it's purely 50/50 anymore. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Its not about "burden of proof". Its about indefiniteness and "NOT KNOWING". The fact that we don't know creates the fact that it can only be 50/50.

EDIT: Whatever. I'm tired from a whole day of this. Bedtime.

Good Night.

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I would *love* to believe that something of the individual exists post-death. I have no evidence at all that such a thing happens.
I *do* know this: the waves on an ocean appear for a while, have form and duration, but then vanish. Each wave has an effect on companion waves and future waves. The ocean is the underlying permanence in relation to the waves.

hmm, sounds like Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising)
and while permanent in relation to the waves as you mentioned, the religion/philosophy would say that the ocean itself is part of the same conditioned genesis

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein

Um... full context. Einstein was referring to the then new school of quantum mechanics. He later regretted that position and affirmed that quantum mechanics does indeed work and joined the attempt to integrate it with cosmological theories of relativity (which also "works").

Right now we have several theories in physics which work for the domains they were developed to describe. Integrating them ("The Theory of Everything") has proved to an interesting challenge though there are several likely candidates being hammered on).

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Its not about "burden of proof". Its about indefiniteness and "NOT KNOWING". The fact that we don't know creates the fact that it can only be 50/50.

Not knowing means simply that, we don't know. There is no way to derive odds from that, and in the atheistic viewpoint thus no reason to draw any conclusions.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Not knowing means simply that, we don't know. There is no way to derive odds from that, and in the atheistic viewpoint thus no reason to draw any conclusions.

Can I at least call it 0? I just used your example of 50/50 because it shows balance. If there is no "knowing", we'll call it 0. If its 0, then its a point of balance between fact and false. A nothing. So on end, the afterlife may not or may exist.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Can I at least call it 0? I just used your example of 50/50 because it shows balance. If there is no "knowing", we'll call it 0. If its 0, then its a point of balance between belief and disbelief. A nothing. So on end, the afterlife may not or may exist.

Well, the main point is you're taking shots in the dark. It is one possibility out of a perhaps infinite array of other possibilities. This is my personal reason for not having a belief regarding an afterlife; though I can't rule it out, I can't really draw any logical conclusions whatsoever. There's no balance to be found in that reality - only mystery. Being a man of reason (or I'd like to think myself to be one, anyways), I can't render any judgments and this also leads to me questioning individuals like you who are so eager to.

[Solais]

I also believe that Science is also a supernatural thing, the "magic" of Humanity. Of course, I do this because I'm somehow trying to think outside of the boundaries of "human", as every theory and philosophy is made with using human measures, to prove my theory of "Universal Common Sense". Of course, this is impossible.

I also think, that there are no afterlife, beforelife or life altogether. Just life, what is eternal. And not.