I Know For A Fact There's No Afterlife.

[YngiweRhoads]

I do really think that you are more intelligent than suckmymuscle dude so I reply to you. That wikipidia article covers nothing, should we go by copy and paste sentences or one would be out of context?

The article contains the most common philosophical arguments both for, and against, the existence of god, which was in response to tbombz statement. There is no consensus amongst philosophers that god must necessarily exist. It's an open ended debate.

[theonlyone]

The article contains the most common philosophical arguments both for, and against, the existence of god, which was in response to tbombz statement. There is no consensus amongst philosophers that god must necessarily exist. It's an open ended debate.

 I seen your picks from the my picks, guns n roses rule, You hit 40's, so it'll be fun. Let's see how debate goes, there is no debate for me though, but what angle? Speedy recovery from a car crash

[Butterbean]

Haven't kept up w/this thread.  Has suck posted his fact proving there is no afterlife?  Reply # please?

[theonlyone]

Haven't kept up w/this thread.  Has suck posted his fact proving there is no afterlife?  Reply # please?

 no

[Butterbean]

no

Thanks onlyone.  I will try to read it all later.  Maybe he will post his fact by then.

[YngiweRhoads]

I seen your picks from the my picks, guns n roses rule, You hit 40's, so it'll be fun. Let's see how debate goes, there is no debate for me though, but what angle? Speedy recovery from a car crash

 

[Lord of the Roidz]

I could discuss a true incident where I was able to receive the voice of a deceased loved one on a casette recorder very clearly, 3 separate times..also known as an EVP. It was very clear and was responding directly to something I said. The family of the person agreed the voice was identical..and I had it verified as an actual genuine EVP from the president of the Electronic Voice Phenomenon association. I won't cheapen this profound experience by debating it on this site, but I will add that the experience has led me to believe that our consciousness does survive physical death. I do not feel the need however, to follow any type of formal religion. I just believe that there is an energy that survives death and that it can can contain at least a remnant of the deceased person's consciousness.

[suckmymuscle]

I do really think that you are more intelligent than suckmymuscle dude so I reply to you. That wikipidia article covers nothing, should we go by copy and paste sentences or one would be out of context?

  I'm surely offended that you think that. Let me ask you a question: I am unintelligent according to you, and yet I soundly defeated you in this debate and made you tap out of embarassment. So how stupid does that make you

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

The article contains the most common philosophical arguments both for, and against, the existence of god, which was in response to tbombz statement. There is no consensus amongst philosophers that god must necessarily exist. It's an open ended debate.

  There is a consensus among philosophers that God must exist? Oh, really? Here is a hint for you: most analytical philosophers are atheist. Most philosophers by necessity use empirical science to drive their questioning, and most of them who come up with TOEs(theories of everything) use knowledge of physics to create the axioms of their TOEs. I have an old friend of mine who teaches philosophy at Oxford, David Pearce, and he would laugh at your claim that most philosophers are theistic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Haven't kept up w/this thread.  Has suck posted his fact proving there is no afterlife?  Reply # please?

  Do you want me to also post the facts disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real? Do you want me to post evidence that we do not live in a holographic universe? Why stop at disproving the afterlife?

  Let's consider the possibility of everything that anyone can imagine being real unless proven otherwise. No matter the lack of evidence and how absurd it is from a logical deduction point of view, you guys will consider the possibility of anything being possible unless proven otherwise. Pathetic.

  We cannot guide our thinking negating logic. The plausibility of a theory must depend on the inferential evidence that we can gather to prove it and how plausible logic tells us that it is.

 I have already said that disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies are real is unnecessary because there is no evidence that such beings exist and a dimension where such beings could exist - beings that can walk through walls and don't need to eat - are inconceivable to us because we cannot logically imagine a dimension where the laws of physics and biology as we know it don't apply, and we cannot logically conceive by which laws of physics if any such dimension would work, and if it works like that because there are no laws controlling the interaction between things in such dimension, meaning that everything there is possible, then logic doesen't apply there and we cannot conceive of it because our thinking is deductive and thus requires logic to make conclusions. Understand? Well, probably not. Anyway, all this applies to disproving an afterlife.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[tbombz]

the best philosophers and scientists throughout history have all believed in god. modern philosophers are poisoned with extremist pragmatism they inhereted by adopting the emperical method at the expense of all rational thought. the two work best together, not seperate.

[suckmymuscle]

the best philosophers and scientists throughout history have all believed in god.

  This was true of most philosophers and scientists during the Middle Ages and the Enlightenement(Newton, Gallileo, etcetera), but it is no longer true today. Most modern scientists are atheists. And how is this relevant? A philosopher believing or not in God is irrelevant because belief is not proof and or evidence.

modern philosophers are poisoned with extremist pragmatism they inhereted by adopting the emperical method at the expense of all rational thought.

  This makes absolutely no sense. How are the empirical method and rational thought dichotomous? I'm sorry to break this to you, but the empirical method is rational thought. It is based on experiment and observation of reality and testing the cause and effect of given variable by eliminating extraneous variables. Pure rational...thought.

the two work best together, not seperate.

  LMAO...since one(the empirical method) cannot exist without being the other(rational thought), then the two cannot be separate things. LMAO...one cannot work without the other by definition because one fits the definition of the other. You fail at logic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[tonymctones]

  I have a better idea. Why don't you ask me to prove that we don't live in a holographic universe or that there isn't a magical dimension where fairies are real? Why stop at disproving the afterlife?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

LMAO I agree with you but you see you brought up empirical science brain child...

you dont have any proof of their being no after life, you simply use the lack of proof as your evidence...

empirical science says that not proving the null doesnt prove the alternative...let me know if you need me to elaborate on that b/c its obvious youre not getting it...

ever heard of russells tea pot? look it up, it basically says that the person who makes the ascertion has the onus of proving that ascertion...now you say their is no afterlife...prove it...a lack of proof for an afterlife isnt proof against one its proof that its unknown whether there is one or not...

science is a bitch isnt it? 

[tonymctones]

 Do you want me to also post the facts disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real? Do you want me to post evidence that we do not live in a holographic universe? Why stop at disproving the afterlife?

  Let's consider the possibility of everything that anyone can imagine being real unless proven otherwise. No matter the lack of evidence and how absurd it is from a logical deduction point of view, you guys will consider the possibility of anything being possible unless proven otherwise. Pathetic.

  We cannot guide our thinking negating logic. The plausibility of a theory must depend on the inferential evidence that we can gather to prove it and how plausible logic tells us that it is.

 I have already said that disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies are real is unnecessary because there is no evidence that such beings exist and a dimension where such beings could exist - beings that can walk through walls and don't need to eat - are inconceivable to us because we cannot logically imagine a dimension where the laws of physics and biology as we know it don't apply, and we cannot logically conceive by which laws of physics if any such dimension would work, and if it works like that because there are no laws controlling the interaction between things in such dimension, meaning that everything there is possible, then logic doesen't apply there and we cannot conceive of it because our thinking is deductive and thus requires logic to make conclusions. Understand? Well, probably not. Anyway, all this applies to disproving an afterlife.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

why should anyone feel the need to prove there is an afterlife then? after all you cant disprove it only give us your view that there is a lack of evidence...

dont get mad bro, its not like we are saying this SCIENCE is saying this...if you have a problem with this then you have a problem with science not us...

do you understand the relationship between the null and alternative hypothesis? apparently you do not b/c if you did you would know that lack of proof for one stance isnt proof for the opposing stance...

again thats science bro...plain and simple I know its hard for you to wrap your head around it but do some research and you shall see

[DK II]

Did the guy that is smarter than every scientist that ever lived on this earth post the fact yet?

Scientific proof that can be reproduced by anyone in a scientific experiment?

[YngiweRhoads]

  There is a consensus among philosophers that God must exist? Oh, really? Here is a hint for you: most analytical philosophers are atheist. Most philosophers by necessity use empirical science to drive their questioning, and most of them who come up with TOEs(theories of everything) use knowledge of physics to create the axioms of their TOEs. I have an old friend of mine who teaches philosophy at Oxford, David Pearce, and he would laugh at your claim that most philosophers are theistic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

If you're responding to me, you misread my post.

[theonlyone]

  I'm surely offended that you think that. Let me ask you a question: I am unintelligent according to you, and yet I soundly defeated you in this debate and made you tap out of embarassment. So how stupid does that make you

SUCKMYMUSCLE

 How is it tell us please. I don't no how. I and butterbean are waiting you posting the fact that there is no afterlife. By the way we are waiting you posting the fact that fairies don't exist

[Butterbean]

 I have already said that disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies are real is unnecessary because there is no evidence that such beings exist and a dimension where such beings could exist - beings that can walk through walls and don't need to eat - are inconceivable to us because we cannot logically imagine a dimension where the laws of physics and biology as we know it don't apply, and we cannot logically conceive by which laws of physics if any such dimension would work, and if it works like that because there are no laws controlling the interaction between things in such dimension, meaning that everything there is possible, then logic doesen't apply there and we cannot conceive of it because our thinking is deductive and thus requires logic to make conclusions. Understand? Well, probably not. Anyway, all this applies to disproving an afterlife.
SUCKMYMUSCLE

Actually it doesn't.  



Are you rejecting the possibility of a "magical dimension" based on either having our laws of physics and biology or having no laws at all?  Doesn't that either/or seem illogical?




The title of your thread is "I Know for Fact There's No AFterlife.  We are just waiting for the fact.  

[Deicide]

I never would use the word 'fact';

I say it is highly (almost impossible) unlikely there is any such dimension and leave it at that.

[YngiweRhoads]

I never would use the word 'fact';

I say it is highly (almost impossible) unlikely there is any such dimension and leave it at that.

Yep.

[tonymctones]

I never would use the word 'fact';

I say it is highly (almost impossible) unlikely there is any such dimension and leave it at that.

its also highly unlikely and almost impossible that we came from nothing as well 

[YngiweRhoads]

its also highly unlikely and almost impossible that we came from nothing as well  

Wrong.

http://bit.ly/bWqHHD

[Butterbean]

Wrong.

http://bit.ly/bWqHHD

Didn't we already come to the conclusion (reefer bubbles and all ) there is no such thing as nothing  

[YngiweRhoads]

Didn't we already come to the conclusion (reefer bubbles and all ) there is no such thing as nothing  

Correct.

Quantum foam. Quantum fluctuation.

[tonymctones]

Wrong.

http://bit.ly/bWqHHD

LMAO just b/c you can come up with a theory doesnt mean it isnt highly unlikely and almost impossible...

this is only what the n^th theory now? each one is almost impossible and highly unlikely...

didnt say it was impossible but almost impossible just like deicide said