on the news not long ago, a Mother killed her son because she wanted him to rest in peace because the Doctors kept him alive as a vegetable.Huh?
I have no reason to believe that there will be any sort of second life after I die. I am perfectly content with this life being my only life. Since this is my only shot at greatness, so to speak, I would like to accomplish many things. To date, there is still much to accomplish, so death will have to hold off for a bit.
So my debate is: Do you think that today's human population is justified in it's desire to live so long?Why do we need to justify what we want? Too used to our money system perhaps?
...That actually happened?
How did I know this would become a thread sooner or later. God's idea is to live life to its fullest, when you die you get more time to finish off that list of amazing things you always wanted to do. So IMO the question should be "Are you ready to live?" because society is caught up in other people's success that instead of wanting to play football with some buddies you are watching the Raiders fail hard with a beer in your hand. If you live longer, then that's an excuse to turn on TMZ to learn some fake bullsh*t about life in the fast lane. I could see listening to music different, but going to every concert or reading a ton of books based on some weird A$$ movie is un-exceptable. In my life I:Whoa, whoa. You've said you're a Christian, right? What do you mean by it's "God's idea is to live life to the fullest"? God has no problem with having fun or anything, but I just want to know if you mean a secular definition.
*List of accomplishments*
None of these things were caught up with the entertainment of controversy or drama. I am not ready to die a follower, I am ready to live a leader.
To avoid death, one must learn to accept it, for it is only the next great adventure.........What? What do you believe exactly...?
I have a short but sweet idea of life and death. You live life, and live it however you want to. Don't let anyone tell you how to live it, whether they tell you to make the most of it or be easygoing. As long as you enjoy the life you live, that's all that matters.WARNING: DEEP POST AHEAD
And in my mind there is no afterlife, so don't plan for one...
I like you a lot buddy, but I don't think you've thought this through. Let me explain.
In this worldview, if everyone is their own king, then why have laws? Why is it wrong to steal or even murder?
I think you believe in macro-evolution, so answer me this; if we are just a random bunch of chemicals, why should we "punish" people? After all, we wouldn't send baking soda to jail for reacting with vinegar. So why should we be angry for a bunch of chemicals destroying another bunch of chemicals? How can chemicals be angry at all?
If everything is material, then how could we have laws of logic? We know they exist because I am coming up with a comeback just now. Laws of Logic can't exist in a totally material universe. Also, Laws of Logic do not vary from person to person. If they did, arguing would be totally impossible. The only way they could exist is if we had an intellegent Designer. The Big Bang couldn't create laws of logic because the Big Bang was hypothetically material. Please respond, I want to hear your comeback.
I like you a lot buddy, but I don't think you've thought this through. Let me explain.For the survival of the species. Because we have a desire to survive and spread, we instinctually know that killing each other is "wrong". If we kill each other at random, we will die off. If we steal from each other, we will cause others to kill us. As social creatures, we've relied on our group skills to survive, and to develop.
In this worldview, if everyone is their own king, then why have laws? Why is it wrong to steal or even murder?
I think you believe in macro-evolution,Macro-evolution is scientific fact. Even the pope (John Paul 2: The Revenge) admitted to this.
so answer me this; if we are just a random bunch of chemicals, why should we "punish" people?I don't think we should "punish". Rehabilitation is what I preach, but that's another topic.
After all, we wouldn't send baking soda to jail for reacting with vinegar.Baking soda isn't a member of our species, nor is it even a living entity.
So why should we be angry for a bunch of chemicals destroying another bunch of chemicals? How can chemicals be angry at all?You're rather oversimplifying what we are. Even if you don't view biology as a legitimate science, you must recognize that we are, in fact, made out of "chemicals". (We're carbon-based, to be more specific.) Why is it that we need god's permission to act civil? If you were unaware of Christianity, would you be robbing and stealing? What does that say about you, if that's the case?
If everything is material, then how could we have laws of logic? We know they exist because I am coming up with a comeback just now. Laws of Logic can't exist in a totally material universe.Why can't logic exist in a material world. Our brains are proportionally much larger than any other species on Earth. Why do you find it so unfathomable that we can't outthink other creatures without the assistance of an invisible tyrant? I don't feel as though I need permission to think.
Also, Laws of Logic do not vary from person to person. If they did, arguing would be totally impossible.Some people do have different "rules of logic". You and I, for instance, think very differently from each other. There is a huge logical fallacy coming up in your next chunk of text, for instance.
The only way they could exist is if we had an intellegent Designer.SO because you don't understand how the brain functions, there must be a supernatural being? Suppose that's true, what gave this super natural being the ability to think? Your solution only brings about an infinite loop of questions. As a staunch believer in Occam's Razor, I can't accept your overly complex explanation.
The Big Bang couldn't create laws of logic because the Big Bang was hypothetically material. Please respond, I want to hear your comeback.The Big Bang explains how this current universe came to be. It does nothing to explain how our brains evolved. You're combining multiple theories, and not understanding any of them.
~~~~~~frezal: No "what's it like in your little world?" type posts if you please.You know I'm capable of far more than that.
tl;dr reier failed all of the three main sciences in the funniest way possible.
Let me do a short bullet point version of life and logic.
1) Earth born.
2) Hot stuff happens, meteors crash with chemicals and water.
3) Earth cools so we have a soup of chemicals at the correct temp. Acids, Alkali's, metals... pretty chaotic.
4) Large chemicals are formed, meanwhile, Lightning from the atmosphere **cks sh** up and stuff happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Earliest_atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Earliest_atmosphere)
5) Some sorta science-y ass-pull happens here. Complex chemicals and lots of reactions. A good comparison is breathing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#.22Primordial_soup.22_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#.22Primordial_soup.22_theory)
6) Some time later, life gets going and the going gets tough.
feel something? if yes, RUN MO FO!
7) More complex thought, mainly involving sex and food.
8) More advanced feelings, taste, pain, heat...
9) MORE advanced feelings, mainly problem solving for avoidence.
10) Social stuff.
11) Mix them all up and you get self awareness. (and logic was there, too!)
I won't respond anymore today, I'm beat.Beat? So soon?
I like you a lot buddy, but I don't think you've thought this through. Let me explain.Because the strongest king/group of kings gets to decide. Why? Because they can, and that's what happens in the physical world. We call them the Government.
In this worldview, if everyone is their own king, then why have laws? Why is it wrong to steal or even murder?
I think you believe in macro-evolution, so answer me this; if we are just a random bunch of chemicals, why should we "punish" people? After all, we wouldn't send baking soda to jail for reacting with vinegar. So why should we be angry for a bunch of chemicals destroying another bunch of chemicals? How can chemicals be angry at all?What punishment? We are just putting a bunch of chemical in a 8 by 8 container so it doesn't leak. Why? Because we are physical entities. We move like clockworks, govern by past events and random variables (quantum fluctuations). Physicalism denies the existence of free will.
If everything is material, then how could we have laws of logic? We know they exist because I am coming up with a comeback just now. Laws of Logic can't exist in a totally material universe. Also, Laws of Logic do not vary from person to person. If they did, arguing would be totally impossible. The only way they could exist is if we had an intellegent Designer. The Big Bang couldn't create laws of logic because the Big Bang was hypothetically material. Please respond, I want to hear your comeback."Logic" is merely a pattern of letter associated with observable physical states. I see images, I hear sounds, my brain try to make synaptic connection to organize them. I fail to see where the process becomes immaterial. After all, you too have a physical brain.
As in tired. I woke up early.But it's only... what time zone are you in again?
Mars.The good part or the bad part?
lol
i am not scared of death but when you die is the scary bit
I like you a lot buddy (Thank you, I like you to).
In this worldview, if everyone is their own king, then why have laws? (Because when strictly dealing with your own enjoyment of life, no one else really matters. I acknowledge my worldview does not work for an organized society, and that laws ensue the society functions).
Why is it wrong to steal or even murder? (Because that ruins life for other people).
I think you believe in macro-evolution, so answer me this; if we are just a random bunch of chemicals, why should we "punish" people? (Because we have created a concept called morality. It doesn't exist in the natural world, we created it, its artificial. I don't know why... we as a society simply have it. In the natural world, an animal will do anything it can to survive. When we created "morality" and laws, we enforced them through punishment. It's not a matter of whether or not we should, we just do...).
After all, we wouldn't send baking soda to jail for reacting with vinegar. So why should we be angry for a bunch of chemicals destroying another bunch of chemicals? (Again, artificial morality).
How can chemicals be angry at all? (They can't).
If everything is material, then how could we have laws of logic? (We created them, we define "logic" as we define it. The material universe has no comment on what humans define as "logical").
We know they exist because I am coming up with a comeback just now. Laws of Logic can't exist in a totally material universe. (In a world without humans? Yes, you are absolutely right).
Also, Laws of Logic do not vary from person to person. (They do, but only slightly. We have been taught by society what "logic" is, and we can alter it slightly, but cannot truly differentiate from what we have been repeatedly taught).
If they did, arguing would be totally impossible. The only way they could exist is if we had an intellegent Designer. (You are right, the intelligent designers are humans. We, and we alone define what "logic" is).
The Big Bang couldn't create laws of logic because the Big Bang was hypothetically material. (The big bang did not. We as humans did).
Mars.The good part or the bad part?
I want a few logical proofs that God is real.If the universe in infinite, then a being resembling the description of God must exist, and a God greater than him, and on and on. In fact anything that is physically possible must exist, with an infinite amount of copies.
If the universe in infinite, then a being resembling the description of God must exist, and a God greater than him, and on and on. In fact anything that is physically possible must exist, with an infinite amount of copies.
Drake equation, eh ?You need to understand a bit about infinity mathematics to understand why infinite universe MUST create infinite amount of physically possible arrangements.If the universe in infinite, then a being resembling the description of God must exist, and a God greater than him, and on and on. In fact anything that is physically possible must exist, with an infinite amount of copies.
Why should an infinitely large universe should necessarily have an infinite diversity ? There IS a possibility of God existing, but i will not say it MUST exist.
And your point, while clever, is purely theorical.
I personally think the universe is finite. I think it is rapidly expanding, but does not go on forever, and thus all possible arrangements do not have to be present.I would say that's the more accepted model. The 13 billion years old universe; the one with the 100 billion stars per galaxy and 100 galaxies. They also make more sense since at least they are indirectly observable. But to say we exist by pure chance in this case will require us to know the chances of at least 1 planet with complex life existing in a finite world, and to resolve the Fermi Paradox.
Drake equation, eh ?If the universe in infinite, then a being resembling the description of God must exist, and a God greater than him, and on and on. In fact anything that is physically possible must exist, with an infinite amount of copies.
Why should an infinitely large universe should necessarily have an infinite diversity ? There IS a possibility of God existing, but i will not say it MUST exist.
And your point, while clever, is purely theorical.
in an infinitely large Universe such as, for instance, the one in which we live, most things one could possibly imagine, and a lot of things one would rather not, grow somewhere.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
If I'm right and there is a God and a Heaven, then I get to live forever and everything's cool. And if I'm wrong and this short life is all there is, well then I'll just cease to exist and I'll never know that I was wrong, so it won't matter. It's a no-lose situation.What if the Muslims, Zoroastrians, or one of the other various non-Christian religions were the right one?
I personally have proof of an after life, of some sort, so I'm not woried.Please share.
When I was about 5, a few months after my uncle, my favorite person in the world, passed away, me and my grandma were taking a walk, and we both saw him, same position, on the same bench, same time, same day, he even waved to us, then vanished. It's not the usual "one person saw him and the other imagined it" or "we were both loopy from sadness" thing, we both saw him. I'm not making this up. So that's my proof, that even if there is no heaven, there is an afterlife.One natural explanation:
*facepalm*
I was trying to explain it was not that, my grandma recalled the postistion he was in, and that's what I saw. I know there is an afterlife :/
Narrator: [Tyler steers the car into the opposite lane and accelerates] What are you doing?
Tyler Durden: Guys, what would you wish you'd done before you died?
Ricky: Paint a self-portrait.
The Mechanic: Build a house.
Tyler Durden: [to Narrator] And you?
Narrator: I don't know. Turn the wheel now, come on!
Tyler Durden: You have to know the answer to this question! If you died right now, how would you feel about your life?
Narrator: I don't know, I wouldn't feel anything good about my life, is that what you want to hear me say? Fine. Come on!
Tyler Durden: Not good enough.
I've seen my uncle many other times, I won't even be thinking about him and he apears.
he apears.
(https://gametechmods.com/Pics/unpossible.jpg)
*ACAMS picking on Sparkey*
well, I've still had other presences that make me beleive there is an afterlife, there is. I've seen my uncle many other times, I won't even be thinking about him and he apears.Take a photo of him the next time he appears. If you are actually seeing him and not imagining him, a camera will be able to capture his image.
How bout reincarnation, that crap creeps me out. There is less than a percent chance you would even be on earth (if there is another humanoid planet(s)). I'm sticking with good ol' heaven. That would be great. Yet there is so much to accomplish in society, I'd wish I would live to see the world as era by era progresses.Reincarnation would be pointless as we clearly don't remember anything from past lives. As for heaven, the Biblical heaven, no thanks. If I wanted to be forced to worship an egomaniac, I'd move to North Korea.
well, I've still had other presences that make me beleive there is an afterlife, there is. I've seen my uncle many other times, I won't even be thinking about him and he apears.Take a photo of him the next time he appears. If you are actually seeing him and not imagining him, a camera will be able to capture his image.
Reincarnation is the same as getting amnesia and turning into a baby who is nothing like you. Heaven hasn't actually been described, it is only been said to be better than hell.To me, Heaven is what people themselves imagine it to be like. Their own personal paradise, in other words.
Provide a photo of your uncle's ghosts and I'll open up to the possibility of ghosts existing. You will also gain worldwide fame as you'll be the first person to ever provide any legitimate evidence indicating that ghosts exist.
I just can't expect you to beleive it, it's a see it or belive it thing.
And I don't think he'd want me posting pics of him on the internet without his permisian, and trust me, if i ever get visited by him, can i pozt u on teh interwebz/ is the last thing I'll say.He wouldn't want you gaining fame and riches for being the first person to prove that ghosts exist? Why wouldn't he? Just take a picture and post it. If he objects to it, you can always apologize later.
The last I'll say probabley is "A-Are, yo-" then wake up on the floor houw later.Wait... You wake up on the floor hours later after seeing him? Have you considered the possibility that you're just dreaming when you see him?
Sarcasm, my friendKeep a camera on hand. Or say, "Hey, wait here a second. I want to fundamentally change every branch of science!"
how would I know to have my camera when he shows up? huh? like I said, I can't expect you to understand.
i know what'll happen to me if I die of old age.
I'll've withdrawn into myself so much that life will be the same as death.
The place where you're happiest.
It's a dreamworld, imo.
That is a very nicely put input d-lark.Yeah.
Provide a photo of your uncle's ghosts and I'll open up to the possibility of ghosts existing. You will also gain worldwide fame as you'll be the first person to ever provide any legitimate evidence indicating that ghosts exist.
How would that prove it? Someone would just call Photoshop.I would analyse the hell out of the photo, but it would at least be some evidence. If I saw no sign of tampering, I'd begin to consider his claims as being valid (though more intensive tests would be required before I could fully believe).
Besides, your argument in simply the fallacy of proof by lack of evidence. AKA You can't prove you saw your uncle, therefore you didn't. While I highly doubt Sparks saw his dead uncle, he could just as easily say 'Prove I didn't see him', and that would leave anyone stumped because you can't prove something doesn't exist.Problem: the burden of proof isn't on me. The burden of proof is on those asserting the claim. The claim being asserted is that ghosts exist. Sparkles's evidence is that he sees his uncle. I've provided alternate theories that don't rely on the supernatural as a counter. Since this alternate theories haven't been ruled out, it isn't logical to say that ghosts exist. You can remain agnostic, if you wish, but I prefer to not open up until there is some real evidence. My stance on ghosts is the same as my stance on the Loch Ness Monster: unless somebody can convincingly tell me how it can exist and then provide evidence showing that it does exist, I see no reason to assume that it does.
Ghosts are very real. They just freeze and turn invisible when you look at them. They are visible when you turn your back on them, they can actually move.Apology for the double post, but I think Rolo deserves some sort of medal for his post.
Ghosts are very real. They just freeze and turn invisible when you look at them. They are visible when you turn your back on them, they can actually move.
I prefer to not open up until there is some real evidence. My stance on ghosts is the same as my stance on the Loch Ness Monster: unless somebody can convincingly tell me how it can exist and then provide evidence showing that it does exist, I see no reason to assume that it does.
Do you employ this mindset toward things that you feel are fantastical or in general?In general. To save screen real estate, I have removed the rest of your post from the quote, but wish to still address it. With the invention of the cheeseburger, people at first may have said, "I don't know. It doesn't sound very tasty." But the inventor could easily give the skeptics a taste and either prove or disprove the worthiness of his new food. If those who assert the existence of ghosts can "give me a taste" of them, my stance will likely change. To date, nobody has ever "given a taste" of ghosts.