Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

Crash, you crack me up Since the dawn of time, philosophers, scientists and theologians have debated the existence of god and of a spiritual reality. But today, this very day, on this very forum, Crash has provided the final proof of the non-existence of god and of the spiritual realm. Henceforth, his "facts" will be known as the "Crash of Religion". Several prominent theology departments are already closing down. The philosophers have drawn up multiple law-suits for their loss of earnings. A fatwah was called against Crash, but then immediately revoked as the once-religious leaders decided to go on a cruise instead.

I'm going to have to call you on that. I've read your arguments, but they don't wash. You're assuming that your own level of intellectual curiosity and rationality can be applid to everyone, and that is blatently false. You appear to assume that everyone holds the same doubts to their faith as you once did. This is a huge assumption, and my experience certainly does not support this. This is not hard to believe when you look at dyed-in-the-wool creationists.

All I'm saying, Crash, is that the debate is eternal. If your "facts" were so solid, the philosophical debate would have ended centuries ago. My "argument" is simply that your "facts" do not constitute an acceptable proof of the non-existence of something outside science.A naive application of Occam's Razor would suggest then that there is nothing other than the objective physical world. But I believe that the application is naive, as it is presupposing its validity outside of the objective science (where it belongs) that is claimed to be the total of reality.This is rather like the simulation argument... it may not be possible to physically prove that we live in a simulation, but that does not stop the argument's point that in all probability, we are in a simulation...In the end, you are arguing from incredulity and you should know that that is frowned upon around here

I'll give you that one Why? If you are correct, you won't. Can you provide evidence that a person, at the last moment of conciousness before death, realises that there is no afterlife... Is this an assumption that beliefs that are true give peace. Can you back this up? Or are you stating that "of those true beliefs, the ones that give peace (assuming these exist)..." I can go along with that. Huh? How would that person know? More to the point, how do you know? You are making claims of that very point from which (as you point out) no-one has returned.Even if it were true, you are making a subjective value-judgement that a moment's face-to-face with cold stark reality outweighs a lifetime of contentment from one's beliefs. Au contraire mon petit frog...

Well if they did, it passed me by. Evolution of the state(wavefunction) is certainly deterministic, but the result of a meaurement made upon that state is statistical. And it's those measurements that make up our sense of reality. You expect me to be able to substantiate something outside science using science? I agree with the last part. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. But this evidence against the afterlife... this is just a restatement of THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.I agree that no-one has come back (well, there was this guy 2000 years ago... no, never mind), and I agree that biological processes end at death, and that memories seem to be tied to brain function, and thus should cease at brain-death... but all of this is examining only the physical. You are not considering the un-physical, so your evidence fails. But you say, there is no evidence of the un-physical, and I agree totally. You are back to THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. There is not "no evidence for" and "lots of evidence against". There is just "no evidence for". If you want to take a minimalist approach and say "no evidence for" therefore doesn't exist, then fine. I have no problem with that. But that is a belief not a proven position. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, but IT IS NOT proof of absence.And don't forget that you seem to be targetting an afterlife here. To many Jews, there is no afterlife. But there is certainly an un-physical element to reality.What did you think of my point about the simulation argument? That is a possible situation of "no physical proof yet almost certainly true"

So you're telling me that God has revealed to you what happens, and then you go around denying that he exists. Oh, are you in for a slapping in your after-life. I haven't, I get my theology from Ghost. Mmmm... Demi Moore and the potters wheel... Christian thoughts, dammit, Christian thoughts. Well, the neat thing about false beliefs is that you can make them really nice You can't do that with true beliefs. You're stuck with what you've got. And the space of false beliefs is certainly way larger than the space of true beliefs.And believe me, I've had many true beliefs that in no way have brought me peace. 300ft below water, 2 miles from air is wonderful with the false belief that everything is ok. When the truth dawned, it wasn't peace that filled my pants... Given that it's 2am, that sensation would lead me to believe that I am entering paradise

I see no evidence of an afterlife within physical reality. Therefore I do not believe there is an afterlife within physical reality. I believe that reality is larger than physical reality. That leaves the possibility of an afterlife outisde physical reality. My particular faith suggests that such an extra-physical afterlife exists. So I believe it.You do not appear to belive in a reality larger than physical reality. Fine. You have no evidence for a reality larger than physical reality. Fine. Do you have specific evidence against reality being larger than physical-reality? I'm not talking about an after-life here. Contrary to your counter-assertion, I re-assert that it is simply "no evidence for" However, your evidence was not addressed to me, and I may be mis-reading what you wrote. I know it's a pain, but would you re-present your evidence based around our discussion? Thanks "Tentitive conclusions" is fine. My only objection in all of this was to the apparent absolutism in your original assertions. If you were only making tentative conclusions based upon your observations, I am more than happy

If you were reading my posts you'd already know that I am. Ok, we have a break-down in communicating our respective definitions. Rather than correct that directly, let's try this another way...Crash, I have a new religion...I believe that our entire observable, objective reality is a simulation running on a mega-computer controlled by some mega-being and we are merely sim-humans. The simulation software is running in a mega-language called "d" and our particular simulation is called "universe". Every aspect of our universe is simply part of this simulation. No matter how hard we try, we cannot break through to the actual "d" code because the simulation does not allow it. Our simulation is completely self-contained and consistent. Every now and again, the mega-being tinkers with the model... usually by implanting "thoughts" into the "minds" of some of the sim-humans populating this simulation, via subtle alterations to the "d" code. This is completely unobservable to the sim-humans, except that every now again, a sim-human claims to have "found God". At the end of the "life" of a sim-human, a complete copy of their brain is made and copied into a new ready-made sim-human in a second simulation called "paradise". There is no other contact made between "universe" and "paradise". In fact, they run on two completely separate machines.I have absoluely no evidence for this. But my question is, have you any evidence against it?

No, it was a serious point wrapped in humour. If you took offense, my apologies, it was not my intention.Can you address the rest of my post, as that would shed more light on the root of our disgreements?

Excellent points. This is more like it. Unfortunately, I'm busy as hell but will do my best to get back to this today. I'll just say that this has been one of my main areas of consideration over the past few years. Unfortunately I'm no longer paid to think of these things However, we're drifting a "little" off-topic, and we've only 50 posts left here. Shall we start a new thread now?