Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

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

When did I assert that belief? No, but what's the relevance of that? Why would an afterlife in a beyond-physical reality be outside of science? So you can reject it offhand and misrepresent me, as you've already done? No thanks. It's there for you to read if you take a look. It's not clear to me yet that I'm discussing with someone interested in taking a genuine look at the evidence. If you were, you already would have. See what I mean? If you were reading my posts you'd already know that's what I was doing.

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, not true. If that's what you were doing, you would have already conceded to the loss (which I'm still waiting for).In fact, I can prove that is not what you're doing based on one of your prior responses. Sure doesn't sound like an 'uncertain conclusion' to me. It sure sounds like an open derision to anyone who believes differently from you; and an absolute conclusion towards so called

quote:

---

objective fact

---

with no room for other possibilities. It seems as if you've been caught in your own web of lies.And aside from this, had everything been merely "tentative conclusions" in your eyes, your original argument of a "false hope" would have had no feet to stand on. I would have simply said..."If that's just a tentative conclusion, you don't know either way if there's an afterlife. If you don't know and can't prove it, you also don't know if the peace that is being received is from a source that's true or false." --End of debate. But that wasn't the end, and you chose to counter with..."It is a false hope [absolutism] therefore is a false peace."That's what you've been doing all along, no equivocation, simply put: "I'm right, and you're wrong."And I continually avoid going over your evidence to prove a point. It does not without a doubt prove anything. Unless it is proof, it's not enough to say there is or there isn't an afterlife. And if it's not enough to prove whether or not there is an afterlife, you can't call everyone else's convictions, "false hopes, and pseudo-peace."And if you can't do that, well, the possibility that an afterlife exists remains, and my argument still stands.And if you can do that, than you're speaking as if what you believe is fact, which is absolutism, which I do believe you said you 'weren't doing.'So pick your poison.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-08-2005 01:38 PM

Oh, really? And that's why your first post to me consisted entirely of infantile, dripping sarcasm?

Why? Because tentative conclusions are useless, in your view? Because I don't know everything, I know nothing?You can keep waiting. Proof is for mathematics and martinis. Are you saying that because I don't know everything, I know nothing?Why would you expect me to believe such a ridiculous assertion?Like I said, keep waiting. In particular please wait to post until you have an actual rebuttal to my arguments that isn't based on the summary rejection of all possibility of human knowledge.

Some things don't require proof. However, what you are trying to accomplish requires unassailable proof. If it's not proof, than you can't assert whether or not it's a "false hope," and accomplish anything more than the statement itself. And if you can't proclaim that it's a factually false hope, than your argument is "one big flaw." Your argument is defective at the base, and undermining and breaking it requires nothing more than tapping on it.I'll lay it out for you once again.If what you're asserting is not a fact, your argument falls apart at it's base. It is not a fact, therefore it crumbles at at its very base.It would take a fact for the following statement to have any credence It is not a fact that it's a "false hope", therefore it is not a valid statement. Your reasoning skills should be able to comprehend that.Therefore, because it is not a fact, crashfrog has no grounds in denying people the potential in believing in and receiving peace from a potential afterlife.Because the above is true, in turn, the original assertion of is to be treated as a fallacy, and to be given no credence or respect in regards to a constructive discussion/debate. If the peace that was initially branded as false can not be definitively determined (or proven) as false either way, this peace has the right to remain as: from a potentially legitimate source, and in and of itself, a potentially legitimate entity. This "peace," was always, and still remains, a viable reality. In turn, people can, and still do, receive comfort from this peace. --whether or not an afterlife exists.Because you can't prove an afterlife doesn't exist, the potential for its existence, as well as the potential for an "inner reality" (a source of peace) based on its potential existence, is still in tact.Therefore, you have not broken the original stance, and although you've previously refused, if you wish to gain any respect from your peers, the appropriate course of action is conceding.The original stance of "A person (in general) who believes in life after death has more inner peace than a person who believes that there is no life after death." still stands.P.S.- The fact that you believe/assert it is a false hope is a moot point--and that includes any evidence and arguments of varying effectiveness that you use to support your position--(until the evidence is unassailable proof- meaning we have not even come close to ascertaining that you're beliefs are fact), and will no longer do you any good. (Not that it's done you any good thus far.)This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-08-2005 02:57 AM

Actually, I was hoping you'd understand it was impossible based upon simple logic.But forgive me, I was incorrect, it is possible. The only way one could determine if there was an afterlife is in the afterlife itself, and in experiencing it themselves. So yes, at one point we may know that it does exist. However, we will never know that it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, at time of death our thoughts will perish forever, and there will be no determining.But aside from that... This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-08-2005 03:26 AM

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?

But I can, will, and have, because a tentative conclusion is sufficient. Uh-huh. Now you're speaking for my peers, as well? And I'm the "arrogant" one?

Can you do anything in real life that you wouldn't be able to do, mathematically, inside of a computer?Like, say, physically represent number theory yet not have Godelian contradictions? Or can I physically model the Post Correspondance Problem? Computers are only able to perform certain kinds of mathematics, and it's not clear that we would even be able to know about the limitations of computers if we ourselves were software running on a computer. Now I imagine that you'd like to simply reply "imagine the mega-computer is NP-complete" or whatever but it's not even clear that such a thing would be possible.Is it even possible to accurately model a universe in a system less complicated than the universe itself? If the only way to model the universe is with a universe, how can we be said to be in a model and not in a universe?

You mean you were hoping that I'd do your homework for you, realize your brilliance, and concede the debate, without you having to do anything more than call me names?Get used to disappointment. I'll be back to address your ridiculous "simple logic" but I don't have time this morning.

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?

quote:

---

Do you really believe that no person can desire their own death? What about people with painful, chronic, hopeless conditions?

---

No. But then again, people in those circumstances don't usually believe they have a choice.

quote:

---

In my opinion many normal, healthy people have made the exact opposite choice, when they felt that their principles dictated it, or that the choice was between their death and harm to those they loved. And for many other, equally legitimate reasons.

---

You've added circumstances to the equation. I'm talking about a flat choice of life or death, no extenuating circumstances.As a mother, I would have no problem putting my life on the line for my child, but at the instant of doing so I would not be thinking about choosing life or death; I'm thinking of the child's survival, not a choice between life and death.

quote:

---

In feudal Japan the stated goal of every samurai was to live and die at the pleasure of his master. Was every samurai who killed himself to prevent the stain of dishonor from tainting his family name not of sound mind?

---

So again, life and death was not a true choice for the individual samurai. Human cultures have done many things that go against the normal instincts of man.

quote:

---

Do some people commit suicide because of mental conditions or disorders that rob them of mental clarity? Yes. Perhaps even most suicides are like that. But every single one? I simply can't make that kind of blanket statement.

---

You do like extremes.I was thinking more along the lines of depression. According to Suicide Prevention Services depression is the number one cause of suicide. Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain. Sometimes it is inherited and sometimes it is trauma induced. My daughter suffers from inherited depression.IMO when they are depressed enough to consider suicide, they do not feel that they have a choice and I don't feel they are of sound mind.The young Christian I spoke of was extremely depressed. IMO, his belief that he could join his father helped him make the decision.

quote:

---

I don't believe that death is not something we cannot legitimately, rationally wish on ourselves under any circumstances.

---

I didn't say we couldn't, but under normal circumstances we probably wouldn't, instinct would lead us to survival.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Not so. There can be no absolutism in atheistic thought without allowing for absolutism in fervant, numerically significant, and rational belief(or believers) At best, Crashfrog, we have a stalemate.One of the comments that I heard about you is that you are the atheist, liberal counterequivalent to Faith and her conservative Christian stance. You can lay all of the scientists and their facts end to end and never reach any conclusion beyond human wisdom. Belief is defined as an experience and subjective belief beyond human wisdom. To a believer, this experience is as objective as the math in a computation or the opinions of expert archeologists.I think that, pertaining to the topic of this thread, that there is a substitute for inner peace. It is known as debate and discussion.Your opinions, although often forceful and brash, are often objective...within the confines of human understanding.That, however, is not the only paradigm being discussed. The goalposts have been moved.