It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Noncompatible
Sorry, but not everyone falls into neat little pigeonholes.
I am for want of a better term an empirical atheist.
I also have observed that theism must be taught and appears to be nurture not nature based.
I look forward to the day when people realise that unless they acknowledge ALL the creator myths. not just the one they believe, they are also an atheist.
At the same time I do not know if death of the physical shell is the end.
I do know I want to delay it
originally posted by: [post=21397665]luthier[/post
Second it is completely unknown if reality exists oitside an observer,
originally posted by: SaturnFX
originally posted by: [post=21397665]luthier[/post
Second it is completely unknown if reality exists oitside an observer,
Prove that it doesnt.
Prove that you are not just a figment of my imagination.
You can't.
...therefore you are a figment of my imagination?
See how that works.
Reality is a baseline assumption. we live in reality, therefore science uncovers the nature of it. Saying reality isn't necessarily a real thing and we all may be the imagination of someone (Bob, God, a goat, etc) is just philosophy, not science and should then be ignored, it doesn't effect the reality percieved here.
If reality is a hologram, a false program, then still no difference..then science can be suggested the measurement of the limits and nature of the coding. point is, science is not a tool of philosophy...evidence is a tool of science, philosophy is what comes when you try to put meaning onto the evidence, but it is not in itself evidence.
originally posted by: luthier
And by the way I can prove that reality doesnt exist without conscious observers existing, there is no one to observe it and therefor no purpose for conscious observation or reality as a concept. This is actually a priori.
originally posted by: luthier
Maybe start with Karl Popper to bring you into the modern era of science and philosophy you need to start at the beginning because science is nothing without philosophy. The question asked is philosophy and the answer is science or philosophy.
I think you assume applied science is all there is. I see this a lot with people who discredit theoretcial physics.
]
So life is just part of a cycle of life and death and it never ceases to exist. Your thoughts and memories are energy and information. This is what makes me distinct from you. How can this cease to exist?
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SaturnFX
Science would not exist without philosophy.
Empericism was first a philosphy. Falsifiability was first a philosophy.
Your statement again is false.
Note: without a conscious observor. Not "anybody"
See this is why philosophy is so important so you understand even your own arguement.
And no we are not talking about applied science. That is engineering. We are talking about theoretical science. Namely metaphysics and cosmology.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SaturnFX
Science would not exist without philosophy.
Did the first man that used a tool to knock fruit out of a tree require philosophy? no..it was applied science, physics, etc. your statement makes no sense.
Empericism was first a philosphy. Falsifiability was first a philosophy.
Now you are talking methodology (the scientific method). way to move the goalpost
Your statement again is false.
I accept your apology. confusing science with popular methodology I guess is...sort of...kinda easy to make...sorta. I guess. I wont judge.
Note: without a conscious observor. Not "anybody"
Anybody = conscious observer....unless you care to prove undeniably what consciousness is and isn't, also weigh in 100% on any extradimensional creatures, sentient conscious micro-organisms, etc etc etc.
Can you prove there is no invisible aliens right behind you? (of course you cant...cant prove a negative)
See this is why philosophy is so important so you understand even your own arguement.
Its not unless you are discussing methodology and origins
And no we are not talking about applied science. That is engineering. We are talking about theoretical science. Namely metaphysics and cosmology.
Metaphysics is not science, its philosophy..discussing things of abstract designs like self and point of existance, things like that...I think, therefore I am is a good statement discussing metaphysics.
Cosmology is the study of the stars/universe. The speed of light and the distance between celestial bodies is what is discussed there, not the point of it all, just the observation
Fun convo though. You are wrong and splitting hairs now, but you know you are wrong.
Last thing...you cant prove anything..proof isn't a thing presented, its a thing concluded. evidence is all you can provide.
So lets go back full circle into your claim and do a very basic debunking.
I said you cannot prove a negative.
You said you can.
I challenge your claim
Prove no gods exist anywhere at any time.
originally posted by: luthier
Yes the person first thought "i bet i can get that apple down" then found a way to do it.
Cosmology is not astronomy you are confused there. Its the study of origin and development of the universe. It can now be done without studying stars at all with particle colliders.
cos·mol·o·gy
käzˈmäləjē/Submit
noun
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.
Methodology and science go hand in hand. The concepts always originate in philosophy.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of being
met·a·phys·ics
ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality
You actually believe cosmology is what you claim? If so you truly do not understand cosmology at all.
originally posted by: neoholographic
First you need to provide evidence that something ceases to exist.
So why would consciousness just vanish at death? That makes no sense. You can say we die but you can't say we cease to exist because there's not a shred of evidence to support it.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SaturnFX
I think its obvious at this point you are not familiar with cosmology or metaphysics. Which is what this thread is about.