Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:07:56 UTC No. 16240955

>>16240951
If you think AI can ever reach consciousness, it's probably also safe to say that afterlife does not exist, unless you also believe that human consciousness is somehow that much more special than that of an AI.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:13:22 UTC No. 16240960

>>16240951
If there was only one life, then the probability of you existing right now would be zero, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there is no end, it's all an unending cycle, infinite time, countless worlds, countless beings, countless lives

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:13:36 UTC No. 16240961

>>16240951
If you want to anthropomorphize nothingness then yes it's "eternal oblivion" but that doesn't mean anything because when you die it's over anyways.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:17:03 UTC No. 16240966

>>16240951
>>16240955
If you can explain why there's nothing after death you should be able to explain why are you alive right now.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:21:17 UTC No. 16240973

I mean we live in a constantly expanding and growing universe. You can never really know whether or not there's an afterlife, you can just deduce that the current religions might not have it right. If evolution is real, then the purpose of evolution is to create the perfect being, which in theory, is God. If evolution does what it aims for, then there's a fair chance there might be an afterlife. Not saying to go and pray or anything, just to be mindful that anything realistically can happen until it cannot.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:28:38 UTC No. 16240980

>>16240960
Since the probability of you hitting some exact spot in a dartboard is zero, the fact that you hit the dartboard at all means that you will be there throwing darts for all eternity.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:29:47 UTC No. 16240983

>>16240961
if my brain's death means the universe ends: How do we avoid concluding that's solipsism?
a shitty solipsism where reality ends forever after I die so...Boltzman brain but unironically? how can I 100% certain state there's a world out there when I won't have any way to verify the world after my personal death?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:31:55 UTC No. 16240984

>>16240983
All you can do is trust it to be there, waiting for you, your atoms, and everything that makes you up, to do something with themselves again. Patience brother.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:32:50 UTC No. 16240986

>>16240983
>>16240984
>>16240985
Samefag.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:36:03 UTC No. 16240988

>>16240986
Tripping, I'm just here to think for a while

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:52:57 UTC No. 16240997

>>16240951
Oh look, atheists proselytizing their blind faith beliefs and falsely calling them "science" again. How tedious.

>I know tons of people who say after-lifers are coping
Atheism/evolutionism are the real cope, they can't hand the notion of a Creator to whom we're held accountable, they'd rather think literally nothing exploded and rocks magically brought forth life and then magically transformed into all forms of life and when we die there's no judgment and no punishment for the wicked.

It's literally a fairy tale for adults, none of it is scientifically possible, it violates countless laws, endless miracles with no miracle maker, it fails all mathematical tests, and they're all extremely cowardly and dishonest when preaching their blind faith in the schools. It's the blind faith state religion of socialism/atheism, just like believing there's nothing after we die, which again is just a cope for people who love to commit evil. These people often won't even admit evil or morality exists because they love to do evil.

>or such Naturalist ideas.
Naturalism is self-refuting. I don't know how people don't see it for themselves.

Is time infinite? Then we have an infinite past and life couldn't exist at any point on that timeline because the heat death of the universe would've happened infinite years ago. Any point on such a timeline would have an infinite past and all the heat/energy expended. Where did the energy come from? When did time start or why? Well, they can't answer that. They'll argue the universe might be eternal, because they can't explain a beginning without sounding foolish.

They're just a bunch of lying cowards who are never honest about anything, and their blind faith beliefs are a constantly-moving goalpost as well. As soon as something's criticized, they change it then act like that was always part of the "Science™"; ignoring of course that all of their theories violate the laws of science or are mathematically impossible.

I hate liars.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:54:33 UTC No. 16240998

Infinite time eventually means ”you” reappear. Local energy densities appear on cosmic scales from time to time, eventually one spawns you again.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:01:16 UTC No. 16241006

>>16240980
But the dartboard is everywhere, you will hit no matter where you throw, there will always be life, whether it will take you a minute to throw the dart or three quadrillion years, doesn't matter to you since it's instantaneous without any senses, as soon as you die you will be alive again as something else, because all life is the same thing

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:06:12 UTC No. 16241011

>>16240997
A creator god is near guaranteed to not be your kike god if it exists. It might even punish unbelievers like you.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:08:15 UTC No. 16241014

>>16241011
And there's always these classic anti-intellectual replies from the atheist lying cowards who can't debate and can't prove their blind faith beliefs, so they chimp out and knee-jerk post some racial slur they're programmed to say.

You're a loser.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:10:35 UTC No. 16241016

Why am I me and not someone else?

open individualism at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:11:19 UTC No. 16241018

>>16241016
>not someone else?
Who says you're not?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:12:02 UTC No. 16241019

>>16241018
Nobody. I'm not talking about things people say. Obviously...?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:12:46 UTC No. 16241020

>>16241016
You can be whoever you want to be.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:13:07 UTC No. 16241021

>>16241014
The only way lying atheist cowards can defend their blind faith religious beliefs they falsely call science is by lashing out, moving goalposts, shitting up discussions (as >>16241011 did), and basically forcing the topic onto other subjects: because they are always incapable of defending or proving their beliefs.

The *only* defense the atheists, naturalists, evolutionists have is by attacking other beliefs; they're all incapable of scientifically proving what they lie and falsely call science. You can scientifically test this on /his/ or just by lurking, any time atheism is questioned or criticized, they force the topic onto others' beliefs and act like falsely representing others' beliefs proves theirs. They're not even remotely logical or sensible, just a bunch of lying cowards whose blind faith religious beliefs would die out if not for tax-funded indoctrination in the schools.

I hate liars.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:13:54 UTC No. 16241022

>>16241020
No. I can't.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:15:00 UTC No. 16241023

>>16241014
I do believe in a prime cause (call it god if you want to name it that). But the bible and some stone age larping shamans having insight into this prime cause is bullshit.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:19:36 UTC No. 16241029

>>16241023
Why are you pretending to be reasonable now? You already proved you're unwilling to be honest or argue in good faith, you still prove such.

You might as well believe the earth is on the back of a giant turtle if you really believe nothing exploded into everything and man came from monkeys and fish and all life came from a common ancestor which magically came to life from nonlife.

That's far more than just a prime mover, you fucking dipshit.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:20:08 UTC No. 16241030

>>16241014
>complains avout atheists making ad homs (while none was made)
>ends his post with an ad hom
Very smart

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:21:28 UTC No. 16241032

>>16241030
>homo
>homo
>homo
Freudian slip?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:22:24 UTC No. 16241033

>>16241030
Thanks for proving you're a liar who bears false witness and refuses to argue in good faith.

Oh, and calling losers and liars like you "losers" and "liars" isn't "ad hom" you fucking retard.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:22:40 UTC No. 16241035

>>16241029
Lol you are retarded, you can only argue against your own strawmen. Many physicists believe in some prime cause/brute fact etc..

When I tell you that I do believe in such a primordial cause you have a tantrum and yell ”NUH UH YOU DONT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT”. Fucking moron.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:23:41 UTC No. 16241039

>>16241033
Abloo bloo

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:24:56 UTC No. 16241041

Physicist here. I couldn't tell you what other physicists believe because I never talked to them about anything like that. But I can tell you they're a bunch of nerds.

OP at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:25:51 UTC No. 16241043

>>16240998
>>16241006
so, the Atrophic Principle can answer my question? Which model\theory of Time would be most appropriate to go along with what you say: eternalism, or presentism?
Maybe even, Tegmark's model of time?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:31:58 UTC No. 16241052

Still not one single argument against anything I've posted and still not one single proof for any of the atheistic lying coward's religious beliefs they falsely call science.

>>16241035
>Lol you are retarded, you can only argue against your own strawmen.
Don't re-read your own posts, idiot hypocrite.

Oh, and accurately reducing evolutionist beliefs isn't a strawman, it just makes it sound so stupid and you have to cry "logical fallacy" because you losers have no arguments and can't prove your blind faith religion. There's literally nothing else you losers can do, you have to cry and change topics because you can't prove any of your ***mathematically impossible*** religious beliefs you falsely call science.

Also, you prove yet again that you're a liar who bears false witness and refuses to argue in good faith.

>>16241039
>Abloo bloo
SJW losers like you always cry when someone calls a spade "a spade".

Atheist religious beliefs produce millions of retarded SJW cry babies like you. It produces SJW losers like you and useful idiot golem who worship the state and do everything "the experts" tell them, even if it's against their own interests. Atheists/naturalists/evolutionists are lying cowards and none of you losers can even prove your retarded religious beliefs so you cry about "muh ad hom" and other nonsense while spewing nothing but hypocrisy and lies. You idiots can't even be honest with yourselves that your beliefs are taken on blind faith.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:45:34 UTC No. 16241065

>>16240951
Science can by definition not say anything about first person consciousness

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:48:44 UTC No. 16241070

>>16240998
I can't forever be like this, can I? Please no...

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:51:26 UTC No. 16241075

>>16241065
Science (noun): The systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:55:52 UTC No. 16241085

Linear time is illusory. You just live your life over and over again. Forever.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:57:16 UTC No. 16241088

>>16241052
You’re retarded, get that ass banned

OP at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:59:18 UTC No. 16241092

>>16241085
To be fair and also smart comment: cyclical time is NOT an argument against non-illusory time. a circle is a circle; not a square or a triangle.
buddhists or hindu believers in cyclical time are coping, because cycles are perfect and thus real and thus not-illusory.
>theravada mayalets and mahayana circlelets on ashura rage mode

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:00:30 UTC No. 16241096

>>16240951
As far as science is concerned consciousness does not even exist. Science certainly has nothing to say on the afterlife.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:01:49 UTC No. 16241098

>>16241043
time is just a perceptory illusion derived from matter interaction rates, it is not a force or phenomenon by itself

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:31:05 UTC No. 16241136

>>16241098
Yes you could call time a ratio between event Y and event X (how many Y happen for every X event). That doesn’t make it any less real.

OP at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:38:33 UTC No. 16241143

>>16241136
>>16241098
what about my input? :
>>16241092
Also, I don't want to be a literal parody of edgy and list things that aren't real but: are time and personal identity not-real?
I want to read up on stuff like non-local universe Nobel paper, non-locality in general, "spooky action at a distance", etc
>I kinda dislike retrocausality because its still causality and I much believe in Acausality

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:55:19 UTC No. 16241162

>>16241136
The fact that it doesn't exist independently as a rule which mediates anything makes it less than real

OP at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:56:17 UTC No. 16241164

>>16241162
Maybe "solipsistic idealistic monism" IS the ultimate reality even if it sounds so schizo

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:00:07 UTC No. 16241169

>>16241164
That can't be possible, then neither you or I or the rest of the universe would exist if any other object with perceptory capabilities (read:anything) were to cease from existing at any given point in time, solipsism is a fun little idea, but ultimately wrong

OP at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:01:40 UTC No. 16241174

>>16241169
maybe the flip-side is then, that since solipsism is wrong, and materialism leads to solipsism (as per the )
>>16240983
>>16240984
then..materialism IS wrong?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:05:37 UTC No. 16241183

>>16241174
>.materialism IS wrong?
Not really, the material and immaterial coexist and cooperate, there are no separate systems in reality, it is all an unified process, the main question that eludes us is that what is the immaterial, there are obviously rules that dictate how something behaves, but where are those rules and how are they enforced, they clearly have no physical form

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:05:49 UTC No. 16241184

>>16240951
it's a metaphysical question and inherently unfalsifiable, it can't be "settled science" by definition because you can't test it. none of us know or can know what happens after death, just pick whatever your faith prescribes or what's most philosophically appealing to you

if there were a real answer to your question, humanity would have found it by now. there wouldn't even be religions to fight over the issue because you'd have demonstrable proof of what happens in the afterlife

Simulacrum at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:48:13 UTC No. 16241247

>>16240960
>If there was only one life, then the probability of you existing right now would be zero, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there is no end, it's all an unending cycle, infinite time, countless worlds, countless beings, countless lives

This doesn't make any sense. First of all, how do you even compute the probability of a person existing, when only given that there is no afterlife? Secondly, you're committing the inverse gambler's fallacy. Even assuming that one life is extremely unlikely, it doesn't follow that there is a plethora of many lives that exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_gambler%27s_fallacy

>>16240973
> If evolution is real, then the purpose of evolution is to create the perfect being, which in theory, is God.

Wrong, that is not how evolution works. Saying that evolution has a purpose is not scientific. Furthermore, evolution does not necessarily increase the quality of life. Evolution only "cares" about making reproduction as efficient as possible.

>>16240997
>they'd rather think literally nothing exploded and rocks magically brought forth life and then magically transformed into all forms of life
This is of course a misrepresentation of what atheists believe. No atheist believes that the first living organism came from a rock. At least, I've never heard of one that did.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:57:51 UTC No. 16241255

The purpose of life is to create an organism best suited to it's environment no? What is our environment if not the universe as a whole? What being would be able to reproduce (and create) universally?

Simulacrum at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:58:06 UTC No. 16241256

>>16240997
>Is time infinite? Then we have an infinite past and life couldn't exist at any point on that timeline because the heat death of the universe would've happened infinite years ago. Any point on such a timeline would have an infinite past and all the heat/energy expended.

This argument only works if the total energy of the universe is constant, but cosmologists have known for a long time that in general relativity, conservation of energy is not always defined.

See the first answer here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/is-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-still-valid

>First of all, Noether's theorem makes the energy conservation law equivalent to the time-translational symmetry. In general backgrounds in GR, the time-translational symmetry is broken (especially in cosmology), so the corresponding energy conservation law is broken, too, despite the fact that the energy conservation law (and the corresponding time-translational symmetry) is an unassailable principle in all of pre-general-relativistic physics.

So the argument doesn't work.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:00:39 UTC No. 16241261

>>16241174
Materialism can be used to better understand the universe, but there's pieces in the picture materialism will not be able to connect. Materialism has a lot of merit and can be used to better understand our surroundings, but there is nothing saying it's the end all be all of existence.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:43:40 UTC No. 16241309

>>16240980
Underrated post.

>>16241006
Weak comeback. Idealists have no reasonable defense for their assumption of continuity. Sure: a wave arises in the ocean, transforms, dissolves and a new wave arises again. That's not a sufficient argument for continuity. A video game character is not the screen and not the processor. The dream is not necessarily the dreamer and this is just the tip of the ice berg of possible flaws in idealist' reasoning.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:51:17 UTC No. 16241317

>>16241255
>what is our environment if not the universe as a whole
I'm positive that evolution isn't selecting for people who best utilize the gravitational attraction from Tau Ceti or starlight from Sirius. ignorant post

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:59:05 UTC No. 16241328

>>16241247
>Saying that evolution has a purpose is not scientific.
Blind leading the blind. If you = brain physiology = will = desire = goal oriented and the universe = deterministic then it obviously follows that will / desire / goal orientation was already ''in the cards'' (inevitably emerging from the physical laws) and the universe is processing the end result of that will inherent to physics. Delay the
>reeeeee Dawkins rejects teleology
for 1 second and consider that I've only made a factual statement.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:06:45 UTC No. 16241334

>>16241309
Reality is not a videogame, you reddit faggot

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:13:30 UTC No. 16241338

>>16240951
Just refuse to walk into the light. Theres nothing more to learn for you.
Dont accept offers of coming back as a wealthy chad, because then you will end that life happy and walk into the light again. You have to break the cycle

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:27:06 UTC No. 16241347

>>16241328
Thank you. With any luck, the future will belong to humanity, will continue to lead the charge of life, and create the greatest thing the future holds. Glory awaits life.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:29:38 UTC No. 16241350

>>16241317
Just because it isn't now doesn't mean that it never will. There's a lot of things that people will do outside of the breadth of our individual life spans. Ten thousand years is still a blink for the universe.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:30:24 UTC No. 16241351

>>16241088
Lmao, you're pathetic. You can't even debate so you cry for censorship.

It's funny, your blind faith religion literally dies without censorship and indoctrination. You're literally no different than the communists, and your evolutionistranny religion is their religion.

You're such a fucking loser and a coward.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:31:29 UTC No. 16241352

>>16241011
It's always the God of the Bible that they lash out at too, almost like a freudian slip or subconscience admission.

They're never angry with the god of the quran, and the quran promotes child rape and murder and mass murder in jihad. They're never angry with the god of the talmud, and the talmud also promotes child rape and murder. They're never angry with any specific god or gods other than the God of the Bible because that God is benevolent and has moral laws you're supposed to follow. They wouldn't mind the god of the talmud or quran because they're a bunch of perverts and reprobates, it's why they love the sodomites who "marry" then molest and pimp out their adopted kids, that's the sort of nonsense they promote. They claim man is just an animal and since animals live like beasts, then so too should man. They're always trying to bring man down.

And they always expose their hatred for God whenever their blind faith state religion is criticized, rather than simply proving their religious evolution/big bang/etc creation mythology which doesn't stand up to honest intellectual scrutiny, but they're not really interested in the truth, they don't care it's mathematically proven impossible. They want their fairy tale for why we exist and what happens when we die so they can go on being the evil lying sacks of shit they are. They're certainly never interested in honest discussion or even being respectful, then they cry like SJW losers when you call them the liars and losers that they are. Total hypocrites, lying cowards, and losers. It's why they need tax-funded indoctrination for their religion because nobody would believe it otherwise, they need to brainwash kids to believe nonsense so they can justify their LGBTQ sodomite perversions (which they also force on kids through the schools). Absolute subhuman and evil filth.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:32:30 UTC No. 16241353

>>16241011
>>16241352
Not a single one of them is ever honest and they all have no morals since atheist/evolutionist "morals" can change with a single media marketing campaign; for example, they all stopped calling things "gay" because of those sodomite propaganda campaigns about 15 years ago. After all, they wouldn't want to offend the sodomite perverts.

>>16241351
Evolutionists are liars and cowards and their religion dies without censorship and tax-funding and access to indoctrinate kids. Their textbooks are still full of court-proven frauds as well, they're subhuman trash.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:34:00 UTC No. 16241355

>>16241256
Cosmology isn't real science, retard. Go get your science jab.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:35:25 UTC No. 16241359

>>16241247
>Wrong, that is not how evolution works.
It doesn't work at all because it doesn't happen, and you can't prove it so you just spew lies and assert your baseless beliefs as true like a fucking loser.

>No atheist believes that the first living organism came from a rock.
That's because you're a fucking retard who's never critically analyzed your own beliefs. They just add more steps between then kvetch like jews when you don't play their retarded semantics games. You're a fucking loser, a liar, and a coward; but that's just par for the course for subhuman evolutionistrannies.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:36:02 UTC No. 16241360

>>16241353
>>16241352

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:37:22 UTC No. 16241362

>>16241355
>it's not real science because... because it just isn't, ok???
pissbaby

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:39:23 UTC No. 16241365

>>16241353
I'm not going to say only idiots believe that God will never come to be, but I find it rather arrogant that they dismiss the possibility of God coming about in the future. If something truly omnipotent, all powerful, comes to be, would it not eventually create everything, including itself? I'm probably not making any more friends spouting my rhetoric, I'm just hoping that people realize that they don't know everything and don't know every possibility, and shouldn't discount one thing because its a part of another older story they personally find abhorrent.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:40:34 UTC No. 16241369

>>16241360
Time, mostly. It's outside of our grasp for the foreseeable future.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:40:44 UTC No. 16241370

>>16241362
>no arguments
It's not real science. It's just "dude what if multiverse" and all their nonsense fails all mathematical tests.

Math not only proves the existence of God but disproves your retarded tranny evolution religion. And now you perverted lying freaks tell kids they can "evolve" into the opposite sex. Fucking kill yourself.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:41:53 UTC No. 16241374

>>16241370
I agree with you on this point though, trannies are an eyesore to the likes of God and anyone with functioning vision.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:42:10 UTC No. 16241375

>>16241370
not understanding something doesn't make it untrue, pissbaby
read a book

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:42:47 UTC No. 16241376

>>16241334
Prove that you're not a midwit by carefully considering the fact that any description of reality is not reality itself.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:46:16 UTC No. 16241379

>>16240951
No, the science of NDEs is settled in the opposite direction. Check out pic related as well as the books The Self Does Not Die and Chris Carter's book Science and the Near-Death Experience. They crush the arguments of Keith Augustine. Indeed, NDEs are irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So every materialist would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"The minute that I kind of woke up on that hillside in heaven I knew that that was more real than any time I've ever spent here on Earth. And I knew instantly that my time here was really but a dream. It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."

If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.

So NDEs convince people who have them, and so does the extensive scholarly literature on NDEs for the people who actually reads it. The problem, however, is that so many pseudoskeptics never actually read the scholarly literature on NDEs and instead just assume, based on their materialist dogma, that since there can not be any evidence for the reality of NDEs, there is no point actually learning more about NDEs.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:55:08 UTC No. 16241391

>>16241376
not an argument

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:00:45 UTC No. 16241400

>>16241143
Time is as real as anything else anon. Worrying about what is and isn't real is a good way to have an existential crisis.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:01:49 UTC No. 16241403

>>16241098
Time is a measurement quantity. It's as real as an inch or a litre.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:04:20 UTC No. 16241408

>>16241391
You've not provided a better analogy than the videogame metaphor so the ball is in your court.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:09:59 UTC No. 16241418

>>16241408
I don't need analogies because I'm not a toddler, you live, you die, you live again, not a difficult concept

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:12:11 UTC No. 16241423

>>16240966
Cope

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:16:35 UTC No. 16241425

>>16241418
>I'm not a toddler
That's an analogy.

>you live again, not a difficult concept
Concepts need verification to be considered true. Verifying/falsifying concepts as true/false is difficult.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:20:12 UTC No. 16241431

>>16241425
>Concepts need verification to be considered true
And it's pretty easy to verify that you are alive and before that you were dead, ergo there must be life after death

Simulacrum at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:30:20 UTC No. 16241448

>>16241328

>If you = brain physiology = will = desire = goal oriented and the universe = deterministic
The idea that the universe is deterministic is not supported by science.

>Delay the
>reeeeee Dawkins rejects teleology
for 1 second and consider that I've only made a factual statement.

Who said anything about Dawkins? Oh yeah, only you. Saying that evolution has a purpose is not supported by science. Purpose is completely a teleological idea. Let's not change the common meaning of words "just because."

>>16241359
>It doesn't work at all because it doesn't happen, and you can't prove it so you just spew lies and assert your baseless beliefs as true like a fucking loser.

What do you mean by "prove"? There is a humongous amount of evidence for evolution. In particular, the standard phylogenetic tree makes falsifiable predictions about what intermediate fossils we will observe. If we observe an intermediate fossil between dolphins and humans, then you disprove the hypothesis of universal common descent. If we observe fossils that are in accordance with the phylogenetic tree -- for example, finding fossils that are intermediate between humans and chimpanzees -- then we corroborate evolution. Turns out we've never found any intermediate fossils that disprove the hypothesis of universal common descent. More information can be found here:

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

>That's because you're a fucking retard who's never critically analyzed your own beliefs. They just add more steps between then kvetch like jews when you don't play their retarded semantics games.

Why are you calling me a 'fucking retard'? That's not very Christian of you. So far, more ad hominems and no support for this claim. Not very good at logic, are you? Or are you just trolling for fun because you have nothing better to do?

Simulacrum at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:36:34 UTC No. 16241453

>>16241370
>It's not real science. It's just "dude what if multiverse"
Complete misrepresentation. For example, detecting the cosmic microwave background radiation was a hallmark of observational cosmology, for it provided smoking gun evidence of the big bang theory, the now prevailing theory in cosmology.

>and all their nonsense fails all mathematical tests.
Prove it.

>Math not only proves the existence of God but disproves your retarded tranny evolution religion.
Math proves the existence of God? Prove it. Also

> Fucking kill yourself.
Not very Christian of you.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:45:56 UTC No. 16241471

>>16240951
matter and energy cannot be destroyed
its only converted from one form to another

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:48:01 UTC No. 16241478

>>16241431
Non-being before birth ≠ non-being after death. Since you were not here before it must be the case that you being here now is a unique event.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:54:50 UTC No. 16241489

>>16241448
>The idea that the universe is deterministic is not supported by science.
Let's not beat a dead horse again.
>Purpose is completely a teleological idea.
Teleology is an end goal and purpose can be an intermediary goal. You have goals which proves that a biological / physical system has goals. Simple as.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:00:21 UTC No. 16241499

>>16241016
Completely random

Simulacrum at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:10:41 UTC No. 16241505

>>16241489
>Let's not beat a dead horse again.
What do you mean? You never once provided proof that the universe is deterministic.

>Teleology is an end goal and purpose can be an intermediary goal. You have goals which proves that a biological / physical system has goals. Simple as.

Yes, I have goals, which proves that a biological/physical system can have goals. What is your point? None of this proves that evolution has a purpose. You explicitly said that the purpose of evolution is to create a perfect being. You have not once provided evidence of this. Unless maybe you are saying that individual people strive to make themselves perfect through evolution, which still doesn't make sense.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:11:04 UTC No. 16241506

>>16241499
Life is a lottery

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:13:33 UTC No. 16241509

>>16241016
Even though this anon is annoying for spamming this question it's still mind boggling that there just happens to be a universe that evolves a bunch of brains including dinosaurs, your mom, the spider in the room with you now and a woman that was burned for witchcraft a few centuries ago but suddenly you wake up and realize you were just crawling around a few years ago and now you have to walk to school. Everyone pretends this is normal.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:14:22 UTC No. 16241510

>>16241505
I said the purpose of evolution is to create a perfect being, not him. My apologies for the confusion Simulacrum. Evolution is an ongoing process to become the best adapted to the organism's environment as possible. What could possibly be a better adaptation than the fruition of Godhood? Assuming that evolution and life continue on, that's more or less what it should be leading to, no?

Simulacrum at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:14:23 UTC No. 16241511

>>16241016
This question seems silly, if it is not nonsensical. Apply the same sort of phrasing to other objects. Why is a rock on a shore not a rock inside my house? Because they have two different locations, so they cannot be the same? Once you apply some basic logic you really see that this sort of question is not deep at all.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:24:41 UTC No. 16241530

One thing for sure, there is no stereotypical imagined afterlife of hanging out in clouds with your relatives for an eternity, because "you" don't even exist, people are not "people".

Simulacrum at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:26:29 UTC No. 16241534

>>16241510
Thank you for being so kind, I mean it.

> Evolution is an ongoing process to become the best adapted to the organism's environment as possible. What could possibly be a better adaptation than the fruition of Godhood? Assuming that evolution and life continue on, that's more or less what it should be leading to, no?

If you want to get technical, what you first described is called natural selection, and the modern understanding of evolution is that there is more to evolution than natural selection. The view that natural selection is the primary or exclusive mechanism in evolution is called adaptationism, and it is controversial, if not rejected by many biologists. The Neutral Theory of evolution asserts that most of the genetic variation in populations is the result of mutation and genetic drift and not selection. Since I have not done much serious reading I cannot be sure this is true or not. But it is definitely true that there is more to evolution than mutation and natural selection. If the neutral theory of evolution or the nearly neutral theory of evolution is correct, a good majority of evolution is random, and so it would be dubious that evolution and life is leading to a God-being. But even if adaptationism is true, that idea that life is leading to a God-being is still dubious, just for other reasons, like the fact that there are many logically possible mutations, but not biochemically or physiologically possible mutations. The genome of organism in a population constrains how the organisms will evolve, and so on. And no, mutations cannot just create anything that we can think of out of thin air.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:29:12 UTC No. 16241540

>>16241478
>death =/= death
0 iq, nonexistence is nonexistence, no other variables to that state
>Since you were not here before it must be the case that you being here now is a unique event.
"you" don't exist, individuality, ego and id are illusion stemming from learned behaviour and memory retention by the physical form, all life functions the same way, all consciousncess arises from the same fundamental mechanisms, "you" are whatever reality wants "you" to be at the current moment, there is no fundamental difference between you and an amoeba besides the complexity of the system, "you" could've already been some single celled niglet a billion times before reality found a little bald bipedal ape to look through, because that's all life is, physical mechanisms that tickle the c-field and cause a reaction which you interpret as being some high and mighty unique individual when you're just a part of the collective, unable to look past the fleeting physical forms which are eternally constructed and deconstructed, instead you should turn your mind inward, once you let go of the physical noise, which ultimately serves only as a distraction, you'll come to find that there is much to see on the other side

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:40:31 UTC No. 16241558

>>16241505
>What do you mean? You never once provided proof that the universe is deterministic.
There've been many threads with arguments like prove that you could've done otherwise, randomness, chaos, the problem of induction, quantum scale versus mundane scale and so on. It's also childish to argue that there is no observable link between a sequence of events or that correlation is not causation and so on.

>You explicitly said that the purpose of evolution is to create a perfect being.
I'm not that anon and I don't necessarily agree that we can know what the end game of the universe is. That's why I said: blind leading the blind because I want to defend a middle ground between your positions.

>What is your point? None of this proves that evolution has a purpose.
The next simple step is to consider the possibility that our will is not a novel phenomenon because from a materialistic point of view it has emerged from matter itself. Even when you consider our conscious will to be an accidental byproduct of a particular material configuration it may very well be that the nature of such byproduct is analogous to the display of a computer screen: it's showing something that was already going on with matter itself.

The alternative to matter having a will of it's own is an idea equally preposterous: that physical laws exist independently from space, time and matter itself. I propose the more reasonable alternative: like consciousness = brain so matter, space, time = physical laws.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:58:27 UTC No. 16241601

>>16241540
>"you" don't exist
Nonsense. There's a particular point of view going on. A unique perspective. Emptiness constrained by a form and filled with data. There's no reason why that particular point of view must switch to a different camera when that camera breaks down. The emptiness stems from the state of the system prior to any measurement.

If there's a screen that one moment displays a triangle, another moment a square and so on...then when the triangle disappears it does not find itself being a square. The triangle is not the screen.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:09:58 UTC No. 16241613

>>16240951
no
it is what you'd guess would happen, but we have no way of knowing for sure
it depends on the nature of existence, consciousness and the universe

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:13:41 UTC No. 16241618

>>16241020
Okay how do I wake up as some twenty-something billionaire?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:19:24 UTC No. 16241624

>>16241601
>There's a particular point of view going on
In which one of your trillions of atoms? In which electron is your point of view concentrated? The only singular is the consciousness which we all share, physicality is only a way for that consciousness to do something besides just being a complex metaphysical field.
>There's no reason why
There's no reason why anything exists at all, I'm merely stating the deductions of my extensive observations and experiences
>The emptiness stems from the state of the system prior to any measurement.
There is no such thing as emptiness, nor there is any state "prior to measurement", things have always existed and they always will, as soon as anything exists it is "measured" by principle of existence itself