Atheism and the Afterlife

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is completely irrational to believe in something which has absolutely no evidence for it just because it is possible.

In fairness, I don't think Starshine has suggested that we should believe in it merely because it is possible. He just make the more limited claim that, since it is possible, the belief is not irrational.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Any non-falsifiable argument is possible to be true. Religions (at least, the ones which survive and evolve successfully over time) are very carefully constructed to be entirely non-falsifiable.

I think it's a bit tendention to say that they are "carefully constructed to be entirely non-falsifiable". They make claims about entities which are not empirically observable but, then, so does Euclidean geometry. So does ethics. So do lots of fields of enquiry. Would we say that all those fields of enquiry are "carefully constructed" to be non-falsifiable?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think Starshine has suggested that we should believe in it merely because it is possible. He just make the more limited claim that, since it is possible, the belief is not irrational.

It is irrational in that there are a potentially infinite number of equally possible totally unsupported yet directly contradictory scenarios that we could imagine. As such any single such scenario is infinitely improbable so there is no rational reason to believe in that scenario over any other scenario without additional supporting evidence to do so.

It is a bit like conflicting religions believing their God is the one true God and those with other beliefs are wrong. While one such belief system might possibly be right, without strong supporting evidence, probability strongly suggests they are all wrong.

starshine1234

Well, you better tell all the professional scientists, mathematicians and philosophers that they have missed something very obvious. They'll be distraught I'm sure.

robindch

starshine1234 wrote: »

I am confident that the average boards.ie user has failed to understand the argument.

If your audience does not accept some argument you've put forward, you might wish to consider that instead of declaring the audience at fault, a better approach might involve you considering that you've failed to explain it properly, or that the argument has little or no merit or utility.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It is irrational in that there are a potentially infinite number of equally possible totally unsupported yet directly contradictory scenarios that we could imagine. As such any single such scenario is infinitely improbable so there is no rational reason to believe in that scenario over any other scenario without additional supporting evidence to do so.

It is a bit like conflicting religions believing their God is the one true God and those with other beliefs are wrong. While one such belief system might possibly be right, without strong supporting evidence, probability strongly suggests they are all wrong.

You're assuming that no belief is rational, unless supported by evidence.

But that can't be right. There's no evidence that, for example, a woman has a right to choose with respect to abortion, but many people believe passionately that she does. Are their beliefs irrational?

Similarly, there's no evidence that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. (There's a logical proof, but it's a proof by deduction from axioms which are themselves asserted without evidence.)

In the field of natural science, yes, we look for evidence. But, the, natural science deals with the examination of that which is empirically observable. I don't think you can take the techniques of natural science and assume that they are universally valid for all fields of enquiry. There's no reason why there should be.

It would be irrational to believe in something for no reason at all. But I don't think you can say that it would be irrational to believe in something without evidence, unless the "something" was in principle capable of being evidenced. If it isn't, then the claim that it's irrational to believe in it without evidence is, ironically, itself an irrational claim.

starshine1234

robindch wrote: »

If your audience does not accept some argument you've put forward, you might wish to consider that instead of declaring the audience at fault, you might wish to consider that you've failed to explain it properly, or that the argument has little or no merit or use.

Perhaps, but not definitely.

Perhaps the audience is dishonest, or obtuse, or, sorry to have to say this, lacking in the necessary intellect.

The argument is correct and conforms to all the rules of maths and logic.

Maths by its nature is abstract. That is not a criticism of maths.

robindch

starshine1234 wrote: »

An afterlife is entirley possible, entirely consistent with science and mathemathics, and entirely rational to believe in. A few years ago I would have thought the exact opposite. The maths and science here is so strong that it basically requires you to believe in it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is completely irrational to believe in something which has absolutely no evidence for it just because it is possible.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think Starshine has suggested that we should believe in it merely because it is possible. He just make the more limited claim that, since it is possible, the belief is not irrational.

Nope. Starshine claimed not only that an afterlife is possible but also, that the "maths and science" required you to believe that it exists. As regards the first claim, Hotblack has correctly pointed out that accepting the existence of something simply because it is possible is not rational - that's the point of Russel's teapot argument. Hotblack has not addressed the second claim, though I'd be fascinated to see how "maths and science" require one to believe that an afterlife exists and I'm hoping that this doesn't involve wheeling out and dusting down Gödel's ontological proof.

magicbastarder

coming late into this debate, but just wanted to confirm what people mean by the word 'possible'; is it used in a 'human understanding/knowledge' sense or 'physical law' sense?

i.e. if one were to ask if time travel is possible, possible could mean:
a) yes, the laws of physics allow it, so it can be done.
b) we don't know, so it's *possible* that the laws of physics allow it.

i.e. the latter choice means that human understanding deems it 'possible', but physics says no.

starshine1234

Is disbelief in the theory of evolution rational?

I would suggest that it's not.

The simulation argument is equivelent to the theory of evolution in that the scientific concenus is that it is correctly formed and valid.

You are not arguing with me here, you are arguing with scientific concenus.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're assuming that no belief is rational, unless supported by evidence.

No I'm not. I'm simply saying that where you have a large number of conflicting beliefs, they can't all be true. As this number gets very large, assuming all the beliefs are equally valid, the probability of any one belief being true, and thus all the others being false, is minuscule.

The fact that there is a single possibility of something being true where there are also an infinite number of possibilities that would render it false make it infinitely improbable.

robindch

starshine1234 wrote: »

Perhaps, but not definitely.

Perhaps the audience is dishonest, or obtuse, or, sorry to have to say this, lacking in the necessary intellect.

Indeed, the dishonesty or stupidity of the audience might indeed lead them to say that your arguments have no merit.

However, not only would it be unhelpful to suggest this, as well as being contra the forum charter, I would also suggest that in the light of the weak arguments you've put forward so far, you're on safe grounds to ignore the possibility.

Try putting forward a good argument instead of insulting the audience.

starshine1234

You are simply declaring the argument to be weak by dictat.

That is not fair.

Why have you failed to address or refute a single point I've made, in respect of the argument itself, rather than in respect of the manner in which I present it?

looksee

You are not arguing with me here, you are arguing with scientific concenus.

No, we are arguing with your limited understanding of scientific consensus.

starshine1234

from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said.


Mind blown!


Perhaps people should take this up with professional scientists.

looksee

starshine1234 wrote: »

from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said.


Mind blown!


Perhaps people should take this up with professional scientists.

Maybe you should read the rest of the article. There was not even a consensus in that article, much less amongst the entire body of scientific thought.

magicbastarder

neil degrasse tyson's opinion is a guess, rather than a scientific conclusion, i assume?

starshine1234

More misunderstandings.

The scientific consensus is not that we are living in a simulated universe.

Rather, the scientific consensus is that the simulation argument itself, as outlined by Nick Bostrum, conforms to all of the rules of maths and logic and that therefore, it is a credible and correct scientific theory.

Disbelief in the argument is not rational.

looksee

So why did you quote the Scientific American article and specifically comment on the argument that we are living in a simulated universe?

seamus

starshine1234 wrote: »

Rather, the scientific consensus is that the simulation argument itself, as outlined by Nick Bostrum, conforms to all of the rules of maths and logic and that therefore, it is a credible and correct scientific theory.

Disbelief in the argument is not rational.

If your aunt was a man she'd be your uncle.

That conforms to all of the rules of maths and logic and therefore it is a credible and correct theory.

However, that doesn't mean it's rational to believe that your aunt is your uncle.

It's a clever trick I'll grant you, but just like the Drake equation, believing a particular output of the equation to be correct is irrational.
Your inputs are unprovable therefore your output is unprovable. Therefore believing in the correctness of the output is irrational.

starshine1234

Seamus, you've made a logical error.

You say.
that doesn't mean it's rational to believe that your aunt is your uncle.
That's an error. Nobody made that claim, or an equivelent claim.


The correct claim is that its NOT rational to DISbelieve in the conclusion, IF all of the premises are true, AND the argument correctly conforms to all the rules of logic and maths.

That claim is definitely true of the simulation argument.

Using your example, it's not rational to disbelieve that your aunt may be your uncle, if she had balls.


edited to add.
I'll clear up one point. In logic, not all premises need be true. A premise which doesn't claim to be true doesn't need to be true.
Fairly obvious I suppose...

looksee

Logically I should abandon this futile and irrational mind game and go and do something useful.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

In logic, not all premises need be true. A premise which doesn't claim to be true doesn't need to be true.

But as per my previous point to Peregrinus, if you have a number of conflicting premises that could possibly be either true or false, only one may true. Where that number is large, the probability of any one being true is tiny. As this number tends towards infinity so too all your conflicting possibilities become infinitely improbable. Thus is is entirely irrational to hold that any given one of them is true.

There are an infinite number of possible scenarios for the existence of our universe that directly conflict with the simulation possibility, e.g. God did it, Farnsworth did it, etc..., thus until such time as further evidence is forthcoming, belief in any one of them is entirely irrational.

starshine1234

I can't follow your point.

starshine1234

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/03/we-are-almost-definitely-living-in-a-matrix-style-simulation-cla/


Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and founder of Space X, Tesla and Paypal, has told an interviewer there is only a “one in billions” chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.

He also claimed that, if we’re not living in a simulation, we could be approaching the end of the world.


I suspect that Boards.ie may explode at this news!

robindch

starshine1234 wrote: »

Why have you failed to address or refute a single point I've made, in respect of the argument itself, rather than in respect of the manner in which I present it?

Because I'm one of the forum moderators whose job it is to ensure that forum posters stick to the forum charter. So far, you're posting a range of discussion points - some with merit, some without - but instead of discussing them fully, you've a tendency to insult other posters which is agin' the forum charter.

Stick to discussion instead of fist-waving and things will go much easier - I'd certainly like to avoid having to card people with points to make - unless there's no alternative, that is.

starshine1234

I have discussed the issue completely and fully. To say otherwise is not true.

Stealthfins

Of course there's an afterlife,sure isn't there a life after recovery from addiction.

There's life after a bad relationship.

Death is life changing for some people,sometimes positive or negative....

unfortunately

smacl wrote:

. The fact is there are an infinite number of such fantasy propositions that must be true because they could possibly be true, that all directly contradict one another, means we now have infinity as a factor on both numerator and denominator sides of or equation.

The key element of the argument is that IF the technology to run complex simulations is possible then it's likely we'd run a lot of them GIVEN that, then we are likely in a simulation.

If you want to attack the argument, then attack the plausibility that we can indeed construct such simulations. It differs from other fantasy scenarios (e.g. there is a reality of infinite sleeping giants and we are likely in a dream of one of them, because there are so many "dream realities" and only one "reality)

A reality of infinite sleeping giants is hard to prove. I think mathematically it's the same argument, which is what I think your saying but the key difference is that advanced computer simulations, on the face of it seen more plausable.

Maybe it is is impossible to run such accurate simulations but that's where you attack the argument. That's why some people are suggestion that the argument isn't being fully grasped. It all lies on whether the advanced simulations are possible in the near future, which they may or may not be.

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

The key element of the argument is that IF the technology to run complex simulations is possible then it's likely we'd run a lot of them GIVEN that, then we are likely in a simulation.

Not so. You're blinkering yourself by considering a single possibility and proceeding on that basis while dismissing other possibilities that may have equal merit. Say for example we hop from the Matrix to Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, where again mankind is just a scientific experiment but in this case a single one constructed by very advanced aliens. Given an infinite universe, it seems as likely there will be other intelligent life out there, some of which will be very advanced, so it could be reasonably argued that this is as realistic a possibility as mankind being able to simulate entire universes. Or say we're running in your supposed simulation created by post-humans, is it then reasonable to assume they are running in a more sophisticated simulation created by post-post humans who are in turn running in an even more sophisticated simulation run by post-post-post humans? And what about extra terrestrial life doing the same thing elsewhere? The possibilities are as endless as our imagination, picking one imaginary scenario over all others and stating it is probably true to me seems entirely irrational.

If you want to attack the argument, then attack the plausibility that we can indeed construct such simulations. It differs from other fantasy scenarios (e.g. there is a reality of infinite sleeping giants and we are likely in a dream of one of them, because there are so many "dream realities" and only one "reality)

A reality of infinite sleeping giants is hard to prove. I think mathematically it's the same argument, which is what I think your saying but the key difference is that advanced computer simulations, on the face of it seen more plausable.

Maybe it is is impossible to run such accurate simulations but that's where you attack the argument. That's why some people are suggestion that the argument isn't being fully grasped. It all lies on whether the advanced simulations are possible in the near future, which they may or may not be.

The argument can be attacked on lots of fronts because it lacks foundations. As per my previous post, a simulation that could accurately represent the entirety of the observable universe at every level of detail seems implausible. One the could fool the subjective senses of a single AI seems more achievable by simply using a second AI to give reasonable responses to questions raised, so your entire matrix simulation could be no more than two artificial minds operating at a solely subjective level, in which case humankind never existed. This is of course yet another imaginary possibility which is as plausible as various other matrix type scenarios. Possible, yes. Probable, No.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/03/we-are-almost-definitely-living-in-a-matrix-style-simulation-cla/


Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and founder of Space X, Tesla and Paypal, has told an interviewer there is only a “one in billions” chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.

He also claimed that, if we’re not living in a simulation, we could be approaching the end of the world.


I suspect that Boards.ie may explode at this news!

Just because a Billionaire American Entrepreneur states he believes something doesn't make it true. Everyone knows that*

(*except Trump supporters of course)