Afterlife Analogy

[variant]

To respond to Paradoxum...

Well analogies aren't arguments and they don't have the convincing force of arguments. They're used to help people who probably already accept the idea. The purpose of the analogy is to make the idea sensible. By "sensible" I mean "able to be sensed". The abstract idea becomes more concrete in the analogy. So I'm not surprised you're unconvinced.

Um no, analogies like the OP are arguments just like any other. They even asked for thoughts and criticisms!

They take a slightly different form, and they are no less invalid when their flaws are aimed at an credulous, and accepting audience. Just more likely to be accepted despite their many warts.

The weak or false analogy is a well known logical fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

 

[ForJesusChrist]

This is a really good analagy I love it its hilarious!

God Bless

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am critical of it because it places the situation in a context in which they know which baby is correct and which one is wrong, which doesn't fit with the reality.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

I am critical of it because it places the situation in a context in which they know which baby is correct and which one is wrong, which doesn't fit with the reality.

Its an analagy it doesnt have to be proven or correct its only being used to show the truth!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Its an analagy it doesnt have to be proven or correct its only being used to show the truth!

But we don't know that is the case, we can't really put ourselves in the place of the babies because we know what happens when they shall be born as outside observers. However, were you to consider the possibility that, during the birthing process, both babies could die and never see the outside world, you see how useless it is as an analogy, because not only do we know which baby was right, but there was a possibility that neither would actually find that out that there could have been life outside of the womb.

Rather, a better analogy would be flipping a coin, with one party stating that it landed on heads, the other tails, but neither actually being allowed to see the result. If the issue is purely whether or not an afterlife exists, once you start being specific with that afterlife, it becomes far less likely that it will meet your expectations.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Sorry i didnt analize every little detail.

Anyway, great post I liked the analogy.

 

[variant]

Its an analagy it doesnt have to be proven or correct its only being used to show the truth!

Truth and correctness are synonymous here.

So all it shows us is your bias.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

I meant scientifically proven

 

[variant]

I meant scientifically proven

Scientifically proving an analogy? I wouldn't even know where to begin to sort that idea out.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

This is why I don't argue with people

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I thought the analogy was showing us how absolutely wrong we could be about what we think. And the arrogance that comes with such thinking. As in, the one baby is so absolutely wrong about what he thinks will come after birth and is yet so adamant in his ignorance.

Some atheists on here seem to have their "religion goggles" on and can't admit that there is some possibility that they are wrong. Just sayin'...

 

[stevevw]

I think its a good analogy. If at least to say that we should have an open mind to things. We dont know it all and it is possible that there are other realms beyond the one we live in and see.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Some atheists on here seem to have their "religion goggles" on and can't admit that there is some possibility that they are wrong. Just sayin'...

Thank you. I agree.

 

[durangodawood]

I thought the analogy was showing us how absolutely wrong we could be about what we think. And the arrogance that comes with such thinking. As in, the one baby is so absolutely wrong about what he thinks will come after birth and is yet so adamant in his ignorance.

Some atheists on here seem to have their "religion goggles" on and can't admit that there is some possibility that they are wrong. Just sayin'...

Exactly so. Any of us could be radically wrong about things "over the horizon".

BUT. Given the babies have no way to tell, seems a little silly for either to be making claims about any sort of beyond-womb.

 

[stevevw]

Exactly so. Any of us could be radically wrong about things "over the horizon".

BUT. Given the babies have no way to tell, seems a little silly for either to be making claims about any sort of beyond-womb.

That doesn't stop scientist from hypothesizing about multi universes or string theory.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That doesn't stop scientist from hypothesizing about multi universes or string theory.

Perhaps one day we can test those theories or use them in practice to accomplish things we wouldn't be able to do unless the theories were valid.

I highly doubt that we will ever be able to test for an afterlife without us strait up dying. And then we won't be able to tell living people anything about it.

 

[durangodawood]

That doesn't stop scientist from hypothesizing about multi universes or string theory.

???

Scientists dont make claims that those things are true. Just that they are mathematically coherent and possible.

 

[stevevw]

???

Scientists dont make claims that those things are true. Just that they are mathematically coherent and possible.

The way some of them talk about it you would think they do. The thing is they have been toying around with these idea for years now and they havnt got anything better. They have adjusted it and changed it. In fact many called it a theory. So in some ways they are declaring it as being true and its just a matter of adjusting the details. If they dont accept these then they dont have much to fall back on so they have to hold onto them. The thing is the universe is so finely tuned that they are having trouble explaining it. They have to have something like a multiverse so that it all can fit. other wise they are left with this unique and finely tuned universe that seems to point to an intelligent agent as the next best explanation.

[FONT=&quot]Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins seem very satisfied with the multiverse theory as an explanation for the universe.
[/FONT]
Does the multiverse theory have scientific merit? - Ask the atheists

The multiverse hypothesis is the idea that what we see in the night sky is just an infinitesimally tiny sliver of a much, much grander reality, hitherto invisible. The idea has become so mainstream that it is now quite hard to find a cosmologist who thinks there’s nothing in it. This isn’t the world of the mystics, the pointy-hat brigade who see the Age of Aquarius in every Hubble image. On the contrary, the multiverse is the creature of Astronomers Royal and tenured professors at Cambridge and Cornell.
Michael Hanlon – On multiverses

With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ations-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/

 

[brightlights]

Um no, analogies like the OP are arguments just like any other.

The only two kinds of arguments I know of are inductive and deductive. Analogies can accompany arguments or one can argue from an analogy, but I don't see how they are themselves arguments. Analogies don't have premises or conclusions. Could you explain your meaning?

 

[KCfromNC]

That doesn't stop scientist from hypothesizing about multi universes or string theory.

Produce an internally consistent mathematical model of the afterlife and your response might have some relationship to the OP. Until then, you're mixing apples and elephants.