What would it take to disprove atheism?

[Deidre32]

Who cares if other dimensions "may" exist? Seems like religion causes many people and I was once all about it too, to get lost in potential "other worlds". Cheapens this world.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So if science shows alternate dimensions do exist, and that they are in fact the spiritual realms of the bible, are you telling me that it still doesn't matter because it was science instead of religion that made the discovery? Is that really what you're saying?

You misunderstand. If such events were to transpire, then the religious could only claim to be "right" in the same sense that a broken clock can be said to give the "right" time twice a day. Yes, it matters that religion either can't or won't validate its doctrines. It also matters that religion will ignore information that clearly invalidates its doctrines, while simultaneously trying to piggyback off scientific discoveries that, in the eyes of believers at least, appear to support, however indirectly, those same doctrines.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Probably copious amounts of marijuana.

 

[JGG]

But the point I was trying to make is that alternate dimensions and the spiritual realm could in fact be the same. Who cares if religion can't or won't? Doesn't the fact that science does it lead one into what you would call a validation of a religious idea?

Because your claim of a "spiritual realm" is undefined. It could mean almost anything. So should scientist find other dimensions you'll claim it validates the concept of the spiritual realm. It doesn't really since the concept is so vague that it cannot be disproven.

From where I sit, it isn't validated because there's no actual claim to be validated, just a poorly defined phrase.

 

[Aldebaran]

Who cares if other dimensions "may" exist? Seems like religion causes many people and I was once all about it too, to get lost in potential "other worlds". Cheapens this world.

I'd say it would put this world in its proper place concerning its value. How much is a temporal earth in a sinful universe worth compared to being in the presence of our creator for all eternity?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I'd say it would put this world in its proper place concerning its value. How much is a temporal earth in a sinful universe worth compared to being in the presence of our creator for all eternity?

Sinful universe???

 

[poolerboy0077]

I'd say it would put this world in its proper place concerning its value. How much is a temporal earth in a sinful universe worth compared to being in the presence of our creator for all eternity?

Considering that value relates to limits of time and amount, just as if diamonds became abundant they would decrease in value, a life that goes on forever would lose meaning in a sea of infinity. A life that is limited makes you appreciate the little time that you have here and make the most of it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'd say it would put this world in its proper place concerning its value. How much is a temporal earth in a sinful universe worth compared to being in the presence of our creator for all eternity?

It's quite a leap to go from alternate dimensions to what you just said.

 

[Aldebaran]

Considering that value relates to limits of time and amount, just as if diamonds became abundant they would decrease in value, a life that goes on forever would lose meaning in a sea of infinity. A life that is limited makes you appreciate the little time that you have here and make the most of it.

Then I guess the life of a mayfly is worth much, much more than a human life.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then I guess the life of a mayfly is worth much, much more than a human life.

By what tortured logical process did you reach this conclusion?

 

[Aldebaran]

By what tortured logical process did you reach this conclusion?

From this:

Considering that value relates to limits of time and amount, just as if diamonds became abundant they would decrease in value, a life that goes on forever would lose meaning in a sea of infinity. A life that is limited makes you appreciate the little time that you have here and make the most of it.

The life of a mayfly is only about 1 day at most. By the logic of the poolerboy, the life of a human, being thousands of times longer, must be worth thousands of times less.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

From this:



The life of a mayfly is only about 1 day at most. By the logic of the poolerboy, the life of a human, being thousands of times longer, must be worth thousands of times less.

That's not at all what poolerboy said, but you already know that.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's not at all what poolerboy said, but you already know that.

I quoted his entire post from post #447. Here it is again:

Originally Posted by poolerboy0077

Considering that value relates to limits of time and amount, just as if diamonds became abundant they would decrease in value, a life that goes on forever would lose meaning in a sea of infinity. A life that is limited makes you appreciate the little time that you have here and make the most of it.
​

If he said more than that, my computer screen isn't showing it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I quoted his entire post from post #447. Here it is again:

Originally Posted by poolerboy0077

Considering that value relates to limits of time and amount, just as if diamonds became abundant they would decrease in value, a life that goes on forever would lose meaning in a sea of infinity. A life that is limited makes you appreciate the little time that you have here and make the most of it.
​

If he said more than that, my computer screen isn't showing it.

Exactly. No where in that text did he say that any one life was worth more than any other in the way that you are implying. You should refrain from strawmen.

 

[Aldebaran]

Exactly. No where in that text did he say that any one life was worth more than any other in the way that you are implying. You should refrain from strawmen.

I think I read it very clearly.

a life that goes on forever would lose meaning in a sea of infinity. A life that is limited makes you appreciate the little time that you have here and make the most of it.

If you have any argument to make, now is the time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think I read it very clearly.



If you have any argument to make, now is the time.

No argument, merely responding to your strawman.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I quoted his entire post from post #447. Here it is again:

Originally Posted by poolerboy0077

Considering that value relates to limits of time and amount, just as if diamonds became abundant they would decrease in value, a life that goes on forever would lose meaning in a sea of infinity. A life that is limited makes you appreciate the little time that you have here and make the most of it.

​

If he said more than that, my computer screen isn't showing it.

Value, for it to make any sense at all, is dependent upon evaluative minds. I didn't explicate this since I thought it was something self-evidence. Apparently not!

Something isn't valuable independent of minds, and minds vary in complexity. If a universe were made up entirely of rocks of various kinds, some shiny while others not so much, but no consciousness existed anywhere, value would be non-existent. So while time and amount may dictate whether value diminishes or grows, how one experiences value is another major factor. A firefly or any other insect's life is insignificant by comparison because of its comparatively limited mentation, lack of self-reflection and all other qualities we possess which enhance our experience of life itself that we can meaningfully value. So a better example would be a person who lives to be 85-90 (which seems to be typical life expectancy) compared to a person whose life is cut short by terminal cancer. While either values their life, the time I'm spending right now clattering away on a computer pales in comparison to someone who has just a few months to live. Their time right now is much, much more valuable than mine.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You can always claim to know something, but whether or not that claim is justified is a different story.

No dispute there

So the nature of what's considered to be "spiritual" can't be based in science? I would say it's a metaphysical question.

Metaphysics is philosophy, not science.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Scientists talk about the possibility of multiple dimensions. Imagine that! States of existence beyond what we can currently see, hear, or touch. I guess as long as it's called "science", it's valid. But if you use different terminology, such as spiritual realm rather than alternate dimensions, then it suddenly has to relegated to religion, something to be ignored by thinking people.

You're missing a very important distinction.

All they're doing is tossing around the idea that something like extra dimensions might be possible. I don't think anyone has made the assertion that extra dimensions exist. And even if they had, the idea has never been considered accepted science.

It doesn't mean it's impossible, however until they can demonstrate it it won't be accepted as fact.

Theologians on the other hand do assert the existence of "extra dimensions" or "higher realms" and "supernatural beings" as fact, despite the idea they have no evidence. Furthermore, they generally discourage investigation and promote the idea of accepting it on "faith".


They are not in any way equivalent examples. One is an investigation of an idea some guy had just to see if there's anything to it, the other is an assertion of truth to be held against all opposing evidence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sinful universe???

Yep, the aliens are all going to hell.... Just ask Ken Ham.