I've turned this into a religious debate and if that bothers some people, I'm sorry. The reason I did it was because this subject could have led to some rather depressing thoughts and I wanted to bring in a counter to that and yep, religion is what I think is the answer. And I thought it was the answer to the original question anyway.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:you do realise that the truth (because whether God is there or not, et cetera, is not a matter of opinion - it will be factual whether he is there or not, even though any fact has been definitively discovered yet) and the happiest concepts are not the same thing, right?
Yes. Of course.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:If I said "I could fly, prove I can't fly..." that would be stupid; people would expect me to prove that I can. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the believer; therefore, it's up to the believer to present proof, not for the disbeliever to present disproof. And even though there is no evidence to show that Heaven/Hell definitely aren't there, there is no evidence to show that they are. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that there isn't a singing lobster who controls the universe; if said lobster existed outside the universe, then you couldn't disprove his existence. However, as there is no proof for it, it would be disregarded even though the singing lobster's existence is still a possibility (albeit one very improbable).
SO it logically follows that as there is no proof for the afterlife, even it's still a possibility, it's enough of an improbable one to be disregarded and ignored. Because there is an equal amount of proof and disproof for both the afterlife and the singing lobster (none), it logically follows that they are both as improbable as each other. I'm not going to believe in a singing lobster, and similarly I won't believe in the afterlife. If you believe in the afterlife, then why don't you believe in the singing lobster? They're both as probable/improbable in existence as each other. The reason you don't is because instead of examining the amount of evidence or lack of it for different theories, you just pick and choose the nicest, most appealing. You believe in the afterlife rather than the singing lobster because you were probably brought up that way, a lot of other 'sheeple' do the same, and because it's a nicer, friendlier concept.
You quite obviously didn't listen to or think much on what I said. I told you, I thought about everything that you listed here. No, not exactly in those words, not all of those specific ideas, but basically the same, right down to even the thought of love only being a product of our genes trying to procreate. I thought of this all a while ago, like a few years ago. It depressed me in a way I don't really want to talk about much. It made me suicidal. I don't want that happening to you or anyone here.
So I did look at all that, examining the evidence unlike you said I didn't, and I realized something. I realized that I was looking at life, my own experiences, and science, and coming up with those theories, deciding to view it in the negative way, as
just what science suggested. That's what was depressing. That viewing it as just that, was saying everything about us means nothing except to continue procreating from the big explosion that happened millions or billions of years ago. But if I thought of God being behind it, it had more meaning, and I could view the science as just what it physically looks like when love was created from God or perhaps our souls (and our bodies physically complied with it), it's just that it
looked like it only came from instincts to procreate and such, if that's all you think exists.
I'm sorry that I still probably can't explian it in a way that sounds perfectly clear, though I hope I am this time, but I almost want to beg you to understand, what you are talking about is not discovering the truth, because you don't know anything more what you and science sees and the feelings and ideas your mind can reach. And you're choosing to have your mind reach more negative ideas, that all we see doesn't have some special eternal meaning from God or any spirituality, but rather from something mindlessly, randomly continuing as the mere result of an explosion that happened millions and billions of years ago. You are choosing to think that way on what you see or hear about instead of thinking of it in a different, and yes, more positive way.
As for your lobster, the reason you chose to use a singing lobster at all shows exactly why he is less possible than God. You chose the singing lobster because it sounds silly and hilarious, while God doesn't. It's because believing in God merely comes down to the idea that we exist, that we can think of and understand an idea of a being that made us and is like us somehow, and that the ideas of that kind of being creating us out of love and making us eternally happily and live forever, as we desire, is what makes more sense to us than a singing lobster. It just makes more sense. And you care about things making sense to find the truth, don't you? That's all the reason I need. I like how it's just that simple. It's powerful in just that.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:Disney Duster wrote:At least God is the end, anyway, something so miraculous nothing came before it, it always was.
If God could have come out of nowhere in a magical way, then why couldn't the universe?
It's not a "magical" way, it's a miraculous way, but anyway, it's not God coming out of nowhere. It's a power so great, it always was, it is beyond our comprehension because we didn't always exist (unless our souls existed before and we just forgot when we were born, or some other possibility), we aren't the same as him so we can't fully understand, but we can understand just enough to get the surface of the idea as I type out now. If the universe randomly just popped into existence, with no power making it happen, that doesn't make as much sense as thinking some kind of power made that universe pop into existence. We can't
fully understand the idea of some power that always existed, but at least that one makes more sense. The universe popping into existence is not an end, because you think, what made that happen? God is something that is...beyond the universe, so he's an end, something more powerful, something that
always was, he didn't need to be made happen, he is a power beyond that, what always was.
Alphapanchito wrote:I don't think I am important enough to deserve consciousness forever.
And what if
I do think you are?
Alphapanchito, I'm not going to speak for you saying what you definately are doing, I'm just going to tell you what I think. I think that you actually really do want to live forever, and that your hypocrisy of saying that you don't feel that "Some people enjoy believing in ideals such as religion, and some look for answers with more hard proof. I think neither is superior to the other." but then later saying "it is much more comforting than the alternative. So you have people trying to prove it scientifically, which is think is much more useful than just *blindly* believing that there is one.", ahem, proves to me that you actually do have desire to feel signifigant and living forever by using the quotes you provided and the things you read about being a part of the universe in, a way, forever. You just have a hard time believing in your soul living forever, happily and consciously, after your death. Well, that's what I think, and will stand by.
But this reminds me of an annoying yet common Christian mindset - that it's either a random Big Bang, or God. The atheists don't necessarily believe it's the Big Bang - there are loads and loads of other possibilities (although the Big Bang did happen, almost certainly). Moreover, there are countless different arguments about multiverses and other concepts of what was before the start of this universe; simplifying it to two viewpoints is just ignoring. the many different theories and concepts.