Let's say there is no Christ...

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are too impatient.

And you don't understand probability.

Trust can either be absolute, or probabilistic (either qualitatively are quantitatively).

Absolute trust requires 100% certainty in the thing being trusted. (and that can be 100% certainty
that a thing is trust worthy or absolute certainty that a thing is not trustworthy.
1 and 0 are both absolutes)

This is unjustified for anything and everything outside mathematics and logic.

Probabilistic trust is any level of trust that is greater than zero (0<😉 and less than one (<1).

This can be quantified as an actual probability or it can be qualitatively felt.

For example: If you buy a new bicycle you have an expectation that the tyres will last a while and
wont get a puncture. You trust that the tyres are well made and that you wont ride over a nail/broken glass.
You carry an emergency puncture repair kit because you don't have absolute trust in your tyres.

However the consequences of a flat tyre on a bicycle are unlikely to be terrible...
You are probably just going to land up walking home.

On the other hand as an example of carefully calculated quantitative trust...

The probability of a major meteorite impact this decade is very small.
I can be reasonably confident (trust) that there will not be a major impact that will have any effect on me
in my lifetime.

However just as the bicycle tyre will eventually run flat there will eventually be a major asteroid impact that
will have a massive effect on whatever life happens to be on earth at the time.

Possibly to the extent of making it extinct.

Thus the consequences of a major meteorite impact are likely to be catastrophe.



The bicycle tyre going flat as vastly more probable than a major asteroid impact in my lifetime (natural).
However the threat of the asteroid impact is more concerning.



Trust as a feeling is dependent on both the probability (very often misjudged) and the consequences of that trust
being misplaced.

I cycle with a puncture repair kit.

Many don't, as they don't rate the consequence's of getting a puncture as serious enough relative to their qualitative
feeling of how likely it is they will get one... My attitude may be due to my mainly riding old bikes...


However despite it being very improbable to happen in the near future there is considerable (although arguably not enough)
research going into defending us against asteroid impacts.

Because while it's unlikely to happen any time soon, if it did, the consequences could well include extinction.




This is encapsulated well in the Torino Scale of classification of asteroid impacts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torino_Scale

(or the more techy "Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palermo_scale )

Here the level of risk/threat is calculated as a function of both the probability of impact, and the consequences of impact.




This is an example of the general principle that I am outlining.

The level of trust you have in something/someone should be related both it's/their reliability (predictability) and the probable
consequences of that trust being misplaced.

You require (or should require) a higher level of trustworthiness/reliability from a parachute or parachute instructor than you
do of braces.

If your braces break then your trousers (pants for you Americans out there) might fall down... Which is embarrassing.

If your parachute breaks then you become landscape... Which is terminal.




This is part of the larger trope that "ordinary claims require ordinary evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".


The more dangerous or important something is then the higher your standards of evidence and justification should be.




The existence or otherwise of an afterlife can and does have a significant impact on how people live their lives.

It's important.


Thus VERY high standards of evidence are required before any significant trust should be placed.


The current evidence indicates strongly that very high levels of trust can be placed on the non-existence of souls or an afterlife.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And you don't understand probability.

Trust can either be absolute, or probabilistic (either qualitatively are quantitatively).

Absolute trust requires 100% certainty in the thing being trusted. [i](and that can be 100% certainty
that a thing [b]is trust worthy or absolute certainty that a thing is not trustworthy.
1 and 0 are ...[text shortened]... ry high levels of trust can be placed on the non-existence of souls or an afterlife.[/b]

Beautiful!

Originally posted by vistesd
Beautiful!

Thankyou.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And you don't understand probability. ... [text shortened]...

The current evidence indicates strongly that very high levels of trust can be placed on the non-existence of souls or an afterlife.

GF, Could you elaborate on what this 'current evidence' is?

Originally posted by kd2acz
GF, Could you elaborate on what this 'current evidence' is?

What is the evidence that you didn't actually write (on your own computer):

"I, kd2acz, am an atheist"?...answer that question and you're well on the way to understanding what evidence we have that your god does not exist.

Originally posted by kd2acz
GF, Could you elaborate on what this 'current evidence' is?

Yes.


Unlike some supernatural/religious claims the existence of souls/afterlives is testable.

Which is something scientists and rationalists love and purveyors of woo hate.


IF an afterlife exists that some part of us goes to, and that part is the "REAL" you.
(Ie it IS your mind and memories and everything that makes you more than just a funny
shaped bag of flesh and bone...)
Then that part that is saved, the soul, MUST interact with our reality, specifically with our
bodies.


Unfortunately the moment something interacts with reality we can test for it.

Now physics is not complete, we do not know precisely how everything works.

However we don't actually need to know how everything works, we just need to know how
things work at energies and temperatures found in the everyday world.

And we do.

Quantum theory (specifically Quantum Field theory) plus General Relativity combined explain
EVERYTHING that happens at the energy levels experienced in everyday life (and inside your
body) to a ridiculous degree of accuracy (more than we can currently measure).

Any particle that interacts with ordinary matter strongly and often enough to possibly
make a soul viable would already have been detected (decades ago).
And any force that acts on ordinary matter not yet detected must be too weak to be viable
for explaining a soul, or we would have already detected it.


We don't yet fully understand the forces or particles that existed a tiny fraction of a second after
the big bang, or in some rare very high energy situations, but we neither live in, nor can possibly exist
at those energy levels.

The scientists at the LHC are being frustrated at the moment because they are ratcheting up the energy
and replicating conditions a smaller and smaller fraction of a second after the big bang and yet they still
can't find anything not behaving as the standard model predicts.


So piece of evidence one.

The laws of physics say no.
The matter in the brain is no more special than any other matter and there are no particles or forces that
could possibly interact with your body/brain and be your immortal soul.

YouTube&feature=player_embedded

Just skip the annoying singing intro.


Then there is the fact that on a chemical/biological level nothing the brain does is inexplicable.
We don't understand big things like how the incredibly complex structures and interactions of neurons actually
creates the concious you.
But the functioning of all the individual components we can understand and again all works perfectly without
any magic.

Then you have all kinds of things that just don't make sense if we were souls operating bodies rather than
minds operating bodies.

Things like brain damage altering personalities (or creating multiple personalities).


There is no need to invoke magic or souls to explain anything the brain does.

Physics has it all covered.


And then you have the fact that the sources claiming that souls exist are (when studied historically) all
vastly more likely to be man made than inspired by any divine beings.
Given that we know that life formed by regular chemical processes billions of years ago and then slowly
evolved into ever more diverse and eventually, in some cases, complicated forms including us.
It is incredibly hard to justify claiming that at some point our ancestors suddenly developed these magical
immortal souls that contained a sentient mind.


It all adds up to souls (and afterlives) being extremely improbable. (we are in the same kind of territory as the probability
that the world is flat and Australia is actually upside-down in the middle of the pacific http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml )

Improbable beyond ANY reasonable doubt in fact.

Interesting bit starts at 2:50 in.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/27780085

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes.


Unlike some supernatural/religious claims the existence of souls/afterlives is testable.

Which is something scientists and rationalists love and purveyors of woo hate.


IF an afterlife exists that some part of us goes to, and that part is the "REAL" you.
(Ie it IS your mind and memories and everything that makes you more than just a fu

Interesting bit starts at 2:50 in.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/27780085

Reveal Hidden Content

Yeah but GF, Could you elaborate on what this 'current evidence' for the non-existence of souls or an afterlife is?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We Christians believe that God is good and that His will has the good of mankind in mind.

If that is the extent of you trust in God, then you are not as arrogant as I have taken you to be.

Originally posted by Agerg
[hidden]kd2acz bot[/hidden]

Yeah but GF, Could you elaborate on what this 'current evidence' for the non-existence of souls or an afterlife is?

/me slaps Agerg with a wet fish.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
May I ask one question? Do any of you realize the extent to which you've hijacked

this thread with your carloads of extraneous materials and dead end pontifications?
-

I would never hijack a thread before it is moribund, and then only to perform a cup of grass.

But that should be "Does" any of you. "Any" is singular.

I can't stand it when people use improper grammar like "Do any of you."

What does any of the other hijackers here think about this?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
May I ask one question? Do any of you realize the extent to which you've hijacked

this thread with your carloads of extraneous materials and dead end pontifications?
-

Well first off I don't think that this thread has actually wandered off topic to any significant amount.

And second, if it has, it's because of your refusal to post more than a few vague and 'mysterious'
sentences with multiple possible meanings rather than actually explaining what you mean properly and
unambiguously.


You asked a question about trust, and the afterlife.

I just wrote two rather large posts on trust and the afterlife.

Try reading and replying to them.

Or does your ability to read and comprehend information stop at fortune cookies and fridge magnets?



Also I am quite happy Boldly Going into a future where "do any of you" is perfectly grammatically acceptable.

However I will also cut out the heart (with a spoon) of anyone who says "try and" without following it with
"conversion" and is talking about rugby.

It's "try to" people... let's try to remember that.


EDIT: I realise that for comedic purposes that last sentence should have read ...
"It's "try to" people... Let's try and remember that." ... but I couldn't bring myself to type it.

Originally posted by JS357
I would never hijack a thread before it is moribund, and then only to perform a cup of grass.

But that should be "Does" any of you. "Any" is singular.

I can't stand it when people use improper grammar like "Do any of you."

What does any of the other hijackers here think about this?

Where you be from?

Originally posted by JS357
I would never hijack a thread before it is moribund, and then only to perform a cup of grass.

But that should be "Does" any of you. "Any" is singular.

I can't stand it when people use improper grammar like "Do any of you."

What does any of the other hijackers here think about this?

Hmm...I always thought "Do any of you..." and "does any one..." are grammatically correct. The latter references a single element of any and so we use "does" whilst for the former the number of elements we're referring to could be more than one and so we use "do". But then maths is more my thing than English :/

Either way I will continue to make that mistake because...well...it is acceptable to most people and it feels comfortable to me.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
May I ask one question? Do any of you realize the extent to which you've hijacked

this thread with your carloads of extraneous materials and dead end pontifications?
-

You didn't answer my question...I answered yours - very rude Grampy!