Belief in the Afterlife

[Krikkiter]

Still more unsupported proclamations above. I never, "started employing logical fallacies". I was asked to look at video and I gave my comments on how the logic used in the video for one hypothetical example ( ectoplasm and software run on the brain ) doesn't apply to why I think an afterlife is possible, which is because a computational model ( of the universe ) could facilitate an afterlife. Perhaps you need to review. Or if you think the computational model itself has some logical fallacies associated with it, then you still need to illustrate them. So far I've seen nothing. Lastly, when I say something is possible, what I am saying is that I can see no reason why it couldn't be the case, not that I believe it is the case. I hope that clarifies.

I think you've missed the point of my post which was an attempt to gain an understanding of why you believe an afterlife is possible.

My contention is that you believe an afterlife is possible because you haven't thought your reasoning through, you've painted yourself into a corner with your science fictional musings and you're too proud to come to terms with fact that you've employed logical fallacies to try and justify your position.

Here's where you started:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061351&postcount=131

And you continued:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061746&postcount=146

In the first post you introduced the "computational model" and indicated that because some people take the idea seriously it must have merit. As Paul2 pointed out, none of what you posted constituted evidence and your argument was reduced to "if something is possible, that is evidence for it." This is a logical fallacy.

You simply expanded in the second post but compounded your errors by refusing to cite scientific work while posting links to YouTube videos. You continued to try and bolster your position over subsequent posts even though your logical fallacies were being pointed out to you. Here's the example that you refuse to accept as a fallacy:

"I've shown further that serious scientific minds take the computational model seriously ..."

Perhaps if you understood and were willing to accept and deal with the errors you were making you wouldn't believe that an afterlife is possible.

 

[Paul2]

Paul man ... you're just great.

Right back at'cha!

 

[ufology]

I think you've missed the point of my post which was an attempt to gain an understanding of why you believe an afterlife is possible.

My contention is that you believe an afterlife is possible because you haven't thought your reasoning through, you've painted yourself into a corner with your science fictional musings and you're too proud to come to terms with fact that you've employed logical fallacies to try and justify your position.

Here's where you started:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061351&postcount=131

And you continued:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061746&postcount=146

In the first post you introduced the "computational model" and indicated that because some people take the idea seriously it must have merit. As Paul2 pointed out, none of what you posted constituted evidence and your argument was reduced to "if something is possible, that is evidence for it." This is a logical fallacy.

You simply expanded in the second post but compounded your errors by refusing to cite scientific work while posting links to YouTube videos. You continued to try and bolster your position over subsequent posts even though your logical fallacies were being pointed out to you. Here's the example that you refuse to accept as a fallacy:

"I've shown further that serious scientific minds take the computational model seriously ..."

Perhaps if you understood and were willing to accept and deal with the errors you were making you wouldn't believe that an afterlife is possible.

Krikkiter,

Wrong. In the first post I simply maintained that: " ... the idea of a generated construct is something that is seriously considered by those seeking an answer to the question." Then I showed that some people, including those with credentials take it seriously." That is not a logical fallacy. It is simply an example explaining my position and how it is different from that in the video. It is you who imparted the extra bit about, "that because some people take the idea seriously it must have merit." Take it as seriously or non seriously as you want. Either way it makes no difference. On one side we have "ectoplasm & software run on the brain" and the other the computational model. And I've shown how the computational model doesn't work with the rationale of the skeptic in the video. In that context, that is all that is required. The rest has been a purely hypothetical discussion. So again, there is no logical fallacy taking place because there is no inference that it must be true. So I understand the concepts perfectly well, and it is you who keeps making unfounded proclamations supported by false assumptions. Furthermore, your slights against my character are neither warranted nor appreciated. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time before adding you to my ignore list along with the rest of cabal here who enjoy wasting my time.

 

[Akhenaten]

What prompts people to believe in an afterlife when there is no shred of proof? Wishful thinking? Comfort?

Being scared into it by other people with agendas of their own and who have a vested interest in the superstitious beliefs of the sheeple seems fairly popular.

 

[Akhenaten]

More proclamations and misrepresentations.

<snip>

Any suggestion of logical fallacy is purely a misinterpretation.

And yet, without pausing for a breath . . .

For example, my example was not an appeal to authority as was claimed because I never made the appeal that because the scientist in my example takes it seriously it must be true. I only made the claim it is taken seriously ... which obviously it is.

You repeat the fallacy and deny that you've done so all at the same time.

NAGL.

( if you bothered to check the links I posted ) ... well I suppose except for that last one which was for humor ... I thought at least one person here would find it funny enough to lighten the mood.

When one makes as many ridiculous claims and states as many untenable hypotheses as you do it's never going to be a good idea to be dabbling in humour.

Not only are you not very good at it but there's a more than even chance that few people will be able to tell the difference between the attempted joke and the normal dross that you post.

 

[Mashuna]

Simply repeating someone else who has not answered either is not an answer.

You've been answered, you've just not understood the answer.

 

[Akhenaten]

Simply repeating someone else who has not answered either is not an answer.

You've been answered, you've just not understood the answer.

I think you're being very charitable. It seems to me to be more likely that he understands just fine but is simply unable to acknowledge his error.

 

[ufology]

You've been answered, you've just not understood the answer.

Proclaiming I don't understand is not an answer. Nobody including you has addressed the argument itself and been able to substantiate their position. Please refute this if think otherwise ... and try to actually address the issues rather than make more proclamations and repeating what other people have said.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Then I showed that some people, including those with credentials take it seriously."

If you think that doing this doesn't alter the status of the hypothesis in any way, then it's completely irrelevant. If you think it does, it's a logical fallacy. These are the only two options - which are you saying is true?

 

[Marduk]

Just for you folo, here are the two fallacies you have committed with that statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
its like claiming that the Catholic church must be the one true faith because its popular and because the Pope says so

that is completely irrelevant to truth

 

[ufology]

If you think that doing this doesn't alter the status of the hypothesis in any way, then it's completely irrelevant. If you think it does, it's a logical fallacy. These are the only two options - which are you saying is true?

Sorry but loaded questions don't work with me. Here is my answer. This is an informal discussion forum not a scientific tribunal, so we can mention related bits and pieces for the sake of interest all we want, which means it's not "completely irrelevant" to anyone who finds it interesting. Also, because I had said that some people with scientific credentials take the idea seriously, it's fair to assume that someone might ask the question, "OK Who?" and so I posted the link. If nobody finds it interesting that's fine, no harm done. That being said, it's also fair of you to assume there might have been some implied authority in the reference, but the actuality is that I'm personally leaving that judgment call to those who review the information and watch the video. Perhaps they'll think about it for themselves and decide if it's worth further reflection. To avoid false assumptions in the future I suggest asking some prequalifying questions. There is often confusion about context on these forums.

 

[Krikkiter]

ufology, I hope you don't mind but I'll reply to your objections later. A bit busy right now but I just wanted to get some clarification on something in the meantime.

Are you saying that the question you asked in the following isn't at all related to the statements that follow?

Fair enough. So what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct? Nobody has any definitive answer to what existence actually is ... what exactly constitutes our reality, but the idea of a generated construct is something that is seriously considered by those seeking an answer to the question.

<snip>

NOTE: Akhenaten has been successfully added to my ignore list.

I left that last bit in for humour.

 

[Akhenaten]

<waffle>


There is often confusion about context on these forums.

Yet another logical fallacy.

This time it's a Hasty Generalisation caused by you assuming the whole Forum is beset by a type of confusion that in fact only applies to your own posts.

 

[Akhenaten]

ufology, I hope you don't mind but I'll reply to your objections later. A bit busy right now but I just wanted to get some clarification on something in the meantime.

Are you saying that the question you asked in the following isn't at all related to the statements that follow?

I left that last bit in for humour.

I thought the bit about "I just wanted to get some clarification on something in the meantime" was much funnier than the bit about my being given free rein to say what I like.

Clarification??? Too funny.

 

[ufology]

ufology, I hope you don't mind but I'll reply to your objections later. A bit busy right now but I just wanted to get some clarification on something in the meantime.

Are you saying that the question you asked in the following isn't at all related to the statements that follow?



I left that last bit in for humour.

Sure, the question is related. Just not in the way you have interpreted as an appeal to authority ( which is what I presume is still the issue ). The entire issue is simply for the sake of participation in an informal discussion. So I posed the question somewhat rhetorically as an interpretation of Paul's implied dismissal on the grounds of a lack of evidence. In other words: So ... OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence ... well if you look at at this way this seems to make some sense ... and so and so over there with some scientific credentials also thinks it does ... so maybe he has some reasons ... and if you find this interesting you might want to check it out ... That's all I'm saying. I'm not making any claims for truth or certainty or belief of or in it or any of that. Most simply put, if you had asked me if I think that because the scientist I used as a reference says it seems like we're living in a simulated universe that it must be true ... I would have said, "Of course not, we don't have sufficient evidence, but it is pretty interesting."

 

[Akhenaten]

Clarification??? Too funny.

Sure, the question is related. Just not in the way you have interpreted as an appeal to authority ( which is what I presume is still the issue ). The entire issue is simply for the sake of participation in an informal discussion. So I posed the question somewhat rhetorically as an interpretation of Paul's implied dismissal on the grounds of a lack of evidence. In other words: So ... OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence ... well if you look at at this way this seems to make some sense ... and so and so over there with some scientific credentials also thinks it does ... so maybe he has some reasons ... and if you find this interesting you might want to check it out ... That's all I'm saying. I'm not making any claims for truth or certainty or belief of or in it or any of that. Most simply put, if you had asked me if I think that because the scientist I used as a reference says it seems like we're living in a simulated universe that it must be true ... I would have said, "Of course not, we don't have sufficient evidence, but it is pretty interesting."

quod erat demonstrandum

 

[Stray Cat]

Sorry but loaded questions Questions I have to answer won't work with me.

ftfy.

 

[Krikkiter]

quod erat demonstrandum

Y'know there's this competition going...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

 

[Toke]

I find it a bit hard to make sense of this.
Our resident ufologist is claiming that an afterlife would be possible if we lived in an VR world?
As in death being reboot to Valhalla 2.0?

 

[Porterboy]

Don't build a faulty argument and then hide behind "it's just speculation" when said argument gets rightfully torn to shreds for its complete lack of merit.

Well, if and when that happens I won't.