FFS you guys! Move this discussion to the Hub! Please stop high jacking other folks’ strings!
2 Likes
We know what the objective evidence is that demonstrates our species will live a finite existence. If that evidence changes the answer will change, but only as that evidence requires it must.
That would be the speculation part. I cannot base an answer to a question on not knowing something.
That point is when we imagine without any objective evidence. As long as we understand the difference that’s fine. All we can say now is that the objective evidence demonstrates that our species existence is finite.
I’m not a philosopher, but if there is no limit to knowledge, that would by definition be omniscience, will we be able to predict the future for example, if not then right there is a limit to our knowledge, and if we die out as a species, then clearly the limit of our knowledge is right there.
I never claimed they did.
Yet another strawman, which is followed by multiple strawmen, in the rest of your comment.
address your fallacies.
I apologise, I can’t get @Cognostic to be honest, I’ll no longer respond to @Cognostic nless it is in the relevant thread.
No. I mean proof. And I will demonstrate the reason why. The following was inspired by Russell’s Paradox
Take a piece of chemistry knowledge belonging to the set of all chemical knowledge. That set is “normal” if the knowledge of all chemistry is not a member of that set. The set is “abnormal” if the knowledge of all chemistry is a member of that set.
Obviously a set is either abnormal or normal.
If we accept limits to human understanding, our chemistry knowledge is normal. It does not contain itself.
If we assume that we can master that knowledge, then it is abnormal. The set of all chemical knowledge contains the very knowledge of that set.
And the same applies to all types of knowledge.
So, let’s assume the existence of a set of different types of knowledge. And let’s assume we can’t know everything about these sets of knowledge. We take the set of all “normal” knowledge sets and ask if that set belongs to itself or not.
If the set of all normal sets of knowledge were normal, it would be contained in the set of all normal sets (itself), and therefore be abnormal; on the other hand that same set were abnormal, it would not be contained in the set of all normal sets (itself), and therefore be normal. This leads to the conclusion that the set of all “normal” knowledge sets is neither normal nor abnormal: an example of Russell’s paradox.
In logic we have this:
Let R = {x | x ∉ x} R ∈ R ⇔ R ∉ R
But the contradiction does not arise if we consider the sets of all “abnormal” sets of knowledge. Thus it is only logically consistent to assume that all sets of knowledge contain themselves as objects in those sets. Ie. if we know anything about any “subject” (ie. set of knowledge facts), then we can be confident that we will (eventually) know everything about that set (ie. it is and must be “complete”).
How does this apply to God?
Well, any Christian will tell you that we can’t know everything about God. For example, God is “omniscient” and we can know some things about that fact without ever being omniscient ourselves. Thus the set of all knowledge sets about God is a “normal” set.
Thus that set of all sets of knowledge about God belongs again to the set of all normal sets. It therefore belongs to itself and is “abnormal”. A contradiction.
So, if we can know anything about God, we must be able to know everything about God. Ie. the set of all sets of knowledge about God must be contained in that same set.
Well, what do Christian’s say:
“Only God is omniscient.”
Thus, the set remains “normal” to all Christians and there is no way to avoid the paradox. Of course, when have Christians ever believed that there was anything logical to their “understanding” of God?
Ask them, however, if God can be true and false at the same time, and they will deny this.
Thus it is only logically consistent to assume that the knowledge of God and all things spiritual is an “abnormal” set (ie. the knowledge of all things spiritual contains itself - ie. the knowledge of God).
There are only two possibilities. If God chooses to reveal anything about Himself to an individual he will reveal everything. Thus, we are potentially omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent as well (though we may not quite know how at the moment).
God must belong to the abnormal set.
Thus the above, or if He wants to exist in His fashion, then He cannot reveal even the slightest thing about Himself without contradicting His very being.
Ergo, you either know God fully or you know absolutely nothing about Him. One may, therefore, be a total atheist who does not believe in God because of a pure absence of evidence, or you are amenable to being God Himself (in the very direct sense of fully comprehending His entire being). Or, of course - He simply doesn’t exist (but there may be no way to prove that).
In any case; There is NO room for even the most modest of “beliefs” about God. And no room for “faith” whatsoever. It simply cannot be. In other words, one cannot logically even be a theist. The position is untenable.
1 Like
Then you mean a proof, and I have not claimed to have a mathematical proof, only the objective evidence I offered. The evidence suggests the existence of the human species is finite, it follows there is a limit to our knowledge, since if all humans are gone our knowledge will have reached that limit.
Indeed. I did want “a” proof.
The existence of the human species need not be finite. We may learn to travel to different stars and planets and escape our own dying sun. We may do this right up until there are no further habitable planets in the galaxy - and then we’ll hop over to another one. Then we may even figure out how to escape our very universe. Depending on the ultimate fate of the universe, our existence (be it finite or infinite) is a matter of knowledge.
If we are finite and our knowledge depends on that, then just how finite are we? nearly “in” finite, perhaps? Then our knowledge may barely know any limits.
If, as I’ve laid out in the proof above, we are able to know anything about a given subject (be it physics, chemistry, biology, or what have you), then the only logical conclusion is that it is possible for us to know everything about that subject. Or else Russell’s Paradox renders that set of all sets of knowledge as an absurdity.
And, similarly, regarding that which we can know absolutely nothing about - ie. God - the question of whether it truly exists or not is mostly irrelevant.
The evidence suggests it is though.
Or we may not, and since there is currently no evidence we can do this, then I went with the evidence rather than unevidenced speculation.
We don’t know that.
Levity?
1 Like
Not really. Fusion power is nearly a capability. Cryogenics has already been put into place. Technology is only advancing. Our species is still evolving. Our technological capability has been growing exponentially since the 1700’s and there’s no sign of it slowing down at any point.
With cryogenics and fusion, the dream of travelling to and inhabiting a hospitable planet is more than science fiction.
Are we really to accept that our fate on this planet is to wither out and die? I think our ingenuity as a species along with our tenacious ability to survive utterly negate such a pessimistic point of view.
Yes, really…you can’t just wave it away.
reality
noun
- the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Yeah, it’s a shame, but reality is rather stubborn…
1 Like
Did you read a single thing I wrote?
Sure. Your human existence is “limited”.
You’re in no better position than I am to speculate on the future of the species.
Yes, I am scheduled to freeze myself tomorrow in the hopes that in a thousand years they can defrost me and tell me what I died of.
1 Like
Except that when you wake up they have life regenerating capabilities- - much like the early versions of stem cell therapy we have now. It’s really not that far of a leap.
Am I getting static cause I’m not a “dyed in the wool” atheist. I’m talking about human civilization here … science … and the ultimate progression of the species.
Is that not, in part, a feature of denying primitive religious tendencies? Ie. the idea that humans are the masters of their own destiny?
That’s just stupid…presumably if you freeze yourself tomorrow, you will have died from freezing to death…goddamnit, do I have to explain everything???
Edit (I thaw what you did)
I think they slow your heart down to nothing and put you in a pleasant coma ahead of time. I’ll read up on it and get back to you 
Well … freezing entire bodies appears to be quackery.
Freezing sperm cells and ovaries is standard practice.
Automating insemination with robotics and harvesting the cell growth inside an artificial womb is basically run of the mill technology that, as of yet, may or may not exist.
The idea of it is a mere question of who wants to make it happen.
Sending these cells into space is absolutely trivial. Finding a suitable planet may be harder, but we are finding like … several hundred habitable planets out of 3000 exoplanets?!!!
Give me a break! Why are you guys so boring?
I am the mistress of my own destiny. You bigot. Learn your gener pronouns.
All of them, did you have anything that doesn’t involve unevidenced assumptions and imagination to address the objective evidence presented?
Indeed, but not just mine, all of us based on the objective evidence that our solar system is going to go bye bye and us with it based on the objective evidence.
Which is why unlike you I don;t care to speculate, only infer from objective evidence. We’ve done this enough times now to know I only believe what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence. Go back and read the initial responses and see if I have made any claims that are not. I will happily redress my assertions if i think I have overstepped the evidence.
I know, as if having the ability to freeze corpses is a major step towards immorality.
That’s unevidenced fantasy, whereas the dying finite star powering life on earth is an objective reality, so I am sure you can see how one answer to the thread question is based on objective fact, and the other not?
Nope, the objective evidence demonstrates that the ultimate progression is the death of our sun, what you are suggesting is fanatsy,with the peppering of some scientific facts that don’t remotely support that fantasy.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but no, this has nothing at all to do with atheism, as the reason I withhold belief from theistic claims is the same as all other claims, including many of yours here about interstellar travel, and relocating our species successfully to another planet in the universe, they are not supported by sufficient objective evidence.
This reminds me of joke. I casually asked everyone “how long does a chicken last in the freezer?” inevitably someone says “oh about 6 months”, you look puzzled and respond “well that’s odd, I put one in the freezer yesterday, and it as dead this morning.”
Or you could just explain how this is going to alter the fact our species is dependant on a dying star, without using any claims that are unsupported by objective evidence.
Quelle surprise…
And irrelevant to the facts here.
It doesn’t matter, since we can’t get from here to such a planet. And you fire as much of your sperm into space as you like, that is a fact.
That reality isn’t as exciting as fiction may sometimes be true, but in this instance the thread topic wasn’t asking for fiction, it posed a question about reality.
Wow! You’re real fun at parties, aren’t you?