[The dancing game]

I had the recent thought, well far past in the line, that statistically the afterlife can almost certainly be bet to be nothingness. You can divide the afterlife, totally objectively into a 50/50 chance between nothingness and a something I would imagine. But then that something fragments, becomes a million different types of something, each with a nothing counterpart. For example, a .0001% chance of traditional angels and heaven, a .0001% chance of velociraptor cats, a .0001% chance of endless fried chicken. But the nothingness just compounds, because it's all the same, all the little .0001%s are the same thing; nothing. So nothing can't be divided, unsurprising. But in the end you end up with a 50 % chance of nothingness, and a .00000001% chance of any CERTAIN something. Thus, all religions are extremely unlikely, statistically, objectively. This isn't to dis on any one or really religion in general, it was just a thought I had and I wanted to know if I could hear some opinions

[Defiance]

Eh, I disagree with your mathematics. I'll try to explain this the best I can, but I'm sure someone will come along and say it much better than me.

You have a choice between hole A and hole B. Behind one is an apple (you do not know which kind) and behind the other is nothing. Thus, a 50/50 chance, correct? Now, you specifically might believe that only one type of apple is good. Your belief that only one type of apple is good does not diminish the chance of there being an apple in the hole. Instead, it diminishes the chance of it being an apple of your liking. Thus, you cannot say that statistical probability is changed in this instance: in some cases, the sum is not equal to its total parts.

This of course diverges when you get into it being your specific afterlife. But, again, just because the afterlife isn't how you imagined it does not diminish the chance of it being true.

Also, applying statistical likelihoods to an afterlife is an exercise in futility. It's kind of like obscenity - if you believe in religion (or just life after death), there are certain types of afterlife that make more sense than others. Can you ever put them in an exact order, or give them a statistical percentage, though? Absolutely not. As someone who is still unsure what he believes, I find it highly unlikely that, should an afterlife exist (and at this point I'm going to consider the afterlife something divine, as there is no science to back it up), it would be something absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical. Sure, there could be velociraptor cats, but from both a science and a religious standpoint it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I think, if we want to discredit the validity of religion, we have to go beyond simple statistics. An exploration into how past religions help shape future ones, the contradictions within any specific religion, and so on would be a better way to disprove the afterlife, in my opinion.

I could go on, but I'm really not good at laying out my thoughts in a paper-like manner. I much prefer to have back-and-forth dialogue (either in person, or over an online messenger or some such).

[The dancing game]

Of course, what you're saying is that an afterlife is equally likely, and you're in the right, I suppose the thread name was a misnomer, it wasnt much the point. it should have been the existence of religion, since religion tries to pick on of those apple types. My misstepping! Clumsy feet, damned shoes too. Can't change them easily. And well why should an afterlife make any sense? As you said, you consider it divine and not scientifically backed. And well if we're going on the pasts of religions we would really only be analyzing the purpose they serve and how its shaped current religions, we'd be stepping into a non-metaphysical realm. Shall we go there? And I agree wholeheartedly on the subject of paper, those big shoes those.

[Gothos]

Defiance, on 14 June 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

I think, if we want to discredit the validity of religion, we have to go beyond simple statistics. An exploration into how past religions help shape future ones, the contradictions within any specific religion, and so on would be a better way to disprove the afterlife, in my opinion.

Lack of any sort of evidence should qualify afterlife concepts as fairytales and wishful thinking, right? Pretty simple. Though it would rock in Valhalla was real.

[The dancing game]

well, there's a 1 in 2 chance that one of those odd fairy tails is correct by my logic o.O I rather enjoyed the digression to religious history and purpose in the physical world though. Real things are easier to argue about, generally because real things incite bias, and people care and all those other insanities. haha, and such.

[Gothos]

It's not logic. It's not even speculation. Entirely arbitrary claim with no basis whatsoever. In fact all you're saying here just seems to suggest you're high as hell and writing random words with your forehead.

[worry]

Even though it's called the "afterlife" you cannot think of it as a future event that you can predict from past or present circumstances. You're trying to predict whether YOU will go on to an afterlife, which is an irrelevance. Its existence is independent of your participation or your place in chronological time. It's closer to a thought experiment/paradox like Schrodinger's cat than the probability problem you proposed previously.

[The dancing game]

Please now, I abhor drugs and use words only as I have to, I do have to though. Murderous English, hates us all! But utterly logic-founded. In something you are not sure of there either is or isn't, the zombie cat of not the member of this website, and the man who's name started with an S, there was a 50% chance of it being alive or being dead in that box, well really an equal chance of it being a penguin too, but that isn't the point. Either there is or isn't an afterlife, and since there's no reason to take a claim on either side, its a 50/50 chance, no? Yes! Logical, perfectly so, given what's been given, which is nothing but thought.

[The dancing game]

Nicely timed mentioning of the zombie cat, Sir. Nicely tim ed indeed! Its really the same concept, none of it is related to me, just how things are. To reflect things off oneself isn't what I do, its for two not one, and a proper mirror besides, which appears in unappearance so far in my searches here.

[worry]

No, it wasn't 50/50. It's not a probability problem, it's a paradox. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 14 June 2012 - 06:50 AM

[The dancing game]

Bah, no, well yes but no. That wasn't the take home message. That being I believe that the cat has an equal chance of being alive, or dead, or being just about anything really. But the possibility of nothing being behind the box will still always be 50%.

[The dancing game]

Could be I'm wrong in that analogy come to think of it. But I am not the man who's name reminds me of the one tv show cartoon who always played the piano.

[Use Of Weapons]

I think more interesting (and certainly more plausible) than any of the various religious afterlives is the possibility (shown in various forms in countless SF novels) of a digital afterlife. Who would choose such a thing? If you're religious, would you choose it, if the possibility existed? If not, would you choose it, and for what reasons? How would affect the religious concept of the 'soul'? What would the legal ramifications be? It's no wonder so many SF authors have tried to work it out; the possibilities are quite literally endless.

[sting01]

worrywort, on 14 June 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

No, it wasn't 50/50. It's not a probability problem, it's a paradox. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

No it is not paradox, it is quantic physic explained by what is a paradox in normal physic; but stop to be a paradox if you considere yourself as THE observater.

Quantic physic is hard to grasp, and got a retard because it was the 'prefered' of the nazis.

[Morgoth]

There's not a set 50% chance of any one of two choices being the right one.

[worry]

I said it was a thought experiment/paradox, and that the cat being alive and dead simultaneously in particular is the paradox element. None of which matters, cuz it was a vague analogy anyway, about the counter-intuitive notion of the irrelevance of your personal, eventual observation of the afterlife; it wasn't a comment on quantum mechanics. The fact of the matter re: an afterlife exists independently of you or your calculations, and drawing any conclusion without permeating the barrier between life and death, is absurd. And I'm not suggesting you shouldn't believe one thing or another, only that it's not a conclusion.

[RetiredTalon]

This may be besides the point but I've come up with the best afterlife ever I think (besides Valhalla, of course)


When you die, you just get to watch a stream of stats from your life, every possible stat imaginable. How many poops taken, how many bugs stepped on, how many slices of pepperoni eaten......you get the point. I think it would be an enjoyable after-experience.

[The dancing game]

Morgoth, on 14 June 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

There's not a set 50% chance of any one of two choices being the right one.

You would be right, but I was saying without any data being given to sway one side or the other (and for something like an afterlife there really isn't much, depends on how you view the world perhaps)

[The dancing game]

worrywort, on 14 June 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

I said it was a thought experiment/paradox, and that the cat being alive and dead simultaneously in particular is the paradox element. None of which matters, cuz it was a vague analogy anyway, about the counter-intuitive notion of the irrelevance of your personal, eventual observation of the afterlife; it wasn't a comment on quantum mechanics. The fact of the matter re: an afterlife exists independently of you or your calculations, and drawing any conclusion without permeating the barrier between life and death, is absurd. And I'm not suggesting you shouldn't believe one thing or another, only that it's not a conclusion.

Oh of course, there's a 100% chance of it being whatever it's being (is it being though, or becoming? I do hope someone got that...) But its like if you count cards, you can bet on the odds I do think, as with every aspect of life.

[Morgoth]

The dancing game, on 14 June 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 14 June 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

There's not a set 50% chance of any one of two choices being the right one.

You would be right, but I was saying without any data being given to sway one side or the other (and for something like an afterlife there really isn't much, depends on how you view the world perhaps)

That still doesn't lead to your 50%.