Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Afterlife-Poll

final_identity · 05-30-2004, 06:58 PM

I don't find any reason to think there's NOT afterlife. It just seems categorically absurd to assume the negative.

Here, let's practice:

-- The universe is infinite and evidently expanding. Are there other planets orbiting stars ANYWHERE in ANY galaxy that might sustain the sort of life that we currently call "viable"?

Answering that there MUST be NO other planets like ours really flies in the face of logic, doesn't it? Think of the potential number of options, and the chance that a few fell into place properly! I find it unlikely that there aren't, like, sixty or a hundred options to support life, just because there is such a VAST EXPANSE in which planets might be.

Here, let's try another one.

-- Presuming that all the ducks in a certain pond were the same species, and the ducks were split evenly fifty-fifty between the genders, would you say that there would be no baby ducklings next spring? Or some ducklings? --

It's possible there'd be no broods. Maybe there was a chemical spill, maybe a hunter killed all the males, I dunno. What are the chances? Low. Why be silly and INSIST that the NEGATIVE ZERO STATE is the ONLY possibility?

I feel the same about life-after-death. So much we don't know, so many particle physicists still finding doo-dads that zip around right straight through us all the time, so much of our scientific understanding is based on potentialities. Why be "hard-nosed" and try to prove how "scientific" you are by ABANDONING all that science teaches you about not assuming anything until it's proven?

Life after death has to be pretty much a given until it's disproven. (And that's an unlikely proposition.)

05-30-2004, 06:58 PM	#48 (permalink)
final_identity Tilted Location: Jackson, MS	I don't find any reason to think there's NOT afterlife. It just seems categorically absurd to assume the negative. Here, let's practice: -- The universe is infinite and evidently expanding. Are there other planets orbiting stars ANYWHERE in ANY galaxy that might sustain the sort of life that we currently call "viable"? Answering that there MUST be NO other planets like ours really flies in the face of logic, doesn't it? Think of the potential number of options, and the chance that a few fell into place properly! I find it unlikely that there aren't, like, sixty or a hundred options to support life, just because there is such a VAST EXPANSE in which planets might be. Here, let's try another one. -- Presuming that all the ducks in a certain pond were the same species, and the ducks were split evenly fifty-fifty between the genders, would you say that there would be no baby ducklings next spring? Or some ducklings? -- It's possible there'd be no broods. Maybe there was a chemical spill, maybe a hunter killed all the males, I dunno. What are the chances? Low. Why be silly and INSIST that the NEGATIVE ZERO STATE is the ONLY possibility? I feel the same about life-after-death. So much we don't know, so many particle physicists still finding doo-dads that zip around right straight through us all the time, so much of our scientific understanding is based on potentialities. Why be "hard-nosed" and try to prove how "scientific" you are by ABANDONING all that science teaches you about not assuming anything until it's proven? Life after death has to be pretty much a given until it's disproven. (And that's an unlikely proposition.) __________________ The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. Friedrich Nietzsche