Why we're immortal

[teo123]

As religions shrink due to modernization, as well as little interest in philosophy, these places have also seen shrinking.

It is getting hard to find a site to discuss religions as their apologists are dropping like flies.

This place is also small compared to others.

Regards
DL

Do you think you understand special relativity? Can you answer my question?

I know a few things, but not that.

There are many science specific forums.

Regards
DL

Well, I asked that on Physics StackExchange as well. I am interested in what @brimstoneSalad, who seems to have studied a lot of physics, thinks about it.

[Greatest I am]

Do you think you understand special relativity? Can you answer my question?

I know a few things, but not that.

There are many science specific forums.

Regards
DL

Well, I asked that on Physics StackExchange as well. I am interested in what @brimstoneSalad, who seems to have studied a lot of physics, thinks about it.

I took a look and now feel even more stupid than usual. Thanks.

Kidding.

Regards
DL

[teo123]

@brimstoneSalad, I have started a Croatian forum thread about Jakov Labor textbook definition of 2LOT: https://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=1296563

[teo123]

In my latest YouTube video about atheism, I addressed this criticism "Souls are metaphysical things, so physics has nothing to say about it." by stating that metaphysics is a multidisciplinary field made both from philosophy and physics. And that, to usefully discuss metaphysics, you need to have some understanding of both modern physics and modern philosophy. And @Sunflowers appears to be profoundly ignorant of both.
Slightly related, many people on Internet forums whom I discussed my latest paper about toponyms with seem to have blind faith that informatics has nothing to say about toponyms, that toponyms belong exclusively to linguistics. It seems that people who say that are victims of the same fallacy that @Sunflowers was committing. I am not sure how to respond to them. I think that by stating "That k-r pattern in the Croatian river names is a coincidence." you are making the informatical statement "That pattern is not statistically significant.". Yet, my calculations show that the probability of that pattern occurring by chance is somewhere between 1/300 and 1/17. But, for some reason, that doesn't convince people.

Also, @Sunflowers, about the Descartes'es argument from divisibility... Do you think it doesn't make sense to say "Part of me wants to do something, but another part of me thinks it is a bad idea."?

[Greatest I am]

Both science and religions now (boast) a Gods of the Gaps.

If not demonstrable and communicative, all Gods are garbage.

The proof of concept for any metaphysical, scientific or supernatural religious God would be the same proof of the many Gods concepts.

Regards
DL

P.S.
If God is the way the right wing sees him, reject his morals.

[teo123]

I asked a question about how Descartes responded to the argument "Why do non-human animals have pituitary glands if they have no soul?" on Philosophy StackExchange, and thus far that question has many more upvotes than downvotes. It's amazing to me there are still people, such as @Sunflowers, who believe in Cartesian Dualism. It was ridiculous back then, and it is even more ridiculous now.

[FredVegrox]

I, a mind - that is, a thinking thing - appear to be indivisible. And this seems to be the nature of minds. The idea of a half a mind appears, well, incoherent.

If something is indivisible, then it is simple. For any complex object has parts into which it could, in principle, be divided.

If an object is simple, then it is indestructible. After all, how could one destroy a simple thing, given there is nothing into which one can deconstruct it?

Thus, I, a mind, am indestructible. That is to say, I am immortal.

Of course, none of this goes for my physical body. Physical things, by their very nature, appear to be divisible and thus complex. But all this does is show that I am not my body.

It may be claimed, "I think, therefore I am." But that sure does not mean you continue to be. It will come to an end, for any of us. We could continue with an afterlife with a soul. That means some consciousness we have that is distinct from the body and its processes. But where to draw a line between what creatures have a soul and what does not? But then we depend on God for it continuing. And we ourselves are not God. We do not create all reality, the universe with it having started was caused by existence apart from it. No existence caused itself to become. There is existence that is necessary, meaning that which necessarily exists, or there couldn't be anything. And being necessary means not being limited. There would be no divisions into separate parts, there could be no such arbitrary distinctions and partitions, or any gaps, within existence that is necessary, only unlimited unity that is eternal and without any bounds, again, being necessary. Anything other would mean that existence is not necessary. Intelligence shown from necessary existence, which caused all other existence, means unlimited intelligence, power to cause the universe and what is in it to exist, and it did have a beginning, means there is unlimited power with necessary existence. There are more such things to consider, logically, with such conclusions, necessary existence could not be limited in any way. Such would rightly be thought of as God. And such God we depend on for such with a soul to continue.