I think the concept is usually rather "not believing in the presence of one", rather than "believing in the absence of one", with the difference being that one is akin to simply not knowing whereas the other is an active choice after perceived knowing. In this sense it makes more sense to affirm that you "do not believe in the presence of God" rather than "believe in the presence of God". It is, however, equally more sensible to affirm you "do not believe in the absence of God" instead of "believe in the absence of God".


@bentherdonethat - if instead you're asserting that it is more reasonable to "believe in the absence of God" instead of "believe in the presence of God" then you would be wrong. If you're asserting that it is more reasonable to "not believe in the presence of God" than "believe in the presence of God", however, you would be correct.

This is basically because the matter of God is not an issue where you can qualitatively stack up more evidence in favor of either side; because what is considered evidence is never the same to either side.

This post was edited by Nihlathak on May 12 2012 06:47pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#M-theory



Hardly an "unreasonable" concept.

I agree.

The absence of consciousness only concludes that consciousness doesn't exist anymore. It doesn't support anything else, like there could be ANYTHING else that happens when you die. And yes, multiple universes/realities is a possibility, no proof for it but yes you can make that statement but you wouldn't know beyond a 100% certainty you are right or wrong.

Now I go and punch a wall right now I can conclude that my hand is going to feel pain. Because I experience that, when I die, what is there to experience, and when you do die and then the truth would be known 100%, all of that changes.

But without experiencing death, you can't conclude anything absolutely.

I have a bachelor's in physics. I went for a master's in electrical engineering after that, but I can tell you that if you like math and you like hard work then physics is going to be a lot of fun for you. Hard, but rewarding.

What do you do for a living?

We know what consciousness is.

We know what death is.

We know what life is

We know where we came from, what we are, what we are doing here. blah blah blah.

We have every single piece of the puzzle. The only doubt left with regards to the afterlife is based on one's optimism and wishful thinking and those who haven't put all the pieces of the puzzle together.


There isn't going to be some grand discovery that completely changes our understanding of life and death.

I'm talking specifically about the afterlife. It is more reasonable not to believe in the presence of an afterlife because of the supernatural aspect of it. We don't witness these supernatural events in any aspect of reality, and a lot of people who believe in an afterlife will argue that you CAN'T. Therefore, because all we can experience is the world we live in, the most reasonable stand to take is the one that there is no other world (i.e. plane of existence) beyond our own.


Financial software development.

I know, I know. I get around. I'm not actually working in either discipline that I studied...

This post was edited by bentherdonethat on May 12 2012 06:51pm

We only know where we come from to a certain point.

What goes on before the big bang and that detail of the beginning of the universe is actually way more complex than what we are currently discussing.

Because the beginning of the universe to the very beginning is a paradox and never ending loop of things that defies human logic.

We know what these things are cause WE named them. Rofl.

You think we know EVERYTHING?! ROFL!

This post was edited by Voyaging on May 12 2012 06:54pm