Can i speculate about Heaven?

[Eise]

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

You can dissscuss a none-scientific subject with quite scientific methods, my friend. 

No, you can't. 'None-scientific' practically means that scientific methods do not work, otherwise we would have made a science from it.

[BahadirArici]

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course you can’t. That is like saying you can decide if it is more likely that invisible unicorns are blue or pink. It is an insane idea.

false logic. If you can define something of course you can rate ideas which would suit the definition more. You can easily say e hell-like place would rated less than a heaven-like place when you want to decide which is more heavish. Can you understand this or need more example?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yours obviously appears more “logical” to you because you are using the crackpot meaning of logical (“it makes sense to me”). 

False. I mean more rational when i say more logical. More suited the common sense. How do you prefer me to refer it?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Reading comprehension problems?

Phi did not say what he understood heaven to be. 

But he gave an example, no?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

How about a place where cranks don't infest serious discussion forums?

Can we do anything to make you change your mind?

You are rude!

 

17 minutes ago, Eise said:

No, you can't. 'None-scientific' practically means that scientific methods do not work, otherwise we would have made a science from it.

False. Scvientific methodology is a methodology. When you devolop a hypotesis you may not even know if it is testable. 

Guys step up your science game.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

If you can define something of course you can rate ideas which would suit the definition more.  You can easily say e hell-like place would rated less than a heaven-like place when you want to decide which is more heavish.

Yes, but it isn't defined. If my definition of heaven is somewhere hot where people are tortured for eternity then ...

8 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

False. I mean more rational when i say more logical. More suited the common sense. How do you prefer me to refer it?

That is exactly what I mean by the crackpot definition of logic (or rationally). Common sense means "things that make sense to you [personally]". 

That is not what logic means. (It isn't what rationality means, either.)

And the problem with using "common sense" is that no one can persuade you that you are wrong because "it makes sense to me" is the ultimate defence (in your own mind).

11 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

But he gave an example, no?

Only to show how ridiculous your argument is. It was not an example of "his" heaven. It was deliberately ridiculous to try and explain to you have ridiculous the idea of trying to say that logic or rational thought can be applied to some fairy tale you have made up.

13 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

You are rude!

You have no sense of humour! (Although a world without stupid ideas would be a slight improvement.)

12 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

Scvientific methodology is a methodology.

It is a methodology based on evidence. You cannot produce evidence for something you have made up, therefore it is not possible to apply the scientific method. Not even in principle.

If someone claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns, how do you test that scientifically? (That is just as "rational" as your idea, by the way.) You can't. Obviously.

15 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

Guys step up your science game

Says the guy who has nothing scientific to say.

[BahadirArici]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes, but it isn't defined. If my definition of heaven is somewhere hot where people are tortured for eternity then ...

there is no such thing as "my definition to this" there is a definition in language. It should mean same thing to everybody. Like saying "heaven is a place everyone is satisfied most" this is a definition. what you told is what you understand from heaven. you may be satisfied when you are being burned. i get that. (you are not the fastest so let me explain, i am droping the mic here) (lol then pick it up and continue to explanation)

Quote

That is exactly what I mean by the crackpot definition of logic (or rationally). Common sense means "things that make sense to you [personally]". 

That is not what logic means. (It isn't what rationality means, either.)

And the problem with using "common sense" is that no one can persuade you that you are wrong because "it makes sense to me" is the ultimate defence (in your own mind).

no i am talking measurablity here. i am not talking relativity. You can decide what is more logical in any given option.

Quote

Only to show how ridiculous your argument is. It was not an example of "his" heaven. It was deliberately ridiculous to try and explain to you have ridiculous the idea of trying to say that logic or rational thought can be applied to some fairy tale you have made up.

You have no sense of humour! (Although a world without stupid ideas would be a slight improvement.)

It would be a great improvement  

Quote

It is a methodology based on evidence. You cannot produce evidence for something you have made up, therefore it is not possible to apply the scientific method. Not even in principle.

look it up what sciebntific methodology is.

Quote

If someone claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns, how do you test that scientifically? (That is just as "rational" as your idea, by the way.) You can't. Obviously.

you cannot test it scşientifically. But you can use scientific methodology and decide if that claim is quite rational or not. Do you need me break it down for you, actually use the method?

Quote

Says the guy who has nothing scientific to say.

true

Let me break it for you:

Heaven is a place believed by some people that (good) people go after they die and live an ethernal like life with ultimate satisfaction.

Therefore heavem primaraly must be filled by "humans".

"claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns" if this claim means a exclusive unicorn population, it is wrong by definition.

If it means one way or other there are a population of unicorns there, considering the amount of espacially young people who would like to have a unicorn, the claim is quite rational.

 

I used scientific methodology for a none scientific, un evidencable subject.

Edited February 14, 2018 by BahadirArici

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

there is no such thing as "my definition to this" there is a definition in language.

There is obviously not a single definition. Otherwise you would be using it instead of inventing your own fairy tales.

37 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

no i am talking measurablity here. i am not talking relativity. You can decide what is more logical in any given option.

How are you going to measure the contents of your imaginary fairy tale?

And, no, you cannot decide what is more logical in any given opinion. Logic has nothing to do with opinion. If you are discussing opinion and fairy tales (which were are) then there is no logic involved. 

40 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

look it up what sciebntific methodology is.

If you think science is not based on evidence, then there probably isn't lot to discuss.

 

 

[BahadirArici]

I agree, it is time for us to leave it to other members of this community to be judge of our different opinions on these subjects.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

then there probably isn't lot to discuss.

 

 

[Eise]

4 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

False. Scvientific methodology is a methodology. When you devolop a hypotesis you may not even know if it is testable. 

True. Seldom, but true. But if you know in advance that an empirical test will be impossible, then it makes really no sense anymore. Then it becomes a pure question of opinion. You can tell why you think that heaven is as you think, it could even be a rational discussion (i.e. you give arguments for your opinion), but it would never be scientific, because the absolute touchstone is missing: empirical reality.

[Area54]

4 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

Heaven is a place believed by some people that (good) people go after they die and live an ethernal like life with ultimate satisfaction.

Therefore heavem primaraly must be filled by "humans".

Because some people believe that heaven is only populated by humans it does not exclude the possibility that heaven, if it exists, is also populated by pink unicorns, manatees, slugs and ostriches. How could we decide which version of heaven is the correct one? Well the scientific method won't work, because that requires evidence in order to reach a conclusion. So we have to fall back on unsupported speculation. In such a case my pink unicorn/manatee/slug/ostrich infested heaven is at least as likely as yours. I would say more likely since I know I often get things right, whereas the evidence on this forum suggests you often get things wrong.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

So we have to fall back on unsupported speculation. In such a case my pink unicorn/manatee/slug/ostrich infested heaven is at least as likely as yours. I would say more likely since I know I often get things right, whereas the evidence on this forum suggests you often get things wrong.

And as we know that the numbers of other species vastly outnumbers humans, then humans will still be in the minority. There being no rational reason to think that insects will not go to heaven. After, all they cannot go to hell because they have no free will and hence cannot do evil. 

 

[BahadirArici]

5 minutes ago, Eise said:

True. Seldom, but true. But if you know in advance that an empirical test will be impossible, then it makes really no sense anymore. Then it becomes a pure question of opinion. You can tell why you think that heaven is as you think, it could even be a rational discussion (i.e. you give arguments for your opinion), but it would never be scientific, because the absolute touchstone is missing: empirical reality.

true. i am glad to see we agreed on here, first in the topic i guess.

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Because some people believe that heaven is only populated by humans it does not exclude the possibility that heaven, if it exists, is also populated by pink unicorns, manatees, slugs and ostriches. How could we decide which version of heaven is the correct one? Well the scientific method won't work, because that requires evidence in order to reach a conclusion. So we have to fall back on unsupported speculation. In such a case my pink unicorn/manatee/slug/ostrich infested heaven is at least as likely as yours. I would say more likely since I know I often get things right, whereas the evidence on this forum suggests you often get things wrong.

i am dissapointed by your answer. 

 

4 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

"claims heaven is populated by pink flying unicorns" if this claim means a exclusive unicorn population, it is wrong by definition.

If it means one way or other there are a population of unicorns there, considering the amount of espacially young people who would like to have a unicorn, the claim is quite rational.

here why dont you qoute this part too? i already tell there must be unicorns.

you miss one thing about heaven: it should give ultimate satisfaction. Where is the ultimate satisfaction of a unicorn infested heaven?

 

And why dont we talk about MY heaven where you can have anything in a cyber reality, anything you wish. Living in an only beautiful ladies infested World who are crazy about you, on a V day especvially? Done. Anything. Name it. Is there a superior heaven?

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

And as we know that the numbers of other species vastly outnumbers humans, then humans will still be in the minority. There being no rational reason to think that insects will not go to heaven. After, all they cannot go to hell because they have no free will and hence cannot do evil. 

 

Because i may not want to live with dose animals around. That it wouldnt be satisfactory for me. Thus it is not a good heaven as what i offer. 

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

And as we know that the numbers of other species vastly outnumbers humans, then humans will still be in the minority. There being no rational reason to think that insects will not go to heaven. After, all they cannot go to hell because they have no free will and hence cannot do evil. 

Clearly you have never experienced the midges of the West Coast of Scotland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_midge

You will never convince me that they are not evil. In fact I am sure they are on the payroll in hell.

3 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

I am dissapointed by your answer. 

I am disappointed by most of your thread. If you feel myprior  explanations for that disappointment are unclear go ahead and ask me to clarify.

[John Cuthber]

"Can i speculate about Heaven?"
Yes, that's all you can do about it.
So, what would be the point.

You just end up with a bunch of statements like "heaven might be pink".
The speculations may be longer, but they will still be devoid of any factual content.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

you miss one thing about heaven: it should give ultimate satisfaction.

You made that up so you can claim to be correct.

I can use exactly the same amount of evidence and logic to counter your claim. Are you ready for this? It might go over your head but here goes: you are wrong.

12 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

And why dont we talk about MY heaven where you can have anything in a cyber reality, anything you wish. Living in an only beautiful ladies infested World who are crazy about you, on a V day especvially? Done. Anything. Name it. Is there a superior heaven?

Because it is an immature daydream with no rational basis. Maybe it helps you masturbate but, really, discussing your schoolboy fantasies on a science site is just bizarre.

 

[John Cuthber]

25 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

you miss one thing about heaven: it should give ultimate satisfaction.

A wiser man than me once wrote that true contentment is not the absence of desire, but the absence of jealousy.
Would it be sufficient to ensure this "ultimate satisfaction" that you were content with what you had got?

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

Heaven is a place believed by some people that (good) people go after they die and live an ethernal like life with ultimate satisfaction.

1

Imagine you discover that just being a good person and relaxing about all the bad people gives you peace; now imagine trying to teach that to people who think revenge will give them peace. It's impossible to teach anything if they think they're right. What you need is a reason for those who seek revenge to give up that path, a stick and a carrot is a well-established method of persuasion; heaven is the carrot (be good and see what you get), hell is the stick (be bad or seek revenge and see what you get), neither need to exist for the lesson to work just belief and when you've learnt the lesson neither is belief because you have peace. There is only one place heaven exists, here and now and only when you understand the value of being good and forgiving those that choose a different path.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

I agree, it is time for us to leave it to other members of this community to be judge of our different opinions on these subjects.

You lose. The other members have spoken (you just keep missing it).

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

you miss one thing about heaven: it should give ultimate satisfaction.

So should a bordello. 

2 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

 

Where is the ultimate satisfaction of a unicorn infested heaven?

 

Depends on whether or not you like unicorns.

Quote

And why dont we talk about MY heaven where you can have anything in a cyber reality, anything you wish. Living in an only beautiful ladies infested World who are crazy about you, on a V day especvially? Done. Anything. Name it. Is there a superior heaven?

What you seem to be saying is that your heaven is the correct heaven because you think it is and we are somehow wrong because we don't agree with you... I honestly cannot see how one heaven could please everyone, if there is such a place it has to be subjective instead of objective. This negates your claims quite nicely. 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

Arent you contradicting with yourself here? By telling what you understand from "heaven" you start a discussion, or answer to mine, which is discussing. You can discuss and even rate which heaven is more probable if it exits. You can dissscuss a none-scientific subject with quite scientific methods, my friend. 

I learned nothing. You learned that you're heavily biased towards the explanation that makes the most sense to you (you did learn that, right?). Not a discussion, then, by the definition I gave earlier.

10 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

And obviously my "heaven" is more logical than yours.

Sorry about using such an obvious trap, but did you have to actually jump into it, eagerly? This is the essence of why it's pointless to guess about something we can't possibly know about. The heaven you made up will always seem right to you, better to you, more "logical" to you (as Strange points out, bad use of "logic"). Nothing anyone can say will dissuade you of that. Pointless to discuss it. 

And if I came up with something as detailed as you did (but completely different), it would make no difference. You wouldn't be discussing it with me, you would be listening to me tell you my fantasy afterlife (which I know you really aren't interested in getting to know, because it completely contradicts yours).

10 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

Tell me your best heaven, not rubbish like this.

You already guessed up the best heaven you'll ever conceive. Anything I could tell you would just be wrong to you. Why would I want to waste my time on that?

As a Humanist, time spent guessing on an unfounded afterlife can be put to much better use.

[studiot]

Well I think Heaven is the place where no one has to obey any of the rules, ever.

So ScienceForums must be 'heaven'.

I say that because the rules seem to have gone out of the window in this thread.

 

This is a place for Science.

Enough is Enough.

 

[BahadirArici]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

A wiser man than me once wrote that true contentment is not the absence of desire, but the absence of jealousy.
Would it be sufficient to ensure this "ultimate satisfaction" that you were content with what you had got?

well there must be a healty level of jeulosy so that doesnt seem right to me. but i can understand an heaven built on this idea.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

You lose. The other members have spoken (you just keep missing it).

you are right  

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

So should a bordello. 

Depends on whether or not you like unicorns.

What you seem to be saying is that your heaven is the correct heaven because you think it is and we are somehow wrong because we don't agree with you... I honestly cannot see how one heaven could please everyone, if there is such a place it has to be subjective instead of objective. This negates your claims quite nicely. 

a heaven that has every heaven in it would give the satisfaction but even it wouldnt be enough. you need a purpose to fulfill a life and to learn about that purpose you need to read another article of mine

 

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I think Heaven is the place where no one has to obey any of the rules, ever.

So ScienceForums must be 'heaven'.

I say that because the rules seem to have gone out of the window in this thread.

 

This is a place for Science.

Enough is Enough.

 

We are discussing about discussing here. Humour is nice but you are not in a position to say enough. Just ignore the tread.

[Area54]

1 minute ago, BahadirArici said:

We are discussing about discussing here. Humour is nice but you are not in a position to say enough. Just ignore the tread.

As a long term active member who has made many positive contributions to the forum Studiot is well placed and fully entitled to state his opinion.

[Moontanman]

58 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

59 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

a heaven that has every heaven in it would give the satisfaction but even it wouldnt be enough. you need a purpose to fulfill a life and to learn about that purpose you need to read another article of mine

Well for me it would be when I die I would be god in my own cosmos and be able to make it anyway i wanted (might be why I am an aquarium nut) and yes I want centaurs!

 

[BahadirArici]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Oh cool, someone  who shared zir version of heaven. Sounds cool, i am sure there must be cyber realities where you can be a real god of any sort you want

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

well there must be a healty level of jeulosy

Says who?

[Moontanman]

17 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

Oh cool, someone  who shared zir version of heaven. Sounds cool, i am sure there must be cyber realities where you can be a real god of any sort you want

 

Must be? I doubt you can even make the case that it could be...