Regariding the evidence for materialism

[Fred]

I'll take it as a compliment that none of my input was disputed by Fred. It's hard to argue with logic, I know...

Uh, be careful what you ask for.

---

If I told you that I had a magical talking frog, I couldn't prove that it exists because it does not actually exist, aside from existing in the realm of my imagination. You, however, could not prove that it does not exists, simply because it does not exist. I made it up, but you can't prove that.

So what? What does this have to do with anything I said? Just a tip. I'm here to discuss my points regarding whatever. I'm not interested in discussing fundie talking points or the usual stuff you guys deal with, so let's leave it to stuff specifically stated, ok?

How hard is it to understand that humans invented god?

Can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's proven nigh upon impossible. I haven't been impressed with the usual litany of arguments, but if anyone has anything that's not ripped straight out of the choir book, I'm glad to hear it.

Material things are sometimes invisible. Take oxygen for example. It's colorless and odorless, almost like it isn't there, but we know it is, because we can see it's molecular structure.

All true.

Logical thinking would lead to the conclusion that if you can't prove that something does not exist, then it probably just doesn't exist.

Logical thinking would suggest that you cannot prove a negative, but that's where it stops. Flying teapots and all that.

Be careful with this evidence question, because it's built on a house of cards and far from being the kill shot you all seem to believe it is, it's fucked up coming and going. My old wine post is an approach ramp to that discussion, so let's see what happens.

---

Is this a joke? I will try and break this down for you.

You said you had not seen compelling evidence that death was 'the end'. But I don't understand this at all. We know that when people die, their hearts stop beating and their brains stop functioning, which are basically the two required features of life. When that has happened, they are no longer capable of movement, communication or exhibiting any of the traits that once made them 'alive'.

So, that is the evidence that death is the end, the fact that all our bodily functions cease activity. How is that not compelling evidence?

All I can say on that score is that I have read that full cardiac arrest was full stop and applied to everything you just said. If it doesn't, then there's some doctors doing cardiac that maybe shouldn't be because that's where I learned it from. If I can't trust that as accurate knowledge, then science is as schismatic as religion, and we're all fucked.

Because the system was brought back online afterwards doesn't mean it wasn't offline when it was down, and it was all the way down by definition or there's some Texas science books or some shit going on, which is scarier than anything the church can cook up, because everybody believes the person running the show in the cardiac ward, right?

Now, if it's true that full cardiac arrest means the system is fully down at that time, then this raises problematic questions.

Regardless of what it means, there is abundant clinical evidence of people exhibiting having NDEs when the system is in full cardiac arrest. All the “it's simply a case of this or that still wiggling around before shutting down” yadda may molify you, but it is not a sound answer to the question of why people still experience some kind of consciousness during the time when the system is completely down.

There has never, ever been any credible evidence to suggest that any further consciousness or life exists outside of this.

This is exactly what I meant with the faith statement bit.

This is just an accepted piece of given opinion taken as fact and no matter how often its repeated and calcified, it gets no closer to true.

And no, the next step isn't for you to repeat “so what evidence do you have?” The next step, at least if you want to engage with me, is to examine the questions surrounding evidence and the problems in your assertion. It's a given taken as gospel and it's completely broken. I want to discuss that issue.