Posted: Nov 17, 2010 2:48 pm
by Weaver
Yes, darwin2 has tried very hard to avoid accountability for the initial problem most of us have with his OP - and tried to do this by claiming we are misunderstanding his questions in the first place.

The problem we have is that he made illogical assertions as a premise for his questions about using the scientific method. His assertion that it was POSSIBLE for consciousness to survive death, further compounded by his assertion that the odds are 50:50 are both totally illogical. Unless and until a mechanism by which consciousness could be posited to survive the death of a person's brain is shown, it is completely pointless to consider whether the scientific method would be the best method for dealing with the questions arising from an afterlife - it's entirely POSSIBLE, given the lack of such a mechanism, that the scientific method could well be impractical or impossible. There is absolutely no information from which to make an assessment.

As I've tried to show with a couple of loosely related examples, such questions are absurd and pointless - they have no bearing on the real world, they aren't even useful as thought experiments, because once one has gone into the realm of "it's possible", nothing is impossible - so how can one make an assessment?