To offer a corrolary to matt’s comment, would it be reasonable to assume that there is a difference between believing in God and believing in life after death.
Even if we were to assume the existence and presence of a god or gods, does that tell us anything meaningful about an afterlife? Does the existence of god necessitate a personal existence after an earthly death? If my (hypothetical) mortal essence is absorbed into the godhead such that I cease to have ego is that so different from oblivion – in either case I will have ceased to be?
Godhead absorbtion aside, does the existence of god actually preclude the notion that there is nothing at all after death?
I’m still not fully convinced that I will die. I mean, just because everyone else has it doesn’t necessarily follow that I will. It’s just an extrapolation of existing data. As they say in the financial world,“Past performance does not indicate future results.”
I had said: “You can conclude anything you want. You’ll be wrong, mind you, but that won’t stop you from concluding it.”
Jenkinsfan replied:
I’m beginning to believe that you have a reading comprehension problem.
I was very clearly responding to your “conclusion” that it took as much faith to be a skeptic, not to what happens after death. Yet here you respond as if it were the latter.
Plus, Gaudere has had to beat you about the head with her explanation after she already went over it once.
I would like to think that not panicking about something like death is easy, but honestly, how many people do you, or any of us know, that aren't in one way or another, afraid of that eventuality? I'd love to believe that there is something of a life after death, but, myself being an agnostic, I doubt that there is anything more after life than a dreamless sleep that we will never awake from. My feeling is that religion provides somewhat of a cover for humanity's fear of death, and nothing more. I have had my fair share of panic attacks waking up at three o'clock in the morning and thinking that when I die, I won't be able to see, hear, taste, smell, or touch anything anymore. That really scares the heck out of me, but I manage to get over it, realizing that if I sit around and worry about what death is like all of the time, I won't be able to fully appreciate my life for what it is worth.
Anyways, just wanted to throw my two cents worth into this thread.
Hi there Orestes… hmmm… <checking Greek mythlogy link>… “Orestes is best known for having murdered his own mother”… err… OK…
As a fellow agnostic – or soft atheist <nod to Gaudere> – I also wish I could believe in a life after death and find the alternative truly terrifying… even given the rational argument that if it is nothingness I won’t notice.
BTW, if there are any deities “reading” this post who would like to grant me faith… I’d prefer an after-life that involved houris and sherbet… although wenching and mead halls would be OK too.
Careful now, or you’ll get David B in here pronto proferring a signup form for The First Church of David B (reasonable rates, all major credit cards accepted. Absolution of sins non-applicable in Tennessee). I believe his afterlife involves chocolate and naked women (or men, if ya swing that way). Of course, I’m a Gaudess myself, as well as the Prime Example of Humility of the First Church of David B, and a follower of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
OTOH, I hear the Allenists have Bingo.
On a slightly more serious note, Orestes had to kill his mother to avenge her murder of his father (Agamemnon). Because of this, the Furies hounded him until he was brought to trial before Mount Olympus. Apollo argues in his defense, saying that the Fates had arranged the murder of his father, so Orestes could not be held responsible for his matricide since it was his duty to avenge his father. Yet Orestes stood tall and said his acts were his own, and he took full reponsibility for them. A proto-“I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul” sort of guy.
I was a bit puzzled by the Purple Unicorns of Mars comments earlier in this thread. Are they followed by an heretical sect of the IPU perchance?
I may have been a bit quick to judge our new friend… further reading has revealed that an “Orestes” was also:[ul]
[li]the son of the river god Achelous.[/li][li]an Achaean soldier killed by Hector and Ares at Troy.[/li][li]a Trojan who attacked the Achaean wall.[/li][li]one of the leaders of the Satyrs who joined the army of Dionysus in his campaign against India![/li][/ul] Orestes - care to enlighten us?
The heretical sect of unicorn-worshippers are the followers of the Visible Chartruese Unicorn. The purple unicorns of Mars are just a silly analogy. But it doesn’t really matter what either believes; as They say, “this is a non-threatening religion, we have quite enough of the threatening kind already.” Of course, I recall the scripture of the Pastures of Low Grass and High Manure where Her Sacred Dwarves nibble on evildoer’s kneecaps, so maybe there is a contradiction–which only proves She is real! For, the more self-contradictory She is, the more She exists. May Her hooves never be shod!
Looks like my first post slipped by you. Somehow. Once again, for your convenience:
You wrote:
Could you possibly restate that assertion for those of us who have concluded that our spirit is eternal? As it stands, we see the statement as an equivocation fallacy.
I’m glad to see that my worshipper Gaudere was immediately on the case in explaing the First Church of David B to Apollyon. Since I am an omniscient being, I knew she would be.
I had said: “Except that before you were born, you didn’t exist.”
Lib responded:
No. You believe that your spirit is eternal, you restate. There is no evidence for even the existence of a spirit, let alone that it is eternal. The “you” I was talking about was the physical “you” and it was being discussed by people who do not think there is anything after death (it was comparing the “nothingness” of after death to the nothingness of before life).
And, frankly, since I was only using the term one way, I don’t see how you can call it an equivocation fallacy, except that you want to change the meaning of what we were talking about (which would seem to indicate that the fallacy is on your end, not mine).
For those posters worried about facing oblivion and cessation of existence, one can always move to Sunnydale and become one of the undead. But,then, you have to watch out for the Slayer and the Scooby Gang.
“Except that before your body was born, your spirit didn’t exist.”
Absurd.
We’ve been over this before a time or three.
There is no evidence that anything exists, other than subjective sensory interpretations. Even if you think you’ve detected existence by means of some instrument, you have merely removed your senses one step further from the thing you are measuring.
Here again is why you cannot prove that something exists.
Before you can prove that anything exists, you must first prove that you exist, since a conclusion reached by a nonentity does not itself exist. (This is your perfunctory take on God, by the way. “Nothing God says matters since God doesn’t exist.”) And you cannot prove that you exist, because before you can do anything at all, including prove your existence, you must first exist. That makes your existence axiomatic.
Since your conclusion (that you exist) is the same as your axiom (that you exist), you’ve produced nothing more than a tautology.
So, we are left with our perceptions of what is objectively real. You have not perceived God (or so you say). But I have (or so I say). Therefore, your saying that my spirit does not exist is like my saying that your son doesn’t exist. But then, I wouldn’t presume.
Well, contrary to what you might think, there are those of us participating here who do think there is something (both before and) after death. Death of the cells, at least. We do not accept your axiom that there is “nothingness” either after what you call death or before what you call life.
Fallacies are pinned on arguments, not arguers.
The utter ambiguity of your argument alone qualifies it as fallacious, since you know, or should know, that there are those of us here who interpret certain terms in different ways for different contexts.
Yes, I know you don’t like that, and you aren’t exactly the world’s best at seeing something from some other point of view, but we bristle when you talk about “life” and “death” from your narrow viewpoint in the same way that you bristle when we talk about atheists and mean only the hardass ones who have a faith that God does not exist.
The least you could do is give the same consideration to others that you expect us to give to you. You once gave me advice that I found very helpful. I now offer you a small piece of advice as a friend and admirer of yours: Get out of your rut.
Libertarian - what a load of crap!
Let me get it straight - God exists, because maybe I don’t.
Yeah, that kinda stuff impressed me when I was taking Phil 101. But neither it, nor religion, does me much good in daily life. Of course, I don’t smoke as much as I used to either…
Feel like I’m banging my head against a strikingly substantive perception of a brick wall.
jenkinsfan: sure, add it to my list of fantasies. Who wouldn’t want to live forever (absent the boredom arguments)?
In addition to the lack of proof, add in the lack of a reason why heaven should exist. If there is a certain amount of dark matter in the universe, either it fits within current theory or that theory is amended. But everything seems to stumble along in pretty explainable fashion, without the need for a supreme thumb on the scales.
Or maybe give us an idea of “how” it could exist, instead of simply saying it is “unknowable.” I think David Copperfield said the same thing before he flew. Oh, I forgot, we don’t really know anything, do we Libbie?
(Actually, considering your argument, Lib, the subjective sensory interpretations don’t exist either).
Neither of you can argue for the proof of existence without subjecting yourselves to solipsism. IMHO, I find solipsism silly. In an effort to avoid that prospect, will you both agree that corporeal selves exist? If so, I assume you will both agree that upon death, the constituent matter and energy of the body simply dissipate into the rest of existence. Any proof of existence must be based on some axiom, but the argument is generally considered sound if the precepts are widely accepted. Lib, your assertion about the existence of a spirit simply goes beyond what David feels is verifiable (correct me if I’m wrong David). Why have two precariously asserted tenets in lieu of one?
Whether nothingness, heaven, or another twist in the IPU’s horn precedes and supersedes this thing dubbed life is irrelevant except regarding the OP. The only difference between them is that nothingness requires fewer logically compromised arguments.
Not exactly. Actually, there is simply no way to prove that they exist. What is objectively real exists despite our perceptions.
Well, it really isn’t even that. My solus ipse might not exist objectively.
Fair enough.
Yes, I will, but only because I perceive that to be the case.
Yep.
Woah, Nellie!
The vast majority of people are not atheists. And we don’t want to spiral into an argumentum ad populum anyway, agreed? An axiom — any axiom — is “sound” merely as it stands. Soundness, in that sense, is applicable only to whether the rest of the premises follow from it.
David’s axiom (that God does not exist) is perfectly sound. The problem is that he does not recognize that my own axiom (that God does exist) is equally sound.
Because of what I have perceived, a tenet denying the existence of the spirit would be precarious indeed. Remember that Ockham said, “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum.”
You lost me there. Isn’t the OP the topic at hand?
Sorry, Nen, but they require exactly the same number. For every proposition, A A1 A2 … An, there are an equal number of truth table elements.
Sorry my misguided and undoubtedly substandard alma mater had logic and advanced logic in the Philosophy department when I took them. And the debate classes I took and the debate team I was on than won a national DSR-TKA title was under the Speech Com department. Or at least that is my perception/recollection.
But two parties cannot debate a proposition if they do not agree on definitions, and you cannot reason with a fanatic.
There is worthwhile argument, and there is silliness. I believe you are engaging in the latter. But what do I know? I never took Reading 101, if it was offered. Poor stupid me - CLEP’ed and AP’ed out of any such remedial reading classes. Perhaps if I weren’t so smart I might have found religion!
BTW - can I fit another angel on the head of this pin?
