Doubtless Lib will be along with the formal name for it. Till then, remember that “if A, then B” does not mean “if not A, then not B”
CES tells us nothing about that which does not think.
Diogenes the Cynic
I can stop thinking and still be.
Thinking isn’t proof of existence, “awareness” is.
I am aware therefore I am. Although I think this “ I “ and the awareness or consciousness are one and the same.
In Buddhism or nondualism I think it would be more correct to say, “I think therefore I’m not.”….
** X~Slayer(ALE)**
They may be one and the same, that is, awareness and existence.
How do you know a dog doesn’t think?
If a tree wasn’t aware of its surroundings it couldn’t grow.
The point was, in the same way we do not experience other peoples pain or thoughts we do not experience their awareness.
Meaning we are not aware of the awareness of others. We witness their behavior not their consciousness.
Denial of the antecedant.
Interestingly, it is a routine fallacy among some atheists. “If God appeared to me, I would know that He exists. God has not appeared to me; therefore, I know that He does not exist.”
By the way, I’m sorry I didn’t come back to this thread before - H4E, I think I phrased that question really badly, and I’m too busy lately to keep pursuing it. Thank you for trying to answer, though; I hope we do get to discuss this sometime.
The question is can you think without existing?
Also, what is the difference between thinking and awareness?
Oh, wait, I see you’re talking about the Buddhist distinction between pure (thoughtless) consciousness, and the mirage that we are identical with our egos…as long as I “think,” I cannot be truly aware.
very good, very subtle, I almost got whooshed…
carry on.
Getting back to the OP, when I die I intend to become a ghost and haunt the SDMB. I will make ghostly posts that will be semi-transparent - you’ll see right through the computer to the wall behind. But you’ll only see my posts with your peripheral vision. If you look directly at them, they’ll disappear.
Oh and since I’ll be a ghost I’ll be unbannable. And you won’t be able to debate with me, just ask me simple questions to which I can answer yes or no. I will occasionally, however, post incoherent messages from the spirit world telling you how your dead relatives are doing.
[quote]
Jojo
Will you still be able to post links? Also, will you change your user name? Maybe you will have the supernatural ability to edit your own posts. 
Will you still be able to post links? Also, will you change your user name? Maybe you will have the supernatural ability to edit your own posts.
Diogenes, have you considered Purgatory?
I’ve always thought Purgatory an underrated option that could benefit from a rebranding (I think Catholics are always praying to get their relatives out quicker on the mistaken assumption that it’s ghastly).
I see Purg as a massive re-education centre where you are shown re-runs of your life, with angels etc on hand to explain where you went wrong and why.
After this, you would start tutorials about the nature of the world, universe etc from every standpoint, which of course would take forever, given that everything is changing all the time. As the centuries passed of course, you could watch the future unfolding below you. Age-discrimination would be banned, so you’d socialise with people from every century, with the opportunity to tell them what you think of them. A bit less dull than death, surely?
Of course we couldn’t cope with heaven, boredom would set in within days, which would make it hellish. An eternal “state of perfect bliss” is a nonsense. Human beings can’t be happy without the hope of something better just around the corner. Purgatory, with its sense of slow, hard-earned progression toward enlightenment, is a better fairy story for our species.
Reminds me of Albert Brooks’ Defending Your Life.
Sounds like a very fun version of Purgatory, mrsface, and you have a clever way of slipping a necessary eternity into it. Welcome to SDMB. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Are you willing to stake your life on that? Are you willing to stake your life for all eternity on that?
It’s not contradictionary. John 3:16 clearly states what it means. The gospel is simple. If you have a close relationship with Jesus and believe in Him as your savior, you will be saved from death, and have eternal life forever. This is because God is life giving. There is life with Him. However, if you refuse to believe in Jesus as your Lord and savior, you will sent to Hell (the only place where God’s presence doesn’t exist in this world), where there will be nothing but death and eternal torment forever. This is called eternal death.
Your argument comes from the belief that eternal life means eternal existence of the soul. However, the Bible was talking about eternal LIFE in John 3:16, not the fact that you would simply exist forever. God created all of us to exist forever- since we have a soul that will exist forever. Therefore, after you die physically on earth, you can only go to 2 places. Heaven or hell.
God loves you so much. I can’t emphasize this point more. He truly truly loves you. Jesus gave his life for you.
Do not stake your life on your own stubborn beliefs. Because you are truly playing with your life. Gravely consider the consequences. Hell is worse than the worst thing on earth. Heaven is better than the best place on earth. It’s really a simple choice to make, if you really cared where you are going eternally.
A lot of people think they are smart but their wisdom is lacking. Being smart is not as important as being wise. And this is coming from me, who is a very logical person. I come from a very scholarly family, my parents were in a PhD program for physics and now they are in the software development field. People think Christians are delusional, but to be completely honest, there’s more evidence for God’s existence and for Christianity to be real. Research! A lot of truly smart people who do their research end up believing in God this way.
I have as much grounds to believe you and Christian scripture as I have to believe the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, Hesiod’s Theogony, or any number of texts proclaiming that the way to salvation is only through Christ, or Mohammed, or having a heart lighter than a feather in order to not be fed to a lihippodile.
What makes all of those other sacred traditions wrong, and the one you have been taught by your parents right? Because, be honest here: by and large, you just believe what your parents, or at least most of your social context, believed. In all likelihood, you didn’t go out, critically examined all religions, and chose the one that you judged to be right. But what an enormous coincidence to have been born into the right context to be fed the right religion, and not, say, to Sikh parents, or in a Muslim country, or in ancient Egypt.
Yet, you believe all of these people got it wrong, while you got it right. Isn’t it much more likely, fallible human being that you are, that you’re just as wrong as everybody else? How do you justify the arrogance of claiming that you’ve found the one true faith among all the possibilities? What makes you so special that we should listen to you?
Jubilant news! Finally, someone with evidence for the existance of God!
Please do share your evidence.
This thread is old enough to wish for oblivion.
Welcome to the Straight Dope. This is the correct forum for witnessing, however because this thread is so old many of the participants may not be here any longer to respond. If you’d like to discuss Pascal’s Wager, or other topics, feel free to start a new thread. I’m closing this one.
[/moderating]