Near perfect existence

[anonymous person]

Actually, there's lots of "possible" causes to the universe. The possibility that an "eternal existence" caused it is just the particular conclusion that you jumped to. Without evidence, literally any explanation for the cause of the universe is as valid as the next.

But you agree that the universe had a beginning....right?

 

[anonymous person]

"If."

Right.

If.

 

[quatona]

It makes no difference if I'm referring to my perspective or your perspective. If we're trying to be objective here we should be able to understand no matter which perspective we're using.

So what was your point in bringing up and emphasizing your perspective?
You told me about it, and later you turned it into something else.

 

[Chriliman]

So what was your point in bringing up and emphasizing your perspective?
You told me about it, and later you turned it into something else.

The point was to try and help you see things from my perspective.

 

[quatona]

The point was to try and help you see things from my perspective.

So what do you observe when you see a person dieing, from your perspective?
I observe all bodily functions stopping, I observe them stopping all actions and interactions that it used to perform; next I´ll see it decaying, rotting and eventually disassembling completely.
To be frank and honest with you, I wouldn´t believe you if you said that you aren´t observing this.
It´s not a matter of perspective - that´s what you and I will observe from any angle we can possibly pick.
It´s shared reality, common ground - observable, demonstrable, repeatable. Not "my perspective".

That´s that.

Now, I am aware that - beyond these observations - you hold some additional beliefs and are making some additional assumptions.

 

[Chriliman]

So what do you observe when you see a person dieing, from your perspective?
I observe all bodily functions stopping, I observe them stopping all actions and interactions that it used to perform; next I´ll see it decaying, rotting and eventually disassembling completely.
To be frank and honest with you, I wouldn´t believe you if you said that you aren´t observing this.
It´s not a matter of perspective - that´s what you and I will observe from any angle we can possibly pick.
It´s shared reality, common ground - observable, demonstrable, repeatable. Not "my perspective".

That´s that.

Now, I am aware that - beyond these observations - you hold some additional beliefs and are making some additional assumptions.

From the dead persons perspective it's more reasonable to assume that they continue existing rather than to assume they cease to exist. Refer to my analogy to understand why I believe this to be true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But you agree that the universe had a beginning....right?

A "beginning" in what sense?

 

[quatona]

From the dead persons perspective it's more reasonable to assume that they continue existing rather than to assume they cease to exist.

Assuming that the dead person has a perspective at all.
Why that´s a reasonable assumption, you haven´t even attempted to show. Now - not that you´d need to in order to believe it.
But you keep claiming that you have.

Refer to my analogy to understand why I believe this to be true.

Your analogy doesn´t present any reason for believing it to be true. At best, it describes metaphorically what your beliefs are.

And, see, this is what permanently runs you into problems: In the last post you claimed you wanted to explain your perspective. Now you claim you wanted to explain a dead person´s perspective.

 

[bhsmte]

From the dead persons perspective it's more reasonable to assume that they continue existing rather than to assume they cease to exist. Refer to my analogy to understand why I believe this to be true.

You assume too much. But, I realize, you really have no choice.

 

[Chriliman]

Assuming that the dead person has a perspective at all.
Why that´s a reasonable assumption, you haven´t even attempted to show. Now - not that you´d need to in order to believe it.
But you keep claiming that you have.

Your analogy doesn´t present any reason for believing it to be true. At best, it describes metaphorically what your beliefs are.

And, see, this is what permanently runs you into problems: In the last post you claimed you wanted to explain your perspective. Now you claim you wanted to explain a dead person´s perspective.

If you're referring to when I was explaining my perspective about how I notice atheists bring "my God" into objective conversation for no apparent reason then I'm sorry, I thought it was clear that we had moved on from that to how existence after death is more reasonable to believe in than non-existence after death.

It's interesting, I don't have any trouble understanding you, but you seem to have a lot trouble understanding me, maybe that is my fault for not being clear, but every time I try to clear things up you seem to find a new excuse as to why it's not clear to you. Maybe you've already determined that I'm impossible to understand and if that's the case then you're not being very objective.

 

[quatona]

If you're referring to when I was explaining my perspective about how I notice atheists bring "my God" into objective conversation for no apparent reason then I'm sorry, I thought it was clear that we had moved on from that to how existence after death is more reasonable to believe in than non-existence after death.

Yes, it was. That was what my post was about, obviously. You didn´t say anything about God, and neither did I. We talked about your attempt at picturing your belief in an afterlife as reasonable.

It's interesting, I don't have any trouble understanding you,

Well, yes you have severe trouble understanding me - to tell from your responses.

but you seem to have a lot trouble understanding me, maybe that is my fault for not being clear, but every time I try to clear things up you seem to find a new excuse as to why it's not clear to you. Maybe you've already determined that I'm impossible to understand and if that's the case then you're not being very objective.

Well, I understand quite clearly what it is that you believe.
Beyond that (i.e. beyond listening to the descriptions and affirmations of your personal beliefs) there isn´t much to get out of these threads.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, it was. That was what my post was about, obviously. You didn´t say anything about God, and neither did I. We talked about your attempt at picturing your belief in an afterlife as reasonable.


Well, yes you have severe trouble understanding me - to tell from your responses.

Well, I understand quite clearly what it is that you believe.
Beyond that (i.e. beyond listening to the descriptions and affirmations of your personal beliefs) there isn´t much to get out of these threads.

So you weren't referring to this where I was explaining "my assumed perspective" after dying? It would actually make more sense if you were referring to that. It would be a better explanation for why you're confused.

 

[Chriliman]

So you weren't referring to this where I was explaining "my assumed perspective" after dying? It would actually make more sense if you were referring to that. It would be a better explanation for why you're confused.

Sorry never mind this post.

 

[quatona]

So you weren't referring to this where I was explaining "my assumed perspective" after dying? It would actually make more sense if you were referring to that. It would be a better explanation for why you're confused.

Now, this was funny. :chuckle:

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, it was. That was what my post was about, obviously. You didn´t say anything about God, and neither did I. We talked about your attempt at picturing your belief in an afterlife as reasonable.


Well, yes you have severe trouble understanding me - to tell from your responses.

Well, I understand quite clearly what it is that you believe.
Beyond that (i.e. beyond listening to the descriptions and affirmations of your personal beliefs) there isn´t much to get out of these threads.

So basically my reasoning for why I think believing in an after life is more reasonable than believing in non-existence after death from a first person perspective is because an after life would be demonstrably true (after one dies) whereas non-existence could never be demonstrated as true from a first person perspective.

In other words, from a first person perspective if you believe in an after life then you could be accepting something that is actually true(it would be demonstrated after you die), thus reasonable, whereas from the first person perspective if you believe in non-existence after death then you're accepting something as true that can never be demonstrated as true, thus unreasonable.

 

[anonymous person]

A "beginning" in what sense?

In the sense that it was not and then was.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the sense that it was not and then was.

In that sense, then no, we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.

 

[anonymous person]

In that sense, then no, we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.

Tell that to Ana. She's the one who said that nothing existed eternally before Chriliman came to be. If nothing existed eternally before Chriliman came to be, then this means that the universe did not exist eternally. It necessarily follows then, that Ana believes it had a beginning.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But you agree that the universe had a beginning....right?

No...

It's possible, but it's far from certain.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Tell that to Ana. She's the one who said that nothing existed eternally before Chriliman came to be. If nothing existed eternally before Chriliman came to be, then this means that the universe did not exist eternally. It necessarily follows then, that Ana believes it had a beginning.

I never said that...

I think you misread what I wrote.