Near perfect existence

[Ana the Ist]

Sure there is. It appears that the universe could have existed eternaly. I don't believe it did because it has an apparent beginning, which means what was before was eternal existence that caused the universe. So again it's reasonable to believe non-existence is impossible.

"Could have existed eternally"....

In other words, you've got no evidence anything exists eternally.

 

[anonymous person]

I never said that...

I think you misread what I wrote.

Did you not say,

There's no evidence that anything existed eternally before you were born...

?

 

[Freodin]

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.

Now what does that have to do with anything?

Yes, if we don't exist after death, we will never directly know that. If we exist after death, we might get to know that.

That doesn't tell us anything whether it is "more reasonable" to believe in an afterlife... because in neither case do we directly know now. As you said... it "would be demonstrated", but it isn't.

But on the other hand we can "more reasonable" assume that "life" is directly connected to what we observe: physical existence. We do have "honest objective observations" for that... the standard that you claim to adhere to. We do not have any such observations about an afterlife.

You might call it blasphemous to call your source so, but "God tells us" is just hearsay... second hand unverified, potentially invented hearsay.

 

[Chriliman]

Now what does that have to do with anything?

Yes, if we don't exist after death, we will never directly know that. If we exist after death, we might get to know that.

That doesn't tell us anything whether it is "more reasonable" to believe in an afterlife... because in neither case do we directly know now. As you said... it "would be demonstrated", but it isn't.

But on the other hand we can "more reasonable" assume that "life" is directly connected to what we observe: physical existence. We do have "honest objective observations" for that... the standard that you claim to adhere to. We do not have any such observations about an afterlife.

You might call it blasphemous to call your source so, but "God tells us" is just hearsay... second hand unverified, potentially invented hearsay.

Aren't you and other athiests a part of this existence that I can observe? Yes, of course and I've honestly observed what athiests say and think and have determined you must be wrong because it doesn't line up with what is most reasonable when considering everything (including atheists) in the observable universe.

Of course this is my observation, but I'm sure many others can verify, but then it becomes our word against the word of athiests and it would take something above all of us (God) to assert the truth.

We're like a bunch of children arguing in the sand box and the teacher is about to come and set everything straight and none of us will have a valid excuse to undermine the teacher's authority.

I've fully explained my beliefs to the best of my ability. So farewell for now, until more knowledge is gained

 

[Ana the Ist]

We are contingent beings. Thus our existence is not necessary. With this we all can agree.

With regards to the part about a 2000 year old book, please remember that the bible is a collection of books, letters, historical records, poetry, biographies, etc. etc. And that just because these pieces of literature were written and compiled a long time ago, it does not necessarily follow that they cannot be relied upon to present us with truth.

If God has spoken on this issue and has said that we shall live forever in either one of two places, then this fact would not be rendered any less factual by the passage of time.

With regards to the idea of eternal life being the product of a "Jewish Cult", by this I gather you mean "Christianity", surely you know that such a belief did not originate with the first followers of Christ, but rather is to be found throughout the Old Testament which you know predates Christianity. IOW, eternal life is not something that originated with the disicples at all.

Actually, the idea of eternal life is nothing new to religion even by the time of the OT. I would imagine that it was created as a means of dealing with the finality of death. It's hard to tell someone that their loved one is gone forever, it's easier to tell them they will be reunited some day....and that you'll live together forever. It's a lot more comforting too.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you not say,

There's no evidence that anything existed eternally before you were born...

?

I did say that...what does it mean? Does it mean that nothing eternal exists...or does it mean no evidence of anything eternal exists?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Your analogy doesn't include any reasoning. It's just one person arbitrarily deciding to believe something and another person not believing in the same thing. Each position is as reasonable as the other.

 

[anonymous person]

Actually, the idea of eternal life is nothing new to religion even by the time of the OT. I would imagine that it was created as a means of dealing with the finality of death. It's hard to tell someone that their loved one is gone forever, it's easier to tell them they will be reunited some day....and that you'll live together forever. It's a lot more comforting too.

I noticed several things.

1. You did not object to me saying we are contingent beings.

2. You did not object to my saying that the passage of time does nothing to make a true proposition any less true.

3. You did not object to my saying that the idea of eternal life did not originate with this "Jewish cult" you spoke of.

4. I can very well agree with you that the idea of an afterlife is comforting.

5. I know you did not write what you did in an attempt to show that belief in an afterlife is false, for surely you know that to do so would be to commit the genetic fallacy.

 

[anonymous person]

I did say that...what does it mean? Does it mean that nothing eternal exists...or does it mean no evidence of anything eternal exists?

I guess it means what you said.

The universe is either past eternal or it is not. When Chriliman is talking to you, you claim there is no evidence that the universe is past eternal. When I am talking with you, you all of a sudden are loathe to speak of a past finite universe.

Seems to me you can't make your mind up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I noticed several things.

1. You did not object to me saying we are contingent beings.

2. You did not object to my saying that the passage of time does nothing to make a true proposition any less true.

3. You did not object to my saying that the idea of eternal life did not originate with this "Jewish cult" you spoke of.

4. I can very well agree with you that the idea of an afterlife is comforting.

5. I know you did not write what you did in an attempt to show that belief in an afterlife is false, for surely you know that to do so would be to commit the genetic fallacy.

No...I don't think that belief in an afterlife is false solely because the bible is the religious text of a 2000 year old Jewish cult. The question is whether or not it's reasonable to believe in an afterlife based upon the writings of a 2000 year old Jewish cult. There's lots of problems with that belief IMO.

For example, why would a god who's trying to relay a message to mankind for their benefit do so at a time when it would be rather difficult for anyone to verify the accounts/truth/validity of that message?

He could've just as easily relayed the message in the present day when so many would be able to verify Jesus's claims.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess it means what you said.

The universe is either past eternal or it is not. When Chriliman is talking to you, you claim there is no evidence that the universe is past eternal. When I am talking with you, you all of a sudden are loathe to speak of a past finite universe.

Seems to me you can't make your mind up.

Lol when I spoke to Chriliman, I spoke of evidence. Then you took that sentence and said that I claimed a eternal universe doesn't exist. I made no such claim....I spoke about evidence.

You do realize that there's an enormous difference between the existence of evidence for something and the existence of that something itself....don't you?

Just because you don't have evidence for a murder, doesn't mean that murder didn't happen (exist). Likewise, just because you have evidence for a murder, doesn't mean a murder occurred.

Get it now?

 

[quatona]

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.

I wouldn´t call that conclusion "reasonable". But whatever floats your boat.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Lol Tell me if this sounds reasonable...

It's possible there's an alien spacecraft following a comet that's going to pass nearby earth in 20 years. They follow the comet so closely, there's no way to detect them. If you believe in them, and commit suicide, they'll transport your eternal soul to paradise. If you don't believe in them...then they won't transport you to paradise.

Therefore, it's more reasonable to believe in them and commit suicide...since that's the only way I can find out if it's true. If I don't believe in them, then I've got no way of ever finding out the truth.

Sound reasonable to you? If not, explain why...since its exactly the same "reasoning" that you're using to justify your belief in the afterlife.

Strap on your Nikes lol.

 

[pshun2404]

"Could have existed eternally"....

In other words, you've got no evidence anything exists eternally.

Do you believe matter exists eternally?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you believe matter exists eternally?

I'm a little fuzzy on the physics of it. I know matter came into existence during the big bang, but I don't know if it existed in some sort of non-matter state before that...

So I suppose my answer would be, "I don't know."

 

[anonymous person]

The question is whether or not it's reasonable to believe in an afterlife based upon the writings of a 2000 year old Jewish cult. There's lots of problems with that belief IMO.

For example, why would a god who's trying to relay a message to mankind for their benefit do so at a time when it would be rather difficult for anyone to verify the accounts/truth/validity of that message?

He could've just as easily relayed the message in the present day when so many would be able to verify Jesus's claims.

Let me start by addressing what we both agree with. We both agree that God could just as easily relay the message in the present day. On this we agree.

So why does He not do that? Well the question posed assumes He doesn't. If you do not think God exists then obviously to me at least, you cannot say that He has failed to do something. For one must exist first in order for it be rightly said of them that they have failed to do a certain thing.

So I think that before we discuss this specific topic, we would first need to determine whether the preponderance of evidence gives us an indication that the God in question exists. Unless of course, you desire for us to assume for the sake of discussion that God does exist. Assuming this, I would ask you for your reasons for maintaining that God is not presently relaying His message of salvation in none other than Christ.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm a little fuzzy on the physics of it. I know matter came into existence during the big bang, but I don't know if it existed in some sort of non-matter state before that...

So I suppose my answer would be, "I don't know."

We both seem to agree that the preponderance of evidence indicates that all matter came into existence at the big bang.

This points us to a cause that is not material, as you rightly reason.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We both seem to agree that the preponderance of evidence indicates that all matter came into existence at the big bang.

This points us to a cause that is not material, as you rightly reason.

Or matter and energy existing atemporally?

 

[Eudaimonist]

We both seem to agree that the preponderance of evidence indicates that all matter came into existence at the big bang.

This points us to a cause that is not material, as you rightly reason.

How are "matter" and "material" being defined here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Or matter and energy existing atemporally?

Would not Einstein's discovery of the interconnectedness of mass and energy be problematic for your hypothesis? If we posit that all matter and energy and space-time itself came into existence a finite time ago, and we assume that matter is any substance which has rest mass and takes up space, and we assume that space does not exist sans time, (as Einstein's work seems to indicate) it seems to me that your hypothesis, in light of the aforementioned, would be less preferable to one which does not require that we maintain that matter and energy exist atemporally.

Your thoughts?