Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
I never said that...
I think you misread what I wrote.
Now what does that have to do with anything?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.
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.
Did you not say,
There's no evidence that anything existed eternally before you were born...
?
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.
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 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 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.
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.
I wouldn´t call that conclusion "reasonable". But whatever floats your boat.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.
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.
"Could have existed eternally"....
In other words, you've got no evidence anything exists eternally.
Do you believe matter exists eternally?
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.
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."
Or matter and energy existing atemporally?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.
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.
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.Or matter and energy existing atemporally?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?