Near perfect existence

[Chriliman]

Do you then believe that you have always existed?

You've seen babies that didn't previously exist, come to exist and other people who did exist, cease to exist. Are you unable to infer your own previous and eventual non-existence from this?

ETA: Nevermind - I see now that you've already gone over this and do not infer your own eventual non-existence from your previous non-existence even though you accept your previous non-existence. But do you see how others do make that inference?

No because it doesn't make sense to think I came into existence for no reason and that I'll go out of existence for no reason. Existence itself seems to have far more meaning than just random meaningless chance.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course I realize that. I don't think I eternaly exist, I have a beginning but no end.

Only God eternaly exists.

Well you just told me in your last post that non-existence isn't "true".

Now you're telling me that you didn't exist at one point...in other words, you were non-existent.

So clearly, non-existence is not only true, but it's possible. Yet the ability to exist forever has no basis in reality...so what does that tell you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

We believe we will live forever because God said so.

I see no reason to think that just because I came into existence at some point in the finite past that therefore it logically follows that I will cease to exist at some point in the future.

So basically, even though you know it's possible not to exist...you believe a 2000 year old book from a Jewish cult that says you'll exist forever.

That about right?

 

[Chriliman]

Well you just told me in your last post that non-existence isn't "true".

Now you're telling me that you didn't exist at one point...in other words, you were non-existent.

So clearly, non-existence is not only true, but it's possible. Yet the ability to exist forever has no basis in reality...so what does that tell you?

Before I existed there was eternal existence which would mean after I die there is eternal existence. So yes I'm saying I believe non-existence is impossible.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Before I existed there was eternal existence which would mean after I die there is eternal existence. So yes I'm saying I believe non-existence is impossible.

There's no evidence that anything existed eternally before you were born...so what exactly are you referring to?

 

[quatona]

Chriliman sees reality differently than Ana even though there is one reality.

So what does he see when he sees a corpse?

 

[quatona]

I would have to assume the perspective of death because I'm not dead yet.

So you aren´t - unlike you claimed - having or speaking from this perspective.

 

[Chriliman]

There's no evidence that anything existed eternally before you were born...so what exactly are you referring to?

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.

 

[Chriliman]

So you aren´t - unlike you claimed - having or speaking from this perspective.

You assume you will non-exist when you die, so when thinking about this you have to assume non-existence for yourself.

I'll attempt to explain what I'm saying about existence vs non-existence after death using an analogy.

Imagine you are brought into a dark room where you can't see anything and then someone puts a blindfold on you and has you sit in a chair. You're in complete darkness and someone tells you that they're going to turn on the light. They say the light is on, but tell you that you can't take the blindfold off in order to varify that it is in fact on. At this point you're still in complete darkness. Are you going to believe the lights on, when you can't see that it's on?

In the analogy above, the darkness is existence before death and the light would be non-existence after death.

Now let's say the same thing happens, but this time the persan says to you that if you believe he'll turn the light on then he will and he'll let you take the blindfold off. So you agree to believe he'll turn the light on and he does. He then tells you to take the blindfold off since you believed him and what you see in the light is absolutely amazing.

In this analogy the darkness is existence before death and the light is existence after death. Just required belief in something that made sense.

 

[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.

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.

 

[quatona]

You assume you will non-exist when you die, so when thinking about this you have to assume non-existence for yourself.

No, I don´t have to, and this is not a response to what I wrote.
Initially you were claiming to have a certain perspective from which you speak, and later it turned out that you merely believe that at some point you will have this perspective.

I'll attempt to explain what I'm saying about existence vs non-existence after death using an analogy.

Imagine you are brought into a dark room where you can't see anything and then someone puts a blindfold on you and has you sit in a chair. You're in complete darkness and someone tells you that they're going to turn on the light. They say the light is on, but tell you that you can't take the blindfold off in order to varify that it is in fact on. At this point you're still in complete darkness. Are you going to believe the lights on, when you can't see that it's on?

In the analogy above, the darkness is existence before death and the light would be non-existence after death.

Now let's say the same thing happens, but this time the persan says to you that if you believe he'll turn the light on then he will and he'll let you take the blindfold off. So you agree to believe he'll turn the light on and he does. He then tells you to take the blindfold off since you believed him and what you see in the light is absolutely amazing.

In this analogy the darkness is existence before death and the light is existence after death. Just required belief in something that made sense.

So you are saying you have the blindfold off and therefore see things that I - having the blindfold on - can´t see?
Is that what you are claiming? Something about you having special abilities and powers? And that´s what all your "arguments" come down to?
So what is it that you see when you spend a couple of weeks in one room with a corpse?

Anyway, what is it with you and trying to explain the obvious and undisputed (that something has existed before I was born and will exist after I die), when the claim in discussion is your idea that you will exist after death? How are you planning to get from one to the other?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You assume you will non-exist when you die, so when thinking about this you have to assume non-existence for yourself.

I'll attempt to explain what I'm saying about existence vs non-existence after death using an analogy.

Imagine you are brought into a dark room where you can't see anything and then someone puts a blindfold on you and has you sit in a chair. You're in complete darkness and someone tells you that they're going to turn on the light. They say the light is on, but tell you that you can't take the blindfold off in order to varify that it is in fact on. At this point you're still in complete darkness. Are you going to believe the lights on, when you can't see that it's on?

In the analogy above, the darkness is existence before death and the light would be non-existence after death.

Now let's say the same thing happens, but this time the persan says to you that if you believe he'll turn the light on then he will and he'll let you take the blindfold off. So you agree to believe he'll turn the light on and he does. He then tells you to take the blindfold off since you believed him and what you see in the light is absolutely amazing.

In this analogy the darkness is existence before death and the light is existence after death. Just required belief in something that made sense.

These are both poor analogies because you have the ability to test if the light is on in both scenarios. The second is especially poor since taking the blindfold off with the light on will give you access to knowledge that you couldn't have before.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm talking about your existence from your perspective, not something or someone els's existence. Anyway, take the analogy for what its worth to you, if you still don't understand, that's fine for now.

 

[quatona]

I'm talking about your existence from your perspective, not something or someone els's existence. Anyway, take the analogy for what its worth to you, if you still don't understand, that's fine for now.

Initially, you spoke about your perspective. But you are forgetting quickly, I know that already.

 

[Chriliman]

These are both poor analogies because you have the ability to test if the light is on in both scenarios. The second is especially poor since taking the blindfold off with the light on will give you access to knowledge that you couldn't have before.

The point of the analogy is to demonstrate that you can't test if you yourself will non-exist after you die (blindfold on even when light is on). But if you do continue to exist after death this would only be demonstrated after you die (after you take the blindfold off and see the light)

 

[Chriliman]

Initially, you spoke about your perspective. But you are forgetting quickly, I know that already.

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.

 

[anonymous person]

So basically, even though you know it's possible not to exist...you believe a 2000 year old book from a Jewish cult that says you'll exist forever.

That about right?

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

"If" being the key word.

 

[anonymous person]

"If" being the key word.

Right.

If God has spoken then what He has said is no less true by virtue of the passage of many centuries.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Right.

If God has spoken then what He has said is no less true by virtue of the passage of many centuries.

"If."