Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Do you think that afterlife is a lie.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:53:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do we have soul, do our soul go to heaven or hell or reincarnate as many religion suggests.

I guest ultimately we'll never know. However I belief that afterlife (or soul), if truly existed, will be mush different from what religion belief or modern media portrait. I can prove this by using the fact that while the soul can not be observed or study, body function can, and the death is the malfunction of an entire body system. Therefore, any character of the soul that required the functionality of certain organ or body of the whole can not be true. That is mean:

1. Vengeful spirit does not exist: memory is stored in the brain, if the brain is not functional or even partially non-functional (as in case of amnesia or Alzheimer) memories are damage or gone. Spirit (if exist) can not hold grudge against any body or anything because its mind is blank.

2. Spirit can not feel pain: If your preacher said you will burn in hell, boil in a copper pot or left on the cliff for a crown to stop by take a piece. They are probably wrong, we need nervous system to feel pain and that's gone with the rest of our sense when our body is lost. You don't feel pain when the doctor drug you up before a surgery, you shouldn't do so when you died.

3. Spirit can not be reason with: If somebody said they can communicate with spirit, they probably lie. Most if not all of our cognitive function is coming from the brain, and of course if you lose your brain you are probably unable to think of anything (and therefore can not communicate). Think of a patients whose brain is seriously damage and look at their thought pattern. It mostly blank (correct me if I am wrong). So talk to a spirit should not be of anything more than talk to the flower (anything more = flower at most, probably less) and of course the flower does not said "I miss you too son, it is a heaven here I hope you came along".

4.You are a pious man you will have 4000 mansion in heaven and your sons will also have 1000 each in addition!: Of course, if this isn't sound wrong enough, sense of number and calculation also need brain functionality and so you shouldn't be able to count how mush when you died.

That is probably the case, we can't prove if a spirit existed and can not prove that they are going to heaven or hell or reincarnate. But we know for certain that if they do exist they will have no ability to think, to remember, and to sense because all of that required body function. Any claims of afterlife that included any of this factor are probably wrong, and that would mean the concept of afterlife as we know, for the most part is a lie.

Just saying for fun, feel free to give in your thought.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 11:00:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are three objections I have to your argument.

1. It seems to equate the soul with mental states. Since there can't be mental states without a brain, then disembodied souls can't exist. That seems to be your argument. But it seems to me that souls are not identical with mental states. After all, our mental states are in a constant state of change, but we maintain personal identity through these changes. I'm the same person now as I was a few minutes ago even though I was thinking about something completely different. So I don't think souls are identical to mental states. Rather, i think mental states are HAD by souls (i.e. persons). It seems at least possible to me that a soul could exist even if it were completely unconscious, so if it's true that there can be no mental states without a brain, I don't think that proves that there is no immaterial soul capable of disembodied existence.

2. Your argument seems to assume that whatever limitations the soul has when it is embodied, it must have those same limitations if and when it is disembodied. So, for example, if we can't see without eyes when we're embodied, then we can't see without eyes when we are disembodied either. I don't see any warrant for believing that.

3. You seem to be equating the mental state or perception with what causes the mental state or perception. There's no doubt that the brain processes information, whether it be input from the senses, or mathmatical calculations. But there is also a perceiver. It seems to me that what the brain does is present this information to the perceiver. After all, while the perception is clear and dinstinct in the mind, one cannot examine the brain and find any of these perceptions. For example, a person who is dreaming has very clear images in his mind of what appears to be an external world, but those images do not exist in the brain. I think the brain is like a computer. A computer may contain the hardware and software necessary to produce an image (say, a movie), but there's no image IN the computer. The image is on the monitor, and the computer just feeds signals to it. Well, there's no monitor in the brain, yet the person nevertheless perceives the image. So I suspect the brain, through its chemical reactions, supplies the information which is then perceived by the person in the same way a monitor produces an image from the signals produced by the CPU.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:25:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
philocristos, that's a very good way of putting it and I happen to agree with you.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 12:08:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 11:00:03 AM, philochristos wrote:
There are three objections I have to your argument.

1. It seems to equate the soul with mental states. Since there can't be mental states without a brain, then disembodied souls can't exist. That seems to be your argument. But it seems to me that souls are not identical with mental states. After all, our mental states are in a constant state of change, but we maintain personal identity through these changes. I'm the same person now as I was a few minutes ago even though I was thinking about something completely different. So I don't think souls are identical to mental states. Rather, i think mental states are HAD by souls (i.e. persons). It seems at least possible to me that a soul could exist even if it were completely unconscious, so if it's true that there can be no mental states without a brain, I don't think that proves that there is no immaterial soul capable of disembodied existence.

2. Your argument seems to assume that whatever limitations the soul has when it is embodied, it must have those same limitations if and when it is disembodied. So, for example, if we can't see without eyes when we're embodied, then we can't see without eyes when we are disembodied either. I don't see any warrant for believing that.

3. You seem to be equating the mental state or perception with what causes the mental state or perception. There's no doubt that the brain processes information, whether it be input from the senses, or mathmatical calculations. But there is also a perceiver. It seems to me that what the brain does is present this information to the perceiver. After all, while the perception is clear and dinstinct in the mind, one cannot examine the brain and find any of these perceptions. For example, a person who is dreaming has very clear images in his mind of what appears to be an external world, but those images do not exist in the brain. I think the brain is like a computer. A computer may contain the hardware and software necessary to produce an image (say, a movie), but there's no image IN the computer. The image is on the monitor, and the computer just feeds signals to it. Well, there's no monitor in the brain, yet the person nevertheless perceives the image. So I suspect the brain, through its chemical reactions, supplies the information which is then perceived by the person in the same way a monitor produces an image from the signals produced by the CPU.

I think I can make rebuttal based on some of your point.

1. You can not prove that you are the same person now as you are a few minute ago. It is possible and even more convincing to think that you are a copy of your self from a minute ago which inherited your memory, personality and character. When you move a file from one directory to another, you didn't transport the original file to a new location; you took its information, create its exact clone on your designated location and delete the original file from its directory. It is possible that even when I am telling you this, I already lost to nothingness and you are reading what my clone of my clone of my clone written, based on a set of function that inherited and developed from my original self.

2. Sensing with our five senses is a concept based on materialistic perception. You are most certainly can not "see" without an eyes with or without your body. This is because "seeing" is the projection of information based on reflection of light from materialistic environment. That is unless the soul can somehow perceive light as we do with our eyes, there is no way that a spirit can see (whether they can perceive anything at all is not of my concern, it already proved that material concept can not be applied to afterlife universe which make most of the afterlife depiction, using such concept a lie)

3. You need to at least proved that the souls can some how regain their consciousness after death either through reincarnation, divination or something. Eternal consciousnesses is equal to death, and of course, that will render all concept of afterlife in to nothing but mind is the product of brain function and is forever lost when you have none.
TolerantSpirit
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 12:22:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 11:00:03 AM, philochristos wrote:
There are three objections I have to your argument.

1. It seems to equate the soul with mental states. Since there can't be mental states without a brain, then disembodied souls can't exist. That seems to be your argument. But it seems to me that souls are not identical with mental states. After all, our mental states are in a constant state of change, but we maintain personal identity through these changes. I'm the same person now as I was a few minutes ago even though I was thinking about something completely different. So I don't think souls are identical to mental states. Rather, i think mental states are HAD by souls (i.e. persons). It seems at least possible to me that a soul could exist even if it were completely unconscious, so if it's true that there can be no mental states without a brain, I don't think that proves that there is no immaterial soul capable of disembodied existence.

2. Your argument seems to assume that whatever limitations the soul has when it is embodied, it must have those same limitations if and when it is disembodied. So, for example, if we can't see without eyes when we're embodied, then we can't see without eyes when we are disembodied either. I don't see any warrant for believing that.

3. You seem to be equating the mental state or perception with what causes the mental state or perception. There's no doubt that the brain processes information, whether it be input from the senses, or mathmatical calculations. But there is also a perceiver. It seems to me that what the brain does is present this information to the perceiver. After all, while the perception is clear and dinstinct in the mind, one cannot examine the brain and find any of these perceptions. For example, a person who is dreaming has very clear images in his mind of what appears to be an external world, but those images do not exist in the brain. I think the brain is like a computer. A computer may contain the hardware and software necessary to produce an image (say, a movie), but there's no image IN the computer. The image is on the monitor, and the computer just feeds signals to it. Well, there's no monitor in the brain, yet the person nevertheless perceives the image. So I suspect the brain, through its chemical reactions, supplies the information which is then perceived by the person in the same way a monitor produces an image from the signals produced by the CPU.

Counter-arguments at their finest.
Think before you talk.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 12:45:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 12:08:14 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
1. You can not prove that you are the same person now as you are a few minute ago.

That doesn't seem to me like the sort of thing I need to prove. It seems prima facie obvious, and its denial strikes me as being absurd. Nobody lives consistently with its denial unless they're mentally ill. We all talk about our own pasts as if those pasts are really our own. We punish people for crimes committed in the past. We plan and prepare for our own futures. We acknowledge our birthdays and think we have parents, but if we are not the same person from minute to minute, then we ourselves were never actually born, and the people we call our parents aren't really our parents at all. If you have to resort to these kinds of absurdities in order to deny the existence of the soul, then it seems to me the existence of the soul is not pretty solid footing. I'd rather just affirm the obvious than deny it.

2. Sensing with our five senses is a concept based on materialistic perception. You are most certainly can not "see" without an eyes with or without your body. This is because "seeing" is the projection of information based on reflection of light from materialistic environment. That is unless the soul can somehow perceive light as we do with our eyes, there is no way that a spirit can see (whether they can perceive anything at all is not of my concern, it already proved that material concept can not be applied to afterlife universe which make most of the afterlife depiction, using such concept a lie)

It sounds like you're just repeating yourself. You're assuming that the soul would be limited in the same way when it is disembodied as it is when it's embodied. You're assuming that since we need physical organs to perceive the external world now, that we would also need them if we were disembodied. That's what I was questioning, but I don't see that you've even attempted to substantiate that claim. If we don't even know how the brain reproduces images that correspond to the external world and presents them to the mind, then how do we know the mind couldn't perceive these things directly if it were disembodied?

3. You need to at least proved that the souls can some how regain their consciousness after death either through reincarnation, divination or something. Eternal consciousnesses is equal to death, and of course, that will render all concept of afterlife in to nothing but mind is the product of brain function and is forever lost when you have none.

None of this seems relevant to my third point unless I'm misunderstanding you. It does seem to be relevant to my first point, though, because I said that the soul is not identical to our mental states, and it may be possible for a soul to exist in an unconscious state. Now, I don't see why that requires me to prove that souls can regain consciousness through reincarnation or anything. At the same time, I don't see any reason to suppose they couldn't. If I grant that consciousness requires a brain, then it seems to me if the soul reanimates a living body with a brain, that the soul could regain consciousness. Why not?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 7:16:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I generally disagree with religious notions of the afterlife and the soul, so I'm inclined to agree with you, but there are some objections to what you've written here.

At 2/17/2013 2:53:44 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
1. Vengeful spirit does not exist: memory is stored in the brain, if the brain is not functional or even partially non-functional (as in case of amnesia or Alzheimer) memories are damage or gone. Spirit (if exist) can not hold grudge against any body or anything because its mind is blank.

The mind soul does not necessarily need the mind to know and process information. It would be that the mind is merely the vessel by which the soul communicates these things to the physical body, and when damaged, while the soul may retain them, the mind cannot process them.

2. Spirit can not feel pain: If your preacher said you will burn in hell, boil in a copper pot or left on the cliff for a crown to stop by take a piece. They are probably wrong, we need nervous system to feel pain and that's gone with the rest of our sense when our body is lost. You don't feel pain when the doctor drug you up before a surgery, you shouldn't do so when you died.

The soul may be capable of feeling non-physical pain, which could be how "Hellfire" works; a spiritual flame, instead of a real one.

Alternatively, some religious sects believe in physical reanimation in the afterlife, which would solve the problem of feeling physical pain.

3. Spirit can not be reason with: If somebody said they can communicate with spirit, they probably lie. Most if not all of our cognitive function is coming from the brain, and of course if you lose your brain you are probably unable to think of anything (and therefore can not communicate). Think of a patients whose brain is seriously damage and look at their thought pattern. It mostly blank (correct me if I am wrong). So talk to a spirit should not be of anything more than talk to the flower (anything more = flower at most, probably less) and of course the flower does not said "I miss you too son, it is a heaven here I hope you came along".

Spiritual communication could be possible, if again, information imprints upon the soul. A medium could communicate with a soul, using her own spiritual energy.

4.You are a pious man you will have 4000 mansion in heaven and your sons will also have 1000 each in addition!: Of course, if this isn't sound wrong enough, sense of number and calculation also need brain functionality and so you shouldn't be able to count how mush when you died.

A body and mind may not be necessary to function in a spiritual world. But beyond that, prophecy could allow for information from a spiritual realm to be handed down to a physical world.

If these sound like unfalsifiable arguments to you, it's because they are. Because every religious argument will eventually boil down to an unfalsifiable premise. Which is why I tend to ignore them.