Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Afterlife is illogical (rough draft)

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 5:02:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A mathematician friend of mine (theist) and I came up with an argument against the existence of an afterlife, but formulizing it is turning out to be difficult.

It goes something like this (rough draft):
P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) In noumenal reality (under the B-Theory of Time) life cannot end.
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

P1 is true by definition (as an afterlife happens after a life has ended).
P2 is true because tensed facts do not exist under the B-Theory of Time. Because of this, the "moments" where you are living in are just as real as the "moments" you are not.

I think that I need to break P2 up into a couple more premises (to make it flow a bit better).

I also need to think of a name for the argument...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 5:05:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I also feel like I should reword P2 a bit (after breaking it up)
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:21:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist.

P1) In order for an birth to exist life has to be able to begin.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an beginning.
C2) birth cannot exist.
mindbender
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:32:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist. : :

P1 is a correct assumption. Instead of saying "afterlife", the interpretation of the prophecies let us know that only our bodies die and not our spiritual soul. This means that our created soul remains alive forever while the body we're using before it dies is nothing but a ride for the soul.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:35:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:21:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist.

P1) In order for an birth to exist life has to be able to begin.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an beginning.
C2) birth cannot exist.

First, you messed up on premise 2.

Second, that depends on how you define birth. If you define birth as a baby exiting a womb of a women with the umbilical cord attached, the one can argue that birth does happen.
If you define birth as the beginning of life, then it doesn't happen (it is only an illusion due to our limited perspective of the universe).

Honestly, do you seriously have a problem with our phenomenal perceptions of reality being illusions of the noumenal reality? Honestly, our phenomenal perceptions are filled with these illusions because of the illusion of tensed facts existing, but all they are are illusions.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:38:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:32:54 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist. : :

P1 is a correct assumption. Instead of saying "afterlife", the interpretation of the prophecies let us know that only our bodies die and not our spiritual soul. This means that our created soul remains alive forever while the body we're using before it dies is nothing but a ride for the soul.

If you accept P1, then does that mean you accept that if the argument is sound that there is no afterlife? If not, where is the error?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:44:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:35:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:21:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist.

P1) In order for an birth to exist life has to be able to begin.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an beginning.
C2) birth cannot exist.

First, you messed up on premise 2.

Second, that depends on how you define birth. If you define birth as a baby exiting a womb of a women with the umbilical cord attached, the one can argue that birth does happen.
If you define birth as the beginning of life, then it doesn't happen (it is only an illusion due to our limited perspective of the universe).

Honestly, do you seriously have a problem with our phenomenal perceptions of reality being illusions of the noumenal reality? Honestly, our phenomenal perceptions are filled with these illusions because of the illusion of tensed facts existing, but all they are are illusions.

If all of reality is an illusion does that make every action and intent meaningless?
mindbender
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:46:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:38:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:32:54 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist. : :

P1 is a correct assumption. Instead of saying "afterlife", the interpretation of the prophecies let us know that only our bodies die and not our spiritual soul. This means that our created soul remains alive forever while the body we're using before it dies is nothing but a ride for the soul.

If you accept P1, then does that mean you accept that if the argument is sound that there is no afterlife? If not, where is the error? : :

I accepted your assumption that to have an afterlife, life has to have an end but I straightened you out with the rest of my post. I have never read anywhere in the Bible that says, "afterlife". Instead, it shows we will experience Eternal Life after our bodies die in this age.

I think the word "afterlife" wasn't a very good word to use for people who deny Eternal Life. Believers know that they will experience Eternal Life after their bodies die in this age.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:55:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:44:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:35:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:21:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist.

P1) In order for an birth to exist life has to be able to begin.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an beginning.
C2) birth cannot exist.

First, you messed up on premise 2.

Second, that depends on how you define birth. If you define birth as a baby exiting a womb of a women with the umbilical cord attached, the one can argue that birth does happen.
If you define birth as the beginning of life, then it doesn't happen (it is only an illusion due to our limited perspective of the universe).

Honestly, do you seriously have a problem with our phenomenal perceptions of reality being illusions of the noumenal reality? Honestly, our phenomenal perceptions are filled with these illusions because of the illusion of tensed facts existing, but all they are are illusions.

If all of reality is an illusion does that make every action and intent meaningless?

Did I say all reality is an illusion? No, I said it was filled with them. Besides, true free will (from a noumenal view) cannot exist if tensed facts do not exist, so our actions and intents were already going to happen. We can have the illusion of free will, but it isn't changing anything (from a noumenal view). So, define meaningless.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:59:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:46:56 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:38:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:32:54 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist. : :

P1 is a correct assumption. Instead of saying "afterlife", the interpretation of the prophecies let us know that only our bodies die and not our spiritual soul. This means that our created soul remains alive forever while the body we're using before it dies is nothing but a ride for the soul.

If you accept P1, then does that mean you accept that if the argument is sound that there is no afterlife? If not, where is the error? : :

I accepted your assumption that to have an afterlife, life has to have an end but I straightened you out with the rest of my post. I have never read anywhere in the Bible that says, "afterlife". Instead, it shows we will experience Eternal Life after our bodies die in this age.

I think the word "afterlife" wasn't a very good word to use for people who deny Eternal Life. Believers know that they will experience Eternal Life after their bodies die in this age.

Okay, does any part of this "eternal life" require tensed facts to exist? Is it within the universe?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
mindbender
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:09:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:59:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:46:56 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:38:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:32:54 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist. : :

P1 is a correct assumption. Instead of saying "afterlife", the interpretation of the prophecies let us know that only our bodies die and not our spiritual soul. This means that our created soul remains alive forever while the body we're using before it dies is nothing but a ride for the soul.

If you accept P1, then does that mean you accept that if the argument is sound that there is no afterlife? If not, where is the error? : :

I accepted your assumption that to have an afterlife, life has to have an end but I straightened you out with the rest of my post. I have never read anywhere in the Bible that says, "afterlife". Instead, it shows we will experience Eternal Life after our bodies die in this age.

I think the word "afterlife" wasn't a very good word to use for people who deny Eternal Life. Believers know that they will experience Eternal Life after their bodies die in this age.

Okay, does any part of this "eternal life" require tensed facts to exist? Is it within the universe? : :

The universe you think exists only exists within your mind. Once you understand that fact, then you will understand Eternal Life.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 4:59:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) In noumenal reality (under the B-Theory of Time) life cannot end.
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

You must define your terms first. The first terms that jump out to me are "end" and "life". Also you forgot P3 - "A noumenal reality is true". Tidying up the argument gives:

P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) If noumenal reality is true then life cannot end.
P3) Noumenal reality is true
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

If we define "end" as "Has a last-moment in time", then P2 is flat-out false, since "life" is the subjective first-person experience which proceeds linearly through time, that experience would indeed have a last-moment as much as it has a first-moment in time.

This argument commits an implicit fallacy of composition, since while it is true that the physical *you* would exist as a four-dimensional block, the subjective experience of *you* would "exist" as a three dimensional experience progressing through time. You cannot equivocate between the experience of "you" and the "you" that exists in four dimensions.

Therefore, an afterlife would simply be the last-moment' in time on Earth followed by a first-moment in time elsewhere. Although the physics of such would truely baffle me, since theists would hold that the afterlife is not tied to the physical universe. If that is the case then I would like to know exactly how the subjective experience decouples from the physical four-dimensional *you*. That makes exactly 0 sense to me.
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 6:38:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist.

Easily subject to reductio ad absurdum:

P1: In order for life to exist it must begin (viz. birth).
P2: Beginning requires tensed facts to be actual.
P3: Tense facts are not actual, ergo birth is impossible.
C: Life does not exist.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 8:31:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 6:38:20 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist.

Easily subject to reductio ad absurdum:

P1: In order for life to exist it must begin (viz. birth).
P2: Beginning requires tensed facts to be actual.
P3: Tense facts are not actual, ergo birth is impossible.
C: Life does not exist.

I would contest P1 in this case.
If something has to begin in order to exist, then in order for anything to exist there must be a prior cause. This will result in an infinite chain of things, which is a flaw in logic.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 8:45:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 4:59:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) In noumenal reality (under the B-Theory of Time) life cannot end.
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

You must define your terms first. The first terms that jump out to me are "end" and "life". Also you forgot P3 - "A noumenal reality is true". Tidying up the argument gives:

P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) If noumenal reality is true then life cannot end.
P3) Noumenal reality is true
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

What if it is formulated like this:
P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist.

I see that I still need a clear definition of end in both versions, but I think this version would be easier (with more clarity) to defend.

If we define "end" as "Has a last-moment in time", then P2 is flat-out false, since "life" is the subjective first-person experience which proceeds linearly through time, that experience would indeed have a last-moment as much as it has a first-moment in time.

I agree that it ends in a phenomenal perception of reality, but what about a noumenal perception of reality?

This argument commits an implicit fallacy of composition, since while it is true that the physical *you* would exist as a four-dimensional block, the subjective experience of *you* would "exist" as a three dimensional experience progressing through time. You cannot equivocate between the experience of "you" and the "you" that exists in four dimensions.

Never thought of that.

Therefore, an afterlife would simply be the last-moment' in time on Earth followed by a first-moment in time elsewhere.

Which, from a phenomenal perspective would seem like an afterlife, but from a noumenal view it wouldn't be.

Although the physics of such would truely baffle me, since theists would hold that the afterlife is not tied to the physical universe. If that is the case then I would like to know exactly how the subjective experience decouples from the physical four-dimensional *you*. That makes exactly 0 sense to me.

I would argue that the experience of you is contingent upon the four-dimensional you, thus making it so you couldn't have the subjective experience decouple from the four I dimensional you.

Thank you for the criticism. Do you think there is a way to make the argument work? What changes would need to be made?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:00:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:09:44 AM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:59:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:46:56 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:38:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:32:54 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist. : :

P1 is a correct assumption. Instead of saying "afterlife", the interpretation of the prophecies let us know that only our bodies die and not our spiritual soul. This means that our created soul remains alive forever while the body we're using before it dies is nothing but a ride for the soul.

If you accept P1, then does that mean you accept that if the argument is sound that there is no afterlife? If not, where is the error? : :

I accepted your assumption that to have an afterlife, life has to have an end but I straightened you out with the rest of my post. I have never read anywhere in the Bible that says, "afterlife". Instead, it shows we will experience Eternal Life after our bodies die in this age.

I think the word "afterlife" wasn't a very good word to use for people who deny Eternal Life. Believers know that they will experience Eternal Life after their bodies die in this age.

Okay, does any part of this "eternal life" require tensed facts to exist? Is it within the universe? : :

The universe you think exists only exists within your mind. Once you understand that fact, then you will understand Eternal Life.

Would you say that the one who created that illusion made you aware of that?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:15:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 5:02:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A mathematician friend of mine (theist) and I came up with an argument against the existence of an afterlife, but formulizing it is turning out to be difficult.

It goes something like this (rough draft):
P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) In noumenal reality (under the B-Theory of Time) life cannot end.
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

P1 is true by definition (as an afterlife happens after a life has ended).
P2 is true because tensed facts do not exist under the B-Theory of Time. Because of this, the "moments" where you are living in are just as real as the "moments" you are not.

I think that I need to break P2 up into a couple more premises (to make it flow a bit better).

I also need to think of a name for the argument...

Jumping over all the phenomena, noumena, A-Theories, B-Theories and whatnot, what kind of "end" are we talking about?

When a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, is it the "end" of the caterpillar, or the "continuation" of the caterpillar, which is no longer a caterpillar?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:36:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:15:40 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:02:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A mathematician friend of mine (theist) and I came up with an argument against the existence of an afterlife, but formulizing it is turning out to be difficult.

It goes something like this (rough draft):
P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) In noumenal reality (under the B-Theory of Time) life cannot end.
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

P1 is true by definition (as an afterlife happens after a life has ended).
P2 is true because tensed facts do not exist under the B-Theory of Time. Because of this, the "moments" where you are living in are just as real as the "moments" you are not.

I think that I need to break P2 up into a couple more premises (to make it flow a bit better).

I also need to think of a name for the argument...

Jumping over all the phenomena, noumena, A-Theories, B-Theories and whatnot, what kind of "end" are we talking about?

When a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, is it the "end" of the caterpillar, or the "continuation" of the caterpillar, which is no longer a caterpillar?

That problem was brought up by envisage and I do not currently have a sufficient definition for "end" in order to defend this.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 10:50:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 5:02:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A mathematician friend of mine (theist) and I came up with an argument against the existence of an afterlife, but formulizing it is turning out to be difficult.

It goes something like this (rough draft):
P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) In noumenal reality (under the B-Theory of Time) life cannot end.
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

P1 is true by definition (as an afterlife happens after a life has ended).
P2 is true because tensed facts do not exist under the B-Theory of Time. Because of this, the "moments" where you are living in are just as real as the "moments" you are not.

I think that I need to break P2 up into a couple more premises (to make it flow a bit better).

I also need to think of a name for the argument...

I don't think it is possible to formulate a successful impossibility argument for this, an evidential argument seems to be more sensible.
P1) seems to be equivocating "life" as in our physical form and after"life" as in the continued existence of our supposed soul. So for the theist our "life" does not end, just our physical form. As such one cannot really speak of an afterlife.
What this "soul" is supposed to be exactly and whether we have one are things, the questioning of which proves to be quite a bit easier.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 11:02:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Afterlife" could just be seen as a metaphorical way of saying transformation. Then this argument falls apart.

For example, Saul died when Paul was born.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 11:04:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And even this were a sound argument it doesn't follow that it's illogical to believe in. It can be logical/rational to believe in false things when you take into account ones background knowledge.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 11:11:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 11:02:39 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
"Afterlife" could just be seen as a metaphorical way of saying transformation. Then this argument falls apart.

For example, Saul died when Paul was born.

Well, from the noumenal view Saul would still be "alive" and Paul would have always been "alive".

If it is a metaphor, then the question becomes if this transformed self is in the universe or not. If not, how did the " self" (the subjective experience) detatch from the four I dimensional being of that person (when it could be argued that the subjective experience is contingent upon the four-dimensional being)?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 11:15:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 10:50:28 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:02:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A mathematician friend of mine (theist) and I came up with an argument against the existence of an afterlife, but formulizing it is turning out to be difficult.

It goes something like this (rough draft):
P1) An afterlife requires for life to be able to end.
P2) In noumenal reality (under the B-Theory of Time) life cannot end.
C) An afterlife cannot logically exist.

P1 is true by definition (as an afterlife happens after a life has ended).
P2 is true because tensed facts do not exist under the B-Theory of Time. Because of this, the "moments" where you are living in are just as real as the "moments" you are not.

I think that I need to break P2 up into a couple more premises (to make it flow a bit better).

I also need to think of a name for the argument...

I don't think it is possible to formulate a successful impossibility argument for this, an evidential argument seems to be more sensible.
P1) seems to be equivocating "life" as in our physical form and after"life" as in the continued existence of our supposed soul. So for the theist our "life" does not end, just our physical form. As such one cannot really speak of an afterlife.
What this "soul" is supposed to be exactly and whether we have one are things, the questioning of which proves to be quite a bit easier.

P1 is trying to demonstrate the idea that it is after a death (end of life) that you go to the next life.
The problem that it is trying to show is that under the B-Theory of Time, when looking at the universe from a noumenal view there is no real before or after. This means that the idea of going to an afterlife AFTER death makes no sense when one looks at the universe noumenally.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 11:18:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 11:04:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And even this were a sound argument it doesn't follow that it's illogical to believe in. It can be logical/rational to believe in false things when you take into account ones background knowledge.

I would argue that there is no logical/rational reason to believe in X if you know that X is false. If one remains unaware that X is false then they might be able to have a logical/rational reason to believe in X.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
mindbender
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:28:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:00:49 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:09:44 AM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:59:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:46:56 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:38:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:32:54 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist. : :

P1 is a correct assumption. Instead of saying "afterlife", the interpretation of the prophecies let us know that only our bodies die and not our spiritual soul. This means that our created soul remains alive forever while the body we're using before it dies is nothing but a ride for the soul.

If you accept P1, then does that mean you accept that if the argument is sound that there is no afterlife? If not, where is the error? : :

I accepted your assumption that to have an afterlife, life has to have an end but I straightened you out with the rest of my post. I have never read anywhere in the Bible that says, "afterlife". Instead, it shows we will experience Eternal Life after our bodies die in this age.

I think the word "afterlife" wasn't a very good word to use for people who deny Eternal Life. Believers know that they will experience Eternal Life after their bodies die in this age.

Okay, does any part of this "eternal life" require tensed facts to exist? Is it within the universe? : :

The universe you think exists only exists within your mind. Once you understand that fact, then you will understand Eternal Life.

Would you say that the one who created that illusion made you aware of that? : :

Of course the creator of the world each one of us perceives is the one who taught me everything I know today. How else would we learn the future without experiencing it yet?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:32:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:28:19 PM, mindbender wrote:
Of course the creator of the world each one of us perceives is the one who taught me everything I know today. How else would we learn the future without experiencing it yet?

Okay, chances of you being BoG is now at least 85%.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
mindbender
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:34:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:32:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:28:19 PM, mindbender wrote:
Of course the creator of the world each one of us perceives is the one who taught me everything I know today. How else would we learn the future without experiencing it yet?

Okay, chances of you being BoG is now at least 85%. : :

Bog must be very important to you. I suggest you pray to God for Bog to come and comfort you.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:43:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 12:28:19 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:00:49 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/21/2015 12:09:44 AM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:59:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:46:56 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:38:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:32:54 PM, mindbender wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:05:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I think I found a way to formulate it!

P1) In order for an afterlife to exist life has to be able to end.
P2) The concept of ending requires tened facts to be acual.
P3) Tensed facts are not actual.
C1) Life cannot have an end.
C2) An afterlife cannot exist. : :

P1 is a correct assumption. Instead of saying "afterlife", the interpretation of the prophecies let us know that only our bodies die and not our spiritual soul. This means that our created soul remains alive forever while the body we're using before it dies is nothing but a ride for the soul.

If you accept P1, then does that mean you accept that if the argument is sound that there is no afterlife? If not, where is the error? : :

I accepted your assumption that to have an afterlife, life has to have an end but I straightened you out with the rest of my post. I have never read anywhere in the Bible that says, "afterlife". Instead, it shows we will experience Eternal Life after our bodies die in this age.

I think the word "afterlife" wasn't a very good word to use for people who deny Eternal Life. Believers know that they will experience Eternal Life after their bodies die in this age.

Okay, does any part of this "eternal life" require tensed facts to exist? Is it within the universe? : :

The universe you think exists only exists within your mind. Once you understand that fact, then you will understand Eternal Life.

Would you say that the one who created that illusion made you aware of that? : :

Of course the creator of the world each one of us perceives is the one who taught me everything I know today. How else would we learn the future without experiencing it yet?

Would you also say that creator sometimes speaks through you?