Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Life after death - resurrection of the body

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 6:41:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

I'm a weak atheist/secularist, and reject the concept of the afterlife as invalid, thus shall address it from that perspective.

I'm borrowing these arguments from n7 and SNP1.

An afterlife is a realm where consciousness survives even when the physical body has died. This obviously rules out any type of identity theories that involved continuation of the physical. Our theory of identity must be based on some further fact of consciousness and the physical (Cartesian soul), or be based on the consciousness itself. This is sometimes divided into 2 categories, Augustinian Reconstructionism and Cartesian Dualism.

== Reconstructionism ==

Reconstructionism is the idea that once you reach the afterlife, one reconstructs physical aspects to aspects of consciousness, i.e. the soul. Reconstruction of consciousness relies on defying the idea of possible worlds, but since possible worlds are unlikely, reconstruction is invalid, since then psychology is alternatively necessary and contingent.

== Dualism ==

According to dualism, the soul goes into an immaterial world. Soul-switching would then change conscience, and different people would be constantly assuming different personalities, some contradicting each other while retaining properties of conscience, and such an idea is, no doubt, absurd.

== Argument from Eternalism ==

I will present SNP1's argument from eternalism against the afterlife.

P1: The afterlife is not "after death", but presumes the "end" of life.
P2: The "end" of life is incoherent via. four-dimensionalism, and four-dimensionalism is true.
C: Thus, the concept of the afterlife is incoherent.

P2 is justified by quantum mechanics and special relativity, and P1 is true by definition.
"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
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 7:07:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

I was not aware Christianity involved getting new bodies after death, so... How exactly does that work with the immaterial? It seems even more implausible that just than just the soul living on. As far as the 'soul' or mind(?) living on, there are many studies that back monism, none (that I am aware of) which back dualism.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 7:39:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death
Are you serious?
You go to a school where such is worthy of examination?
WOW!!!
Do you get examined on death, you know what really happens?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A.) Is there a good reason to believe in the existence of a soul? (Aside from the preference for it to be true.)

B.) Same contention that was brought up by a previous poster; a new body implies a new form that is different than your spirit, so the afterlife would have to be material for that to be true.

C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.
dee-em
Posts: 6,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 8:18:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Submit a blank page. That's how much life there is after death.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

It's a theory, is it? I would put it more on the level of wishful thinking.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

Equal. Equally devoid of anything approaching evidence.

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

They're afraid of bodily death.

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid?

It's a 'theory' which hasn't progressed to the point where validation is an issue.

Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

No, they are all equally nonsensical.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 8:23:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
A.) Is there a good reason to believe in the existence of a soul? (Aside from the preference for it to be true.)

B.) Same contention that was brought up by a previous poster; a new body implies a new form that is different than your spirit, so the afterlife would have to be material for that to be true.

C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

Precisely.
According to the believers, evil is the natural result of free will.
The obvious corollary to this is that heaven is no different to here or there is no free will in heaven.
I find the concept funny.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 9:15:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

Sorry, I cannot be of any help to you in your exam, since I prefer scripture to anything else.

It is true that scripture speaks of the spirit of some being placed in heavenly, spirit bodies, if "bodies" is the right word, but scripture also limits that number to 144,000 who go to heaven with the express purpose of ruling with Christ in heaven.

However, the destiny of the vast majority of the dead will be to have their spirit placed in human bodies such as were enjoyed by Adam and Eve, with all the prospects that life .

Incidentally, humans do not have souls, they are souls, as are all living creatures, as scripture makes clear.
ic2
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:14:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Religion was created to give men earthly power over others. The myths and legends used were created to answer those burning questions, where do we come from, why are we here and what happens when we die. Those "answers" were based on speculation, of course, because they lacked the foundations of scientific inquiry. If it sounded reasonable (Which then begs the question, how can reason evolved from unreasonable beings?) it was taken as fact.
As time wore on, the way the world was viewed changed. People started finding explanations for things which previously had been attributed to these "reasonable explanations" they'd been saddled with for thousands of years. The Earth wasn't flat after all, nor was it at the center of the universe, germs caused infections, not 'vapors", diseases could be prevented and some things even cured them. All of which could happen without any interference or influence from deities.

From the vastness of the cosmos a thousand years ago to sub-atomic interactions today, the places for "God" to hide have grown fewer and fewer as more and more of the way our universe works are revealed to minds more intent on proving their positions with facts than maintaining power over others with lies and myth. The answers to those burning questions are somewhat less than satisfying from a mystical point of view, but it provides us with some realistic perspective.

Where do we come from? We appear to have evolved from minuscule shrew-like semi-mammals over hundreds of millions of years.

Why are we here? See the first question's answer. We're here. If you're looking for direction, try helping mankind without hurting it. That tends to work better for everyone.

What happens when we die? Decomposition. If you're looking for continued consciousness, the odds aren't good for that. There is no factual evidence that humans possess a "soul". There is considerable evidence to suggest that most people can't emotionally deal with the thought of nonexistence and would rather make up more comforting, if completely inaccurate, rationalizations in order to face the inevitability of it.

The bright side is that those who believe in life after death won't be around at all to be disappointed by the likelihood that there isn't any. The problem, of course, is that so many people live to die that they have no qualms about killing or harassing others because of that life after death belief. If we treated each other with the certainty that this life is ALL WE GET, then we may actually be nicer to others because we know our religions are just a pile of mythical BS.

Above comment on article below by Dewey Sayenoff, Time Newsfeed, Livefyre, 4/12/13
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:31:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 9:15:14 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

Sorry, I cannot be of any help to you in your exam, since I prefer scripture to anything else.

It is true that scripture speaks of the spirit of some being placed in heavenly, spirit bodies, if "bodies" is the right word, but scripture also limits that number to 144,000 who go to heaven with the express purpose of ruling with Christ in heaven.

However, the destiny of the vast majority of the dead will be to have their spirit placed in human bodies such as were enjoyed by Adam and Eve, with all the prospects that life .

Incidentally, humans do not have souls, they are souls, as are all living creatures, as scripture makes clear.

Incidentally when you go to sleep your body decays and decomposes.
Aren't the poor little kids of jehovianism just so cute in their fantasies?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:36:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 10:06:33 AM, JJ50 wrote:
Bodies rot quite quickly when they are dead, they certainly don't resurrect.

Not the original ones, no, I actually agree with something you've said, lol.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:38:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 10:31:03 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/4/2015 9:15:14 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

Sorry, I cannot be of any help to you in your exam, since I prefer scripture to anything else.

It is true that scripture speaks of the spirit of some being placed in heavenly, spirit bodies, if "bodies" is the right word, but scripture also limits that number to 144,000 who go to heaven with the express purpose of ruling with Christ in heaven.

However, the destiny of the vast majority of the dead will be to have their spirit placed in human bodies such as were enjoyed by Adam and Eve, with all the prospects that life .

Incidentally, humans do not have souls, they are souls, as are all living creatures, as scripture makes clear.

Incidentally when you go to sleep your body decays and decomposes.
Aren't the poor little kids of jehovianism just so cute in their fantasies?

It's not a fantasy we lose dead skin all the time, and new skin forms underneath.

As far as I am aware it happens in daytime also.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 3:49:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:41:43 AM, tejretics wrote:

I'm a weak atheist/secularist, and reject the concept of the afterlife as invalid, thus shall address it from that perspective.

I'm borrowing these arguments from n7 and SNP1.

An afterlife is a realm where consciousness survives even when the physical body has died. This obviously rules out any type of identity theories that involved continuation of the physical. Our theory of identity must be based on some further fact of consciousness and the physical (Cartesian soul), or be based on the consciousness itself. This is sometimes divided into 2 categories, Augustinian Reconstructionism and Cartesian Dualism.

== Reconstructionism ==

Reconstructionism is the idea that once you reach the afterlife, one reconstructs physical aspects to aspects of consciousness, i.e. the soul. Reconstruction of consciousness relies on defying the idea of possible worlds, but since possible worlds are unlikely, reconstruction is invalid, since then psychology is alternatively necessary and contingent.

== Dualism ==

According to dualism, the soul goes into an immaterial world. Soul-switching would then change conscience, and different people would be constantly assuming different personalities, some contradicting each other while retaining properties of conscience, and such an idea is, no doubt, absurd.

== Argument from Eternalism ==

I will present SNP1's argument from eternalism against the afterlife.

P1: The afterlife is not "after death", but presumes the "end" of life.
P2: The "end" of life is incoherent via. four-dimensionalism, and four-dimensionalism is true.
C: Thus, the concept of the afterlife is incoherent.

P2 is justified by quantum mechanics and special relativity, and P1 is true by definition.

I would dispute P2. Even if eternalism is true, it does not deny that there is a point in time at which one ceases to be biologically alive.

At 6/4/2015 7:07:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was not aware Christianity involved getting new bodies after death, so... How exactly does that work with the immaterial? It seems even more implausible that just than just the soul living on. As far as the 'soul' or mind(?) living on, there are many studies that back monism, none (that I am aware of) which back dualism.

A common misconception is that Christianity holds to the theory of the soul leaving the body and remaining disembodied during the afterlife. Yet Jesus implies that post-mortem existence is bodily, and St. Paul writes that we have a spiritual, or 'pneumatic' body after death.

The main arguments for it, as a theory, aren't rational but scriptural. The arguments work from the assumption that Jesus was resurrected and hence we shall be too.

In regards to the monism/dualism debate, the former fits best with the scientific paradigm of Western society, namely advances in neuropsychology. However, there are a fair few rational arguments for dualism.

Most of these arguments focus on the idea that there is some element of the mind that is immaterial. Nagel wrote that the sense of self and the sense of feeling (qualia) is non-biological because scientific enquiries into the brain can identify no part that pertains to qualia. Richard Swinburne uses an analogy of an alien abduction; if super-advanced aliens captured a human and observed his brain whilst stamping on his foot, they would know what neurones are firing from what stimulus, but they can never know whether the human actually feels pain. This implies that there is an immaterial aspect of the mind because otherwise neuroscience would be able to locate it - hence dualism is true.

At 6/4/2015 7:39:18 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death
Are you serious?
You go to a school where such is worthy of examination?
WOW!!!
Do you get examined on death, you know what really happens?

It's a philosophy/theology exam and yes, life after death is a topic within that syllabus. The examination is on the theories of life after death, not necessarily what (if anything) actually happens.

At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
A.) Is there a good reason to believe in the existence of a soul? (Aside from the preference for it to be true.)

B.) Same contention that was brought up by a previous poster; a new body implies a new form that is different than your spirit, so the afterlife would have to be material for that to be true.

C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

A) From a Christian framework, the existence of a soul is perfectly sound to believe in because of the large emphasis on the non-physical within the religion. This heavily infers that there is part of us that is non-physical as well. From a rationalistic framework, then one can always look to the arguments for dualism I have written about above ^^

B) This is a point of contention within the theory - some such as St. Paul assert that the resurrected body will be a 'pneumatic' (spiritual) body. However, Jesus's resurrection was material (Luke 24) and this piece of scripture has lead many to argue that the resurrection of the dead will involve physical bodies.

C) Bertrand Russell voiced a similar opinion. He wrote that 'bodily continuity is a matter of appearance and behaviour, not substance'. Hence if one is given a new body, is it really their body? John Hick wrote that the new body will be a 'replica' of the old one, which is exactly the same (even the brain). Therefore the same psycho-physical 'quirks' you mention will continue on in the resurrected body.

At 6/4/2015 8:18:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Submit a blank page. That's how much life there is after death.

That's open to debate though :P


Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

It's a theory, is it? I would put it more on the level of wishful thinking.

A theory is a theory, whether it is a good theory or not is, again, up for debate. It does sound like wishful thinking, as an eternal heavenly bodily existence after death does sound too good to be true, although if Christianity and the resurrection of Jesus is accepted to be true then it is a sound inference,

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

Equal. Equally devoid of anything approaching evidence.

If asked for empirical evidence, many dualists will appeal to parapsychology or near death experiences. Of course the chances are that many of these are hallucinations, but there are also awkward cases such as 'yoga memory' in which it is a lot harder, some may say impossible, to reduce these events to naturalistic causes.


For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

They're afraid of bodily death.

It's more than that. We're afraid of many things, but we don't automatically create theories to comfort ourselves.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 3:53:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 10:06:33 AM, JJ50 wrote:
Bodies rot quite quickly when they are dead, they certainly don't resurrect.

One could argue that an omnipotent God could simply reassemble the decayed pieces of the human body. One of the important parts of the theory is that the body cannot be annihilated, only disintegrated.

At 6/4/2015 9:15:14 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

Sorry, I cannot be of any help to you in your exam, since I prefer scripture to anything else.

It is true that scripture speaks of the spirit of some being placed in heavenly, spirit bodies, if "bodies" is the right word, but scripture also limits that number to 144,000 who go to heaven with the express purpose of ruling with Christ in heaven.

However, the destiny of the vast majority of the dead will be to have their spirit placed in human bodies such as were enjoyed by Adam and Eve, with all the prospects that life .

Incidentally, humans do not have souls, they are souls, as are all living creatures, as scripture makes clear.

This reminds me of a C.S Lewis quote:

'You do not have a soul - you are a soul, you have a body'
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 4:06:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 3:49:19 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

C) Bertrand Russell voiced a similar opinion. He wrote that 'bodily continuity is a matter of appearance and behaviour, not substance'. Hence if one is given a new body, is it really their body? John Hick wrote that the new body will be a 'replica' of the old one, which is exactly the same (even the brain). Therefore the same psycho-physical 'quirks' you mention will continue on in the resurrected body.

At which point in the time in one's life is this body supposed to a replica of? A lot of those quirks (and even some major changes) are gained during one's lifetime. If you are ninety when you die, do you get the equivalent of your ninety-year-old brain? Or inversely, if you die at two?

Additionally, some people I know have such defining quirks due to negative physical occurrences like strokes; so I'd be scared to heard that the effects of a stroke might persist after you die seeing that your brain might just get Xeroxed!
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 4:08:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 7:07:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

I was not aware Christianity involved getting new bodies after death, so... How exactly does that work with the immaterial?

Yes, it does. As far as the "how", I do not think anyone knows that. It involves the statement, "From dust thou came, and to dust thou shalt return." But at the resurrection (in fact, the resurrection itself involves the resurrection of the body), the spirit is reunited with the body in changed form. The main reference for this would be I Cor 15.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 4:48:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 4:06:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 3:49:19 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

C) Bertrand Russell voiced a similar opinion. He wrote that 'bodily continuity is a matter of appearance and behaviour, not substance'. Hence if one is given a new body, is it really their body? John Hick wrote that the new body will be a 'replica' of the old one, which is exactly the same (even the brain). Therefore the same psycho-physical 'quirks' you mention will continue on in the resurrected body.

At which point in the time in one's life is this body supposed to a replica of? A lot of those quirks (and even some major changes) are gained during one's lifetime. If you are ninety when you die, do you get the equivalent of your ninety-year-old brain? Or inversely, if you die at two?

Additionally, some people I know have such defining quirks due to negative physical occurrences like strokes; so I'd be scared to heard that the effects of a stroke might persist after you die seeing that your brain might just get Xeroxed!

Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard argued that, since our resurrection is based on Jesus's, we will be resurrected in the same age body as Jesus was resurrected in (33 years old).

Of course, this prompts us to ask what happens to those who die before they reach the age of 33. There are three options here, none of which are official religious doctrine.

1. We are resurrected in the body we had when we died
2. We are reborn over and over again until we manage to live a life that reaches the age of 33.
3. We are resurrected in the 33 year old body that we would have had if we had lived to that age, even if we didn't actually reach that age in reality.

Personally, I prefer option 2. Possible evidence for this is the phenomena of 'yoga memories'.

Ultimately though, an omnipotent and benevolent God would most likely use his discretion to ensure that people get the best body for them, whilst retaining heir identity. It is probably misguided to think of God as following a systematic formula regarding the technicalities of resurrection.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 5:13:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

In my view, after we die, we live in a temporary disembodied state. Then later we will be resurrected physically from the dead. While our bodies will be renewed in such a way that they're no longer susceptible to sickness, frailty, and death, they will nevertheless still be physical earthly bodies.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

I don't know what to say except that I think the resurrection view is true and the soul only view is false. As far as preference, I would prefer a physical resurrection since I like to hug, and souls can't hug.

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

Primarily because the Bible teaches it. Jesus was raised from the dead, and that is the hope of those who believe in him.
"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
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 9:36:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 4:48:43 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/4/2015 4:06:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 3:49:19 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

C) Bertrand Russell voiced a similar opinion. He wrote that 'bodily continuity is a matter of appearance and behaviour, not substance'. Hence if one is given a new body, is it really their body? John Hick wrote that the new body will be a 'replica' of the old one, which is exactly the same (even the brain). Therefore the same psycho-physical 'quirks' you mention will continue on in the resurrected body.

At which point in the time in one's life is this body supposed to a replica of? A lot of those quirks (and even some major changes) are gained during one's lifetime. If you are ninety when you die, do you get the equivalent of your ninety-year-old brain? Or inversely, if you die at two?

Additionally, some people I know have such defining quirks due to negative physical occurrences like strokes; so I'd be scared to heard that the effects of a stroke might persist after you die seeing that your brain might just get Xeroxed!

Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard argued that, since our resurrection is based on Jesus's, we will be resurrected in the same age body as Jesus was resurrected in (33 years old).

Of course, this prompts us to ask what happens to those who die before they reach the age of 33. There are three options here, none of which are official religious doctrine.

1. We are resurrected in the body we had when we died
2. We are reborn over and over again until we manage to live a life that reaches the age of 33.
3. We are resurrected in the 33 year old body that we would have had if we had lived to that age, even if we didn't actually reach that age in reality.

Personally, I prefer option 2. Possible evidence for this is the phenomena of 'yoga memories'.

Ultimately though, an omnipotent and benevolent God would most likely use his discretion to ensure that people get the best body for them, whilst retaining heir identity. It is probably misguided to think of God as following a systematic formula regarding the technicalities of resurrection.

"Bertrand Russell voiced a similar opinion."
"Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard argued that..."
Dang - I just can't make an original argument! :P

Anyway, that seems extremely strange, but amusing at the same time (not meant in a mocking way). #1 would be horrible in many, many circumstances. And #2, "What's that? You made it to 32 as a devout Christian? Oh, sooo close. Well, back to earth with you, and... (rolls dice)... you're being reborn in Iraq. Good luck with that!"

What exactly is one supposed to do with this body, anyway? Do you have to eat? Breathe? If you don't, do you die and go to Heaven #2?

Also, if I die and go to the afterlife and keep my brain, do I still have to take up my memory capacity with all these now fully-refuted atheistic arguments that are currently stored in my brain?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:22:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 4:08:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2015 7:07:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

I was not aware Christianity involved getting new bodies after death, so... How exactly does that work with the immaterial?

Yes, it does. As far as the "how", I do not think anyone knows that. It involves the statement, "From dust thou came, and to dust thou shalt return." But at the resurrection (in fact, the resurrection itself involves the resurrection of the body), the spirit is reunited with the body in changed form. The main reference for this would be I Cor 15.

Well, that is the problem with this theory (I assume he was using the term colloquially). If we don't know or have any evidence whatsoever to believe then why accept it as true? This is what is being accepted:

a) there is a soul, and it is separate from the body
b) the soul lives on after the death of the physical body
c) the soul gets a new body that is "heavenly".This term is so vague that is serves no purpose. It is a place holder at best, and it provides us with no description at all. It's fluff.

Additionally, the claim is based on the Bible, and the evidence comes from...the Bible. It is a big circle where the claim is backed by the claim! Not to mention all of this must be accepted in spite of evidence suggesting monism is correct. That being said, there are many many questions which must be answered before we can start pretending there is an afterlife, there is a soul, and that these souls will have the latest fashion in 'heavenly bodies' waiting for them on the other side of death instead of oblivion.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:33:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:22:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 4:08:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2015 7:07:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

I was not aware Christianity involved getting new bodies after death, so... How exactly does that work with the immaterial?

Yes, it does. As far as the "how", I do not think anyone knows that. It involves the statement, "From dust thou came, and to dust thou shalt return." But at the resurrection (in fact, the resurrection itself involves the resurrection of the body), the spirit is reunited with the body in changed form. The main reference for this would be I Cor 15.

Well, that is the problem with this theory (I assume he was using the term colloquially). If we don't know or have any evidence whatsoever to believe then why accept it as true? This is what is being accepted:

a) there is a soul, and it is separate from the body
b) the soul lives on after the death of the physical body
c) the soul gets a new body that is "heavenly".This term is so vague that is serves no purpose. It is a place holder at best, and it provides us with no description at all. It's fluff.

Not "heavenly", although I suppose the term might be employed. The reason that it's not exactly accurate is that those consigned to hell have the same sort of changed body, so it could just as accurately be called "hellish". At any rate, it is described as a "changed" body ... a "spiritual" body.

Additionally, the claim is based on the Bible, and the evidence comes from...the Bible.

Certainly that's where it comes from.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:38:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:33:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:22:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 4:08:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2015 7:07:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

I was not aware Christianity involved getting new bodies after death, so... How exactly does that work with the immaterial?

Yes, it does. As far as the "how", I do not think anyone knows that. It involves the statement, "From dust thou came, and to dust thou shalt return." But at the resurrection (in fact, the resurrection itself involves the resurrection of the body), the spirit is reunited with the body in changed form. The main reference for this would be I Cor 15.

Well, that is the problem with this theory (I assume he was using the term colloquially). If we don't know or have any evidence whatsoever to believe then why accept it as true? This is what is being accepted:

a) there is a soul, and it is separate from the body
b) the soul lives on after the death of the physical body
c) the soul gets a new body that is "heavenly".This term is so vague that is serves no purpose. It is a place holder at best, and it provides us with no description at all. It's fluff.

Not "heavenly", although I suppose the term might be employed. The reason that it's not exactly accurate is that those consigned to hell have the same sort of changed body, so it could just as accurately be called "hellish". At any rate, it is described as a "changed" body ... a "spiritual" body.

Same difference - it provides us with no information.

Additionally, the claim is based on the Bible, and the evidence comes from...the Bible.

Certainly that's where it comes from.

Circular logic is illogical.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 11:54:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:38:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:33:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:22:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 4:08:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2015 7:07:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

I was not aware Christianity involved getting new bodies after death, so... How exactly does that work with the immaterial?

Yes, it does. As far as the "how", I do not think anyone knows that. It involves the statement, "From dust thou came, and to dust thou shalt return." But at the resurrection (in fact, the resurrection itself involves the resurrection of the body), the spirit is reunited with the body in changed form. The main reference for this would be I Cor 15.

Well, that is the problem with this theory (I assume he was using the term colloquially). If we don't know or have any evidence whatsoever to believe then why accept it as true? This is what is being accepted:

a) there is a soul, and it is separate from the body
b) the soul lives on after the death of the physical body
c) the soul gets a new body that is "heavenly".This term is so vague that is serves no purpose. It is a place holder at best, and it provides us with no description at all. It's fluff.

Not "heavenly", although I suppose the term might be employed. The reason that it's not exactly accurate is that those consigned to hell have the same sort of changed body, so it could just as accurately be called "hellish". At any rate, it is described as a "changed" body ... a "spiritual" body.

Same difference - it provides us with no information.

There is some information. It would be the same sort of body with which Jesus was resurrected.

Additionally, the claim is based on the Bible, and the evidence comes from...the Bible.

Certainly that's where it comes from.

Circular logic is illogical.

Just because the majority of the evidence comes from within the Bible does not mean it is circular.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 12:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 3:49:19 PM, Philocat wrote:

A common misconception is that Christianity holds to the theory of the soul leaving the body and remaining disembodied during the afterlife. Yet Jesus implies that post-mortem existence is bodily, and St. Paul writes that we have a spiritual, or 'pneumatic' body after death.

The main arguments for it, as a theory, aren't rational but scriptural. The arguments work from the assumption that Jesus was resurrected and hence we shall be too.

First of all, none of what you're talking about are theories, they are assertions that aren't based on any evidence or observation. Secondly, no such things as souls have ever been shown to exist. So far, you're working with baseless assertions and false premises.

In regards to the monism/dualism debate, the former fits best with the scientific paradigm of Western society, namely advances in neuropsychology. However, there are a fair few rational arguments for dualism.

Most of these arguments focus on the idea that there is some element of the mind that is immaterial.

Sorry, but the mind most certainly is material. Non-material = non-existence.

Nagel wrote that the sense of self and the sense of feeling (qualia) is non-biological because scientific enquiries into the brain can identify no part that pertains to qualia.

Sorry, but the arguments for qualia are extremely weak and have not shown to exist, either.

Richard Swinburne uses an analogy of an alien abduction; if super-advanced aliens captured a human and observed his brain whilst stamping on his foot, they would know what neurones are firing from what stimulus, but they can never know whether the human actually feels pain. This implies that there is an immaterial aspect of the mind because otherwise neuroscience would be able to locate it - hence dualism is true.

No, that does not imply the mind is immaterial as it ignores other parts of the central nervous system that indicate pain.

At 6/4/2015 7:39:18 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death
Are you serious?
You go to a school where such is worthy of examination?
WOW!!!
Do you get examined on death, you know what really happens?

It's a philosophy/theology exam and yes, life after death is a topic within that syllabus. The examination is on the theories of life after death, not necessarily what (if anything) actually happens.

At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
A.) Is there a good reason to believe in the existence of a soul? (Aside from the preference for it to be true.)

B.) Same contention that was brought up by a previous poster; a new body implies a new form that is different than your spirit, so the afterlife would have to be material for that to be true.

C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

A) From a Christian framework, the existence of a soul is perfectly sound to believe in because of the large emphasis on the non-physical within the religion. This heavily infers that there is part of us that is non-physical as well. From a rationalistic framework, then one can always look to the arguments for dualism I have written about above ^^

Non-physical = non-existence.

B) This is a point of contention within the theory - some such as St. Paul assert that the resurrected body will be a 'pneumatic' (spiritual) body. However, Jesus's resurrection was material (Luke 24) and this piece of scripture has lead many to argue that the resurrection of the dead will involve physical bodies.

C) Bertrand Russell voiced a similar opinion. He wrote that 'bodily continuity is a matter of appearance and behaviour, not substance'. Hence if one is given a new body, is it really their body? John Hick wrote that the new body will be a 'replica' of the old one, which is exactly the same (even the brain). Therefore the same psycho-physical 'quirks' you mention will continue on in the resurrected body.

At 6/4/2015 8:18:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Submit a blank page. That's how much life there is after death.

That's open to debate though :P


Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

It's a theory, is it? I would put it more on the level of wishful thinking.

A theory is a theory, whether it is a good theory or not is, again, up for debate. It does sound like wishful thinking, as an eternal heavenly bodily existence after death does sound too good to be true, although if Christianity and the resurrection of Jesus is accepted to be true then it is a sound inference,

It's only accepted as true from the position of faith and indoctrination.


What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

Equal. Equally devoid of anything approaching evidence.

If asked for empirical evidence, many dualists will appeal to parapsychology or near death experiences. Of course the chances are that many of these are hallucinations, but there are also awkward cases such as 'yoga memory' in which it is a lot harder, some may say impossible, to reduce these events to naturalistic causes.


For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

They're afraid of bodily death.

It's more than that. We're afraid of many things, but we don't automatically create theories to comfort ourselves.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 2:07:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 12:05:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/4/2015 3:49:19 PM, Philocat wrote:

A common misconception is that Christianity holds to the theory of the soul leaving the body and remaining disembodied during the afterlife. Yet Jesus implies that post-mortem existence is bodily, and St. Paul writes that we have a spiritual, or 'pneumatic' body after death.

The main arguments for it, as a theory, aren't rational but scriptural. The arguments work from the assumption that Jesus was resurrected and hence we shall be too.

First of all, none of what you're talking about are theories, they are assertions that aren't based on any evidence or observation. Secondly, no such things as souls have ever been shown to exist. So far, you're working with baseless assertions and false premises.

Theory: 'a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something' (Google definition)

The resurrection of the body as a theory is a supposition that is intended to explain what happens to us after we die. You may dispute the actuality of it, but is a theory nonetheless.

I suppose one could respond by saying that the theory has scriptural evidence, in that the Bible infers the truth of the theory. But if you're looking for empirical evidence, then I'm afraid I cannot think of any.


In regards to the monism/dualism debate, the former fits best with the scientific paradigm of Western society, namely advances in neuropsychology. However, there are a fair few rational arguments for dualism.

Most of these arguments focus on the idea that there is some element of the mind that is immaterial.

Sorry, but the mind most certainly is material. Non-material = non-existence.

But that's what the arguments argue for, you cannot simply deny the conclusion without taking issue with the premises.

Nagel wrote that the sense of self and the sense of feeling (qualia) is non-biological because scientific enquiries into the brain can identify no part that pertains to qualia.

Sorry, but the arguments for qualia are extremely weak and have not shown to exist, either.

What part of the argument is weak?

Richard Swinburne uses an analogy of an alien abduction; if super-advanced aliens captured a human and observed his brain whilst stamping on his foot, they would know what neurones are firing from what stimulus, but they can never know whether the human actually feels pain. This implies that there is an immaterial aspect of the mind because otherwise neuroscience would be able to locate it - hence dualism is true.

No, that does not imply the mind is immaterial as it ignores other parts of the central nervous system that indicate pain.

Swinburne doesn't dispute that neurological observation indicates pain, all he disputes is that there is no way of knowing, by empirical observation, that a person actually *feels* pain. Neurones can fire around the brain and these can be observed, but this does not in itself verify that the person genuinely feels pain.


At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
A.) Is there a good reason to believe in the existence of a soul? (Aside from the preference for it to be true.)

B.) Same contention that was brought up by a previous poster; a new body implies a new form that is different than your spirit, so the afterlife would have to be material for that to be true.

C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

A) From a Christian framework, the existence of a soul is perfectly sound to believe in because of the large emphasis on the non-physical within the religion. This heavily infers that there is part of us that is non-physical as well. From a rationalistic framework, then one can always look to the arguments for dualism I have written about above ^^

Non-physical = non-existence.

Physicalism is self-refuting though (which is the theory you're expounding).


Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

It's a theory, is it? I would put it more on the level of wishful thinking.

A theory is a theory, whether it is a good theory or not is, again, up for debate. It does sound like wishful thinking, as an eternal heavenly bodily existence after death does sound too good to be true, although if Christianity and the resurrection of Jesus is accepted to be true then it is a sound inference,

It's only accepted as true from the position of faith and indoctrination.

The former maybe, not necessarily the latter. Also, if one accepts the Bible then it is a rational conclusion for them to accept the resurrection of the body.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 2:41:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

1. God united his nature with ours through the incarnation. When Jesus rose from the dead he did not rise in spirit only, but it spirit and body.

2. God created Adam and Eve with bodies simultaneously with their soul. Thus we are not spirits with bodies, but we are embodied souls or ensouled bodies. God's will and nature is constant, so He desired us to be body and soul not only here, but in heaven as well.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 2:54:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 2:07:56 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/5/2015 12:05:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/4/2015 3:49:19 PM, Philocat wrote:

A common misconception is that Christianity holds to the theory of the soul leaving the body and remaining disembodied during the afterlife. Yet Jesus implies that post-mortem existence is bodily, and St. Paul writes that we have a spiritual, or 'pneumatic' body after death.

The main arguments for it, as a theory, aren't rational but scriptural. The arguments work from the assumption that Jesus was resurrected and hence we shall be too.

First of all, none of what you're talking about are theories, they are assertions that aren't based on any evidence or observation. Secondly, no such things as souls have ever been shown to exist. So far, you're working with baseless assertions and false premises.

Theory: 'a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something' (Google definition)

What system of ideas? There are none.

The resurrection of the body as a theory is a supposition that is intended to explain what happens to us after we die. You may dispute the actuality of it, but is a theory nonetheless.

It's a baseless assertion that doesn't explain anything. What observations do you have? What evidence? Anything?

I suppose one could respond by saying that the theory has scriptural evidence, in that the Bible infers the truth of the theory. But if you're looking for empirical evidence, then I'm afraid I cannot think of any.

That's because there is none, that's what it's just a baseless assertion. The bible is to truth as The Hobbit is to reality.


In regards to the monism/dualism debate, the former fits best with the scientific paradigm of Western society, namely advances in neuropsychology. However, there are a fair few rational arguments for dualism.

Most of these arguments focus on the idea that there is some element of the mind that is immaterial.

Sorry, but the mind most certainly is material. Non-material = non-existence.

But that's what the arguments argue for, you cannot simply deny the conclusion without taking issue with the premises.

The premises are false based on the evidence for the brain. The arguments are irrelevant as they ignore the evidence.

Nagel wrote that the sense of self and the sense of feeling (qualia) is non-biological because scientific enquiries into the brain can identify no part that pertains to qualia.

Sorry, but the arguments for qualia are extremely weak and have not shown to exist, either.

What part of the argument is weak?

There are several, but they all ignore the evidence of biology.

Richard Swinburne uses an analogy of an alien abduction; if super-advanced aliens captured a human and observed his brain whilst stamping on his foot, they would know what neurones are firing from what stimulus, but they can never know whether the human actually feels pain. This implies that there is an immaterial aspect of the mind because otherwise neuroscience would be able to locate it - hence dualism is true.

No, that does not imply the mind is immaterial as it ignores other parts of the central nervous system that indicate pain.

Swinburne doesn't dispute that neurological observation indicates pain, all he disputes is that there is no way of knowing, by empirical observation, that a person actually *feels* pain. Neurones can fire around the brain and these can be observed, but this does not in itself verify that the person genuinely feels pain.

That's what the rest of the neural network in our bodies shows, like nerves, for example, it's not just about neurons firing.


At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
A.) Is there a good reason to believe in the existence of a soul? (Aside from the preference for it to be true.)

B.) Same contention that was brought up by a previous poster; a new body implies a new form that is different than your spirit, so the afterlife would have to be material for that to be true.

C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

A) From a Christian framework, the existence of a soul is perfectly sound to believe in because of the large emphasis on the non-physical within the religion. This heavily infers that there is part of us that is non-physical as well. From a rationalistic framework, then one can always look to the arguments for dualism I have written about above ^^

Non-physical = non-existence.

Physicalism is self-refuting though (which is the theory you're expounding).

Sure, because it's philosophy and has little to do with reality.


Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

It's a theory, is it? I would put it more on the level of wishful thinking.

A theory is a theory, whether it is a good theory or not is, again, up for debate. It does sound like wishful thinking, as an eternal heavenly bodily existence after death does sound too good to be true, although if Christianity and the resurrection of Jesus is accepted to be true then it is a sound inference,

It's only accepted as true from the position of faith and indoctrination.

The former maybe, not necessarily the latter. Also, if one accepts the Bible then it is a rational conclusion for them to accept the resurrection of the body.

But, one usually only accepts the bible through indoctrination.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 5:00:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 2:54:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/5/2015 2:07:56 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 6/5/2015 12:05:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/4/2015 3:49:19 PM, Philocat wrote:

A common misconception is that Christianity holds to the theory of the soul leaving the body and remaining disembodied during the afterlife. Yet Jesus implies that post-mortem existence is bodily, and St. Paul writes that we have a spiritual, or 'pneumatic' body after death.

The main arguments for it, as a theory, aren't rational but scriptural. The arguments work from the assumption that Jesus was resurrected and hence we shall be too.

First of all, none of what you're talking about are theories, they are assertions that aren't based on any evidence or observation. Secondly, no such things as souls have ever been shown to exist. So far, you're working with baseless assertions and false premises.

Theory: 'a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something' (Google definition)

What system of ideas? There are none

The system of ideas is the collection of concepts that are within the theory. Namely when the resurrection will happen, who will be resurrected and how we will be. These may be incorrect ideas, but they are still ideas.

The resurrection of the body as a theory is a supposition that is intended to explain what happens to us after we die. You may dispute the actuality of it, but is a theory nonetheless.

It's a baseless assertion that doesn't explain anything. What observations do you have? What evidence? Anything?

For this particular theory, the evidence is scriptural (from the Bible).


I suppose one could respond by saying that the theory has scriptural evidence, in that the Bible infers the truth of the theory. But if you're looking for empirical evidence, then I'm afraid I cannot think of any.

That's because there is none, that's what it's just a baseless assertion. The bible is to truth as The Hobbit is to reality.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. It also explains why atheists do not assent to the theory of bodily resurrection - because the theory relies on biblical evidence which is viewed as worthless by those who do not believe the veracity of the Bible.

Yet if one does accept the Bible then biblical evidence is seen as satisfactory, and hence the resurrection of the body is evidenced.



In regards to the monism/dualism debate, the former fits best with the scientific paradigm of Western society, namely advances in neuropsychology. However, there are a fair few rational arguments for dualism.

Most of these arguments focus on the idea that there is some element of the mind that is immaterial.

Sorry, but the mind most certainly is material. Non-material = non-existence.

But that's what the arguments argue for, you cannot simply deny the conclusion without taking issue with the premises.

The premises are false based on the evidence for the brain. The arguments are irrelevant as they ignore the evidence.

None of the dualist arguments used 'ignore the evidence' of the brain, what evidence would this be?


Nagel wrote that the sense of self and the sense of feeling (qualia) is non-biological because scientific enquiries into the brain can identify no part that pertains to qualia.

Sorry, but the arguments for qualia are extremely weak and have not shown to exist, either.

What part of the argument is weak?

There are several, but they all ignore the evidence of biology.

Which evidence in particular?


Richard Swinburne uses an analogy of an alien abduction; if super-advanced aliens captured a human and observed his brain whilst stamping on his foot, they would know what neurones are firing from what stimulus, but they can never know whether the human actually feels pain. This implies that there is an immaterial aspect of the mind because otherwise neuroscience would be able to locate it - hence dualism is true.

No, that does not imply the mind is immaterial as it ignores other parts of the central nervous system that indicate pain.

Swinburne doesn't dispute that neurological observation indicates pain, all he disputes is that there is no way of knowing, by empirical observation, that a person actually *feels* pain. Neurones can fire around the brain and these can be observed, but this does not in itself verify that the person genuinely feels pain.

That's what the rest of the neural network in our bodies shows, like nerves, for example, it's not just about neurons firing.

But all that shows is a correlation between certain stimuli and certain neural processes, it does not elucidate what the person actually feels.



At 6/4/2015 8:13:03 AM, Chaosism wrote:
A.) Is there a good reason to believe in the existence of a soul? (Aside from the preference for it to be true.)

B.) Same contention that was brought up by a previous poster; a new body implies a new form that is different than your spirit, so the afterlife would have to be material for that to be true.

C.) You will likely be an entirely different being, should an afterlife exist. Many of the quirks and imperfections are what make you who you are. This quirks are quite usually explainable by neurology and psychology, so they are byproducts of the physical brain. I think this is especially true if a perfect "heaven" kind of afterlife existed.

A) From a Christian framework, the existence of a soul is perfectly sound to believe in because of the large emphasis on the non-physical within the religion. This heavily infers that there is part of us that is non-physical as well. From a rationalistic framework, then one can always look to the arguments for dualism I have written about above ^^

Non-physical = non-existence.

Physicalism is self-refuting though (which is the theory you're expounding).

Sure, because it's philosophy and has little to do with reality.

Philosophy has everything to do with reality. Everything comes down to philosophy ultimately.

You are asserting that everything is physical. This theory is called physicalism. It is logically incoherent to affirm that everything is physical and simultaneously deny physicalism, since they are the same view.


Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

It's a theory, is it? I would put it more on the level of wishful thinking.

A theory is a theory, whether it is a good theory or not is, again, up for debate. It does sound like wishful thinking, as an eternal heavenly bodily existence after death does sound too good to be true, although if Christianity and the resurrection of Jesus is accepted to be true then it is a sound inference,

It's only accepted as true from the position of faith and indoctrination.

The former maybe, not necessarily the latter. Also, if one accepts the Bible then it is a rational conclusion for them to accept the resurrection of the body.

But, one usually only accepts the bible through indoctrination.

Define indoctrination.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 5:42:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 11:54:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:38:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:33:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2015 11:22:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 4:08:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/4/2015 7:07:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/4/2015 6:33:05 AM, Philocat wrote:
I will recently have an exam on life after death, and I am particularly interested in the theory of the resurrection of the body.

Prevalent in Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and primarily Christianity, this theory maintains that after death, our souls will be placed into new heavenly bodies within which we live out our post-mortem existence.

What are your thoughts on this as a theory of life after death? How does it compare to theories that just involve the soul (not the body)?

For theists here, what are the arguments for bodily resurrection? Why do you believe in it?

For atheists (or anyone else who disagrees), why is this theory invalid? Is it any more or less probable than other theories of life after death?

I was not aware Christianity involved getting new bodies after death, so... How exactly does that work with the immaterial?

Yes, it does. As far as the "how", I do not think anyone knows that. It involves the statement, "From dust thou came, and to dust thou shalt return." But at the resurrection (in fact, the resurrection itself involves the resurrection of the body), the spirit is reunited with the body in changed form. The main reference for this would be I Cor 15.

Well, that is the problem with this theory (I assume he was using the term colloquially). If we don't know or have any evidence whatsoever to believe then why accept it as true? This is what is being accepted:

a) there is a soul, and it is separate from the body
b) the soul lives on after the death of the physical body
c) the soul gets a new body that is "heavenly".This term is so vague that is serves no purpose. It is a place holder at best, and it provides us with no description at all. It's fluff.

Not "heavenly", although I suppose the term might be employed. The reason that it's not exactly accurate is that those consigned to hell have the same sort of changed body, so it could just as accurately be called "hellish". At any rate, it is described as a "changed" body ... a "spiritual" body.

Same difference - it provides us with no information.

There is some information. It would be the same sort of body with which Jesus was resurrected.

Even if I conceded that Jesus was an actual person and was resurrected, I could still point to the fact that Jesus' resurrected body was physical - it certainly wasn't immaterial. I say that thinking of doubting Thomas touching the wounds, and the fact that Jesus ate and drank after his resurrection.

Additionally, the claim is based on the Bible, and the evidence comes from...the Bible.

Certainly that's where it comes from.

Circular logic is illogical.

Just because the majority of the evidence comes from within the Bible does not mean it is circular.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports a soul exists (much less that it can exist independently of the physical body), or that there is anyone with "changed body" after death (or that there is an afterlife). So, we only have a claim, and no evidence. Do you see the problem?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten