A Rational Argument for Continued Existence Afte Death

Rocketdodger, the problem with your philosophy is that it's so egocentric. It's based almost in its entirety on what YOU choose to see and believe about your existence.

This creates a very dangerous ground for you: You may believe that it's rational for you to believe this, but what do you do when you are up against hard evidence?

More to the point, you yourself are not the one who determines what makes an argument rational. That is determined by the evidence presented, and how, and if, it can be tested. If it cannot be tested, or if it's overly limited in its scope, then the argument cannot be said to be rational.

(Sorry for the repeat, folks.)
 
Mobyseven said:
Bugger this for a joke. I'm not going to explain high-school level material to someone who doesn't think an appeal to emotion is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

You would rather post a flame, such as this, than a positive contribution that might enlighten me or others. That seems to be high school material, if you ask me.

If you prefer, just cut 3), 4), 5), and 6) out of the argument. Now there is no more "appeal to emotion."

Let me ask you a question, and perhaps your answer will show you what I am trying to get at.

"This proposition is false."

Is it rational for you to think the above proposition is true? False?

Is it rational for you to think the above proposition is not true? Not false?
 
rocketdodger said:
You would rather post a flame, such as this, than a positive contribution that might enlighten me or others. That seems to be high school material, if you ask me.

If you prefer, just cut 3), 4), 5), and 6) out of the argument. Now there is no more "appeal to emotion."

Let me ask you a question, and perhaps your answer will show you what I am trying to get at.

"This proposition is false."

Is it rational for you to think the above proposition is true? False?

Is it rational for you to think the above proposition is not true? Not false?
Click to expand...

None of the above. It's rational to think the above proposition is nonsense.
 
rocketdodger said:
You would rather post a flame, such as this, than a positive contribution that might enlighten me or others. That seems to be high school material, if you ask me.

If you prefer, just cut 3), 4), 5), and 6) out of the argument. Now there is no more "appeal to emotion."

Let me ask you a question, and perhaps your answer will show you what I am trying to get at.

"This proposition is false."

Is it rational for you to think the above proposition is true? False?

Is it rational for you to think the above proposition is not true? Not false?
Click to expand...
bruto said:
None of the above. It's rational to think the above proposition is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Given the normal meaning of the words used, the sentence above is a contradiction and cannot be either true OR false. As such, it is a nonsensical statement. To assign a truth value to it would be even more nonsensical.

As for the first part of your post - if you cut out the middle set of propositions, it still contains an argument from incredulity: I can't imagine x so it is rational for me not to believe in x.

It says rather a great deal more about the limits of your imagination than it does anything else, and is no more a valid argument than it is a porcupine.
 
Mobyseven said:
Bugger this for a joke. I'm not going to explain high-school level material to someone who doesn't think an appeal to emotion is a fallacy.
Click to expand...
Appeal to emotion is certainly a fallacy, especially if one is going to try to use it instead of evidence for something.

But, although Rocketdodger didn't make it clear at first, he seems to have stated that he is strongly agnostic to the idea of existence after death. He does not seem to be claiming it actually happens.

Since science can neither prove nor disprove (nor even begin to test this idea, at least not yet) the idea of existence (in any vague definition you choose) after death; one does have the right to argue "agnostic".
(Substitute "existence after death" for "god", and the same thing applies.)

Of course, RocketDodger's wording was probably too subtle, and could have been clearer. But, I hope everyone can see the difference now.
 
rocketdodger said:
Let me ask you a question, and perhaps your answer will show you what I am trying to get at.

"This proposition is false."

Is it rational for you to think the above proposition is true? False?

Is it rational for you to think the above proposition is not true? Not false?
Click to expand...
Rocketdodger, this does not help your argument. This makes you look like a fool.

Take my advice: Just tell everyone "I do not claim there really is existence after death. I'm just strongly agnostic to the idea. Apologies for not making that clear." And then high-tail it out of here!

Even I can't give you the benefit of doubt, if you are going to be this stupid.
 
Last edited:
Mobyseven said:
Bingo. Given the normal meaning of the words used, the sentence above is a contradiction
Click to expand...
A single proposition can be a contradiction?
Mobyseven said:
and cannot be either true OR false. As such, it is a nonsensical statement. To assign a truth value to it would be even more nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Yet it is a well-formed statement that will obey all the rules of any language you want to translate it into. I agree that it is nonsense, but I can't figure out why. It doesn't really do anything wrong, other than falling through a crack in our logical system. Which means although it is nonsense, it is nonsense I have to take seriously.

It is of course also nonsense to say "that statement is true." However, it is not nonsense, and entirely acceptable, to say "that statement is not true," because we know it can't be true. Normally, "not true" implies "true." In this case, it does not. Neither does "not false" imply "true."

So, in the case of existence, I am simply saying that because I consider non-existence to be the same sort of nonsense, it is entirely rational for me to say I do not believe in non-existence, because this does not imply that I do believe in unending existence.

Mobyseven said:
It says rather a great deal more about the limits of your imagination than it does anything else, and is no more a valid argument than it is a porcupine.
Click to expand...

Please tell me why you think a square circle does not exist. Then I will tell you why I think existing non-existence does not exist. If your argument is valid, mine will be as well.
 
Wowbagger said:
Even I can't give you the benefit of doubt, if you are going to be this stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't want to high-tail it out of here because if I am "stupid" then I want to learn and change. So please tell me why I am being "stupid," without assuming the words I write mean something other than *exactly* what I have written.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
I don't want to high-tail it out of here because if I am "stupid" then I want to learn and change. So please tell me why I am being "stupid," without assuming the words I write mean something other than *exactly* what I have written.
Click to expand...
Actually, I should have said "I can't give you the benefit of doubt, if your arguments are going to be that stupid." I did not mean to call you stupid, merely your "This proposition is false." argument. That was a bad omition of words, on my part. Sorry. :o

Others have already described why that argument doesn't help you. But to review: It is a nonsense phrase, not something that one can be "agnostic" about, like god or existence-after-death. The "logic" (if there is any) behind that phrase is not the same form as the "logic" you are using in the OP.
 
Wowbagger said:
The "logic" (if there is any) behind that phrase is not the same form as the "logic" you are using in the OP.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it is that different.

1) All I have known, and can know for that matter, are propositions that are true or false ("All I have known is existence")

2) Here we have a proposition that can be neither true nor false and hence I cannot really imagine it ("I cannot imagine existing non-existence").

3) Therefore, I am rational to think that such a proposition is not false and not true ("I am rational to not think my existence will end and not think my existence will continue").
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Yet it is a well-formed statement that will obey all the rules of any language you want to translate it into. I agree that it is nonsense, but I can't figure out why.

It doesn't really do anything wrong, other than falling through a crack in our logical system. Which means although it is nonsense, it is nonsense I have to take seriously.
Click to expand...
Our grammar rules were designed to facilite communication, through imperfect evolutionary processes. As a consequence, it's usage can be abused to make nonsense phrases.

When something obeys our language rules, that only means it follows the rules. It does not follow that it must therefore have meaning, and/or be taken seriously in any way.

When a statement is found to "fall through logic cracks", that could merely be an indication that the rules of language were abused, not that there is some threat to logic that needs to be taken seriously.

Anyone who does try to take statements like that seriously are playing semantics games, not really doing logic.
 
Sorry if this has been covered since I haven't read the entire thread, but here's a corollary:

The so-called afterlife is supposed to be perfect. But any change from perfection will be less than perfect, so there can be no change in the afterlife. Think what that would mean from the perspective of one experiencing the afterlife -- it would amount to a single instant, unchanging. One maneuver to save the idea is to remove it from time - but there again, single unchanging moment, eternal bliss.

From an experiential viewpoint how does this differ from the last instant of our own existence/life?
 
Wowbagger said:
Our grammar rules were designed to facilite communication, through imperfect evolutionary processes. As a consequence, it's usage can be abused to make nonsense phrases.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know but I am talking about formal languages, not evolved human ones.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
The so-called afterlife is supposed to be perfect. But any change from perfection will be less than perfect, so there can be no change in the afterlife.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the afterlife is not Ultimately Perfect, but merely perfect from the participants' point of view. And, that form of "perfection" could allow all the necessary changes that need to take place, in order to maintain what appears to be perfection, from those points of view.

Ichneumonwasp said:
From an experiential viewpoint how does this differ from the last instant of our own existence/life?
Click to expand...
We would not around to experience anything after the last instant.
 
vexed said:
Tell me memories of yours before you were born, are they non-existent? Now can you imagine non-existence?
Click to expand...

But I can form an idea of what it was like in the world before I was born. And I can form an idea of what the world will be like after I die. Thinking of a state where I am no longer existing is not the same as thinking of non-existence.
 
Wowbagger said:
My understanding is that the afterlife is not Ultimately Perfect, but merely perfect from the participants' point of view. And, that form of "perfection" could allow all the necessary changes that need to take place, in order to maintain what appears to be perfection, from those points of view.
Click to expand...

But we are examining this from the individual's experience, from that person's point of view. It doesn't matter that there may be change externally to account for an internal experience of perfection. God may change whatever he wants, but perfrect from the participant's point of view cannot change.

We would not around to experience anything after the last instant.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. So from that person's point of view (his or her experience) the last instant is an eternity, or at least the same as an unchanging eternity. Again, the outside frame doesn't matter here, just the internal experience. There is no such thing as experience for that individual after death, so how does the last moment of life differ from an eternal unchanging afterlife (particularly if that last instant is bliss)?

And, I'm sure you guys have already covered this, but the OP turns on an equivocation over the use of the word "existence". The only non-existence that we cannot imagine is Existence itself. We can easily imagine the non-existence of many things, including ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom