Dead is the End?

[Iacchus]

What? That's a totally different argument than you were making before! Your school analogy makes no sense now. Are you saying that we go through this life and die so that it means something for God to be immortal?

Please try sticking to one line of thought before spontaniously jumping to another. It'll make your position(s) easier to understand....

What was that song by Sting, "We are Spirits Living in the Material World?"

 

[Upchurch]

What was that song by Sting, "We are Spirits Living in the Material World?"

What? You're arguing via song titles now? Are you just abandoning the school analogy then?

What's your purpose with this line of discussion? Are you trying to convince people or just simply putting forth you belief system with no justification whatsoever?

 

[Suezoled]

Well, since you seem to know American songs so well, how about a Japanese one?

(snipped)
itsuka karada sae kaze ni nari daichi e
kaeru darou
dakedo kokoro wa doko e yuku no ka hito wa
kotae wo shiranai
soshite arukidasu
hikari naki yoru wo yuke


-Kamikashuki Ayatsuri Sakon

Translated:

Someday our bodies will become the wind
but where do our hearts go?
No one knows
So we tread the darkness of this life

Silly, huh? Silly like you using a song to back up your assertion.

 

[RussDill]

And what happens to the radio signal when the radio is broken? The signal is still there, as clear as it was before, and the only thing which has changed is the radio, which has now become impaired.

ok, thats great for a radio, but you have in no way shown that a radio is like a mind. Analogies are a good way of explaining something, but are of no use when you are attempting to prove something.

 

[El Greco]

Waste ? Why would carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and a multitude of other elements be considered as waste ? When we die we become very good plant, bacteria and worm food.

Cheer up! Life goes on, even without you!

 

[Upchurch]

What was that song by Kansas, "Dust in the Wind"

I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone
All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind.
Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind

[Now] Don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, and all your money won't another minute buy.

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind, everything is dust in the wind.

Is this a valid argument?

 

[RussDill]

What was that song by Sting, "We are Spirits Living in the Material World?"

http://www.elyrics.net/go/g/Germs/No_God/

I'd prey to anything out there
If only I was given some sign to bear
But while I wait I'm gonna live,
See...there's no God to watch over me-
No God for human beings...

lemme get this straight here, lyrics prove nothing, song titles prove nothing, and analogies prove nothing, they merely convey ideas, true or false.

 

[Upchurch]

lemme get this straight here, lyrics prove nothing, song titles prove nothing, and analogies prove nothing, they merely convey ideas, true or false.

a'yup.

Further, add to the list: logic and reasoning. They can only disprove something if it is shown to be internally inconsistant.

 

[Iacchus]

Who said all things must make sense? Perhaps life is ultimately futile..."full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Just because we might wish things to be a certain way... it doesn't mean they are.

I don't think most people believe that. Do you?

Boiled down to basics your argument runs something like this:Because we live, that proves that living must have a purpose beyond life.

Tell it to the Wright brothers! Because if you keep approaching it from the standpoint of being "earth-bound," it'll never fly.

Well why? How can life be proof of anything other than what it is? What you are suggesting has no basis in anything other than good old fashioned wishful thinking. You want there to be more....this life seems unjust, pointless and too short. I can understand that. As the buddhists say *life is unsatisfactory*. But a wish is not a convincing argument. We already know from this life here on Earth, that things dont always make sense and turn out the way we think they should.

And yet because it's so close to the spirit, conscious desire is the manifestation of "spiritual desire."

But what is a spirit? Is it something hidden and magically attached? Is it "what we are", ie; a personality or "essence" experienced through our consciousness? Do you think they are one and the same?

Spirit is the essence of everything, but primarily manifests itself through consciousness.

If so and consciousness is a function of the brain [which the evidence seems to point to, free will et al]and ceases to exist when the brain dies how will we experience this afterlife?

Does the radio signal cease to exist when the radio is broken?

Do we enter the afterlife with the personality we have at death when we may be damaged by disease or the one we had when we were at our best?

If we grow old and feeble, we essentially enter as old and feeble. But that isn't to say we're not allowed (eventually) to return to what we cherished most in life, and return to the "spring of our youth" so to speak.

What if we are born with limited consciousness and a zilch personality?

That's hard to say. However, the spiritual world/reality is a very diverse place.

Or is it the magically, hidden spirit which goes?

It's essentially your personality which passes on.

Do all sentient beings get an afterlife...cats, dogs, pigs, gorillas? Life can be pretty unsatisfactory for them too.

Yes, all these things exist in the spiritual reality as well. Otherwise it would have been impossible to savor the taste of the beer I had in my dream the other night.

 

[Iacchus]

What? You're arguing via song titles now? Are you just abandoning the school analogy then?

What's your purpose with this line of discussion? Are you trying to convince people or just simply putting forth you belief system with no justification whatsoever?

We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side). Given that, I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...

Much as the grub is transformed into a butterfly.

 

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Just because we might wish things to be a certain way... it doesn't mean they are.

I don't think most people believe that. Do you?

What does what "most people believe" matter? Incidently, for what it's worth, I agree with Jessica. As do you, apparently, from your next statement:

Tell it to the Wright brothers! Because if you keep approaching it from the standpoint of being "earth-bound," it'll never fly.

Most people believed that man couldn't fly, but that didn't mean that man couldn't fly, did it? Most people believe that things are a certain way, it doesn't mean they are.

Do we enter the afterlife with the personality we have at death when we may be damaged by disease or the one we had when we were at our best?

If we grow old and feeble, we essentially enter as old and feeble. But that isn't to say we're not allowed (eventually) to return to what we cherished most in life, and return to the "spring of our youth" so to speak.

How do you know this? What is the sorce of your information?

 

[Upchurch]

We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side). Given that, I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...

It's hardly "given", it's an assumption. All of your arguments have been based on assumption and speculation. Do you have any concrete evidence to support anything you've posted?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side). Given that, I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...

Much as the grub is transformed into a butterfly.

The problem is that you keep asking us to accept that we have an immortal side, infact the crux of your argument depends on it. However, you have yet to show one shred of evidence for this. Until you do, all your analogies mean nothing.

 

[Iacchus]

ok, thats great for a radio, but you have in no way shown that a radio is like a mind. Analogies are a good way of explaining something, but are of no use when you are attempting to prove something.

You want proof? And since when does philosophy require you prove anything? For indeed without the ability of conjecture, how could you ever learn anything new?

 

[RussDill]

I don't think most people believe that. Do you?

If you are simply looking for the truth, does it matter?

Tell it to the Wright brothers! Because if you keep approaching it from the standpoint of being "earth-bound," it'll never fly.

The Wright brother had very strong evidence that powered flight was possible. Birds flying would be a good example, altough, at such a time, I'm sure immaterialists such as yourself might have claimed that its the spirit of the bird that allowed it to fly, and that man was not born with wings, and could never fly.

Anyway, the Wright brothers did not just build their plane and hope it would fly, they approached the problem from a *very* scientific standpoint, testing many ideas with experimentation.

The anology you attempt between flight and spirituality is meaningless unless you can present the same type of evidence the wright brothers had (as well as start explaining how we could do some sceintific experimentation like the wright brothers did)

And yet because it's so close to the spirit, conscious desire is the manifestation of "spiritual desire."

How can you make such blatantly circular arguments and still take yourself seriously? Oh yea, I forgot, you don't, you just believe what you want to believe.

Spirit is the essence of everything, but primarily manifests itself through consciousness.

You haven't explained spirit, nor provided any predictions about expected behavior.

Does the radio signal cease to exist when the radio is broken?

Again, a bad analogy, no evidence points to the brain acting like a radio. Please point to some.

If we grow old and feeble, we essentially enter as old and feeble. But that isn't to say we're not allowed (eventually) to return to what we cherished most in life, and return to the "spring of our youth" so to speak.

Really? You've never been to the afterlife, what evidence do you hav...er, nevermind, this is just what you want to believe, my bad.

That's hard to say. However, the spiritual world/reality is a very diverse place.

I don't think you understood the point of her question...

It's essentially your personality which passes on.

Personality is greatly effected by chemicals in the brain. If you have a chemical embalance, and take medication to correct this imbalance, which personality are you in the afterlife? What about those with multiple personality disorder? What about people who suffer severe brain trama and change personalities, or even in more severe cases, forget everything about their life up to that point, including their personality, and start over from scratch? These beliefs you desire to be true do not match up well to reality.

Yes, all these things exist in the spiritual reality as well. Otherwise it would have been impossible to savor the taste of the beer I had in my dream the other night.

Dreams have nothing to do with the spirit world. Have you ever actually studied modern findings on dreams and dreaming? You may wish to read this paper to bring yourself up to speed:

http://www.brain-mind.com/Dreaming.html

 

[RussDill]

We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side).

This is what you are arguing.

Given that,

Thats not an argument...Thats an assumption, you can only say "Given that" if you have shown "that"

I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...

Even if we do have a spirit or soul, its still no evidence that a spirit or soul would live on after we die. You would have to prove both.

Much as the grub is transformed into a butterfly.

eh? Please explain how the human body and brain is transformed into a spirit. All my evidence points to the human body and brain decomposing into dirt.

 

[RussDill]

You want proof? And since when does philosophy require you prove anything? For indeed without the ability of conjecture, how could you ever learn anything new?

An opinion, or judgment, formed on defective or presumptive evidence; probable inference; surmise; guess; suspicion.

Clearly, a conjecture on its own cannot provide us with any truth. However, there are things we can do.

First, instead of just providing a conjecture, we could form our opinion or judgement on solid evidence.

Second, we could make our conjecture, and then setup a sound experiment using the sceintific method in order to test the assumptions and predictions of our conjecture.


Edited to add: What truth has been learned from conjecture alone?

 

[Iacchus]

The problem is that you keep asking us to accept that we have an immortal side, infact the crux of your argument depends on it. However, you have yet to show one shred of evidence for this. Until you do, all your analogies mean nothing.

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence. Of course you may not see it as such, but only because you've concluded it means something else, and that's not my problem.

Neither have I asked you to accept anything by the way.

 

[Upchurch]

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence.

Do you consider an analogy to be evidence?

Regardless, could you please outline your items of evidence for the immortal soul?

 

[RussDill]

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence. Of course you may not see it as such, but only because you've concluded it means something else, and that's not my problem.

I've been following pretty closely, and I haven't seen any evidence, I'm curious, what do you consider to be evidence? BTW, here is more evidence that shows that the idea that we have a spirit is completely wrong, if we have a spirit at all, we have at least two:

http://www.brain-mind.com/SplitBrain.html

Neither have I asked you to accept anything by the way.

No, but extrodinary claims are going to require extrodinary evidence, not just "I want to believe"

Edited for formatting