A Rational Argument for Continued Existence Afte Death

[rocketdodger]

1) All I have known, my entire existence, is existence.

2) It is impossible for me to even imagine non-existence.

3) I understand that in the world I perceive, people cease to exist to me after they die.

4) As a materialist I know my mind will cease to be supported by my physical brain after I die, and hence, my mind will cease to exist as well.

5) My understanding of 3) and 4) are predicated, however, on my own existence.

6) Thus 1) and 2) seem to be of much greater weight than 3) and 4).

7) Thus, it is rational for me to not believe my existence will end upon my death.

 

[Hokulele]

8) Or it is rational to believe that all existence will end upon your death.

See how easy it is to come up with absurd conclusions based on unsound premises? Fun!

 

[uruk]

Do you have any recollection of your existance before you born or concieved?
Then why should you expect any continued experiance of existance after you are dead?

 

[Mercutio]

1) All I have known, my entire existence, is existence.

For the entire length of a rope, it is rope.

2) It is impossible for me to even imagine non-existence.

I cannot even imagine a non-rope rope.

3) I understand that in the world I perceive, people cease to exist to me after they die.

I understand that ropes have ends.

4) As a materialist I know my mind will cease to be supported by my physical brain after I die, and hence, my mind will cease to exist as well.

As a materialist, I know that ropes are made of hemp, cotton, nylon, or other stuff, and if there is no stuff, there is no rope.

5) My understanding of 3) and 4) are predicated, however, on my own existence.

My understanding of 3 and 4 are general, rather than based on a particular piece of rope.

6) Thus 1) and 2) seem to be of much greater weight than 3) and 4).

Ditto.

7) Thus, it is rational for me to not believe my existence will end upon my death.

No, it's not. You have not accounted for what you did not experience before your existence. Sure, it's all hearsay, but unless you honestly think there was no existence before you were aware, there is no reason to think that a rope that had a definite beginning does not also have a definite end.

 

[Macoy]

9) All existence exists in the eternal present, so I am flatter than the universe.

 

[rocketdodger]

See how easy it is to come up with absurd conclusions based on unsound premises? Fun!

If you consider any of my premises unsound, please tell me why. Considering all of them are completely internal to me, good luck.

 

[Hokulele]

#6 is also predicated upon your existence, so the entire logic chain becomes circular.

 

[rocketdodger]

No, it's not. You have not accounted for what you did not experience before your existence. Sure, it's all hearsay, but unless you honestly think there was no existence before you were aware, there is no reason to think that a rope that had a definite beginning does not also have a definite end.

But there *was* no existence prior to my being aware -- for me. Sure, what I know of the world suggests otherwise, but what I know of *existence* itself has no beginning nor conceivable end.

If you can't imagine an end to a rope, then it is entirely rational to think the rope will not end.

 

[rocketdodger]

#6 is also predicated upon your existence, so the entire logic chain becomes circular.

You understand! If the chain is circular, *how can it end*?

BTW does anyone know the html code for starting and stopping italics? I am tired of using *.

 

[Hokulele]

You understand! If the chain is circular, *how can it end*?

If the logic is circular, how can you come to a conclusion (end)?

BTW does anyone know the html code for starting and stopping italics? I am tired of using *.

I believe it is [ i ] [ / i ] (without the spaces). Let me test it.

Yup.

 

[athon]

But there *was* no existence prior to my being aware -- for me.

You're simply playing with the word 'existance', then. Things sure did exist before you, regardless of whether you personally observed it first hand or second hand. You could just as reasonably argue that 'Iceland - for you - doesn't exist'. Fine, in your head maybe you could argue that, however objectively it still exists.

Reality, afterall, is that which still exists after you close your eyes to it.

If you can't imagine an end to a rope, then it is entirely rational to think the rope will not end.

No, it is not rational at all. Before anybody could imagine that some moving stars were planets, does that mean they weren't?

Radical post-modernist philosophising is best done with tissues and a slightly warmed jar of Vaseline, my friend.

Athon

 

[Dorian Gray]

It is impossible for me to imagine not having sex with Salma Hayek. therefore it is rational for me to believe that I will have sex with Salma Hayek upon my death.

Hey, I like this game.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have any recollection of your existance before you born or concieved?
Then why should you expect any continued experiance of existance after you are dead?

What is perhaps more interesting is - if you don't worry about what happened to you before you were born - why worry about what happens to you after you die?

 

[Big Les]

It's just one big argument from incredulity. None of us can imagine what it's like to be nothing at all, and some of us can't even conceive of such a thing but that seems supremely arrogant to me. There is no evidence at all that any consciousness persists after death. Every other animal on the planet dies and is destroyed, why should we be any different? All of us will become nothing more than (briefly) food for other organisms, and then just the space-dust we came from, everything that made us "us" totally obliterated for all time.

Personally, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Angus McPresley]

5) My understanding of 3) and 4) are predicated, however, on my own existence.

I don't get it. Aren't 1) and 2) predicated on your own existence as well?

 

[fls]

1) All I have known, my entire existence, is existence.

2) It is impossible for me to even imagine non-existence.

3) I understand that in the world I perceive, people cease to exist to me after they die.

4) As a materialist I know my mind will cease to be supported by my physical brain after I die, and hence, my mind will cease to exist as well.

5) My understanding of 3) and 4) are predicated, however, on my own existence.

6) Thus 1) and 2) seem to be of much greater weight than 3) and 4).

7) Thus, it is rational for me to not believe my existence will end upon my death.

It is perhaps rational to say that you will only experience your own existence and therefore will never experience an end to your existence. But where does that get you? It can't be extrapolated to tell whether or not others can experience an end to your existence, or to whether or not your experience of existing encompasses anything more than what you experienced while alive from our perspective.

Linda

 

[l0rca]

Rockdodger, this is not a rational argument at all. "Seems to have greater weight" is not logic; it's emotion. This is an emotional argument for an afterlife. It doesn't make logical sense at all.

 

[madurobob]

1) All I have known, my entire existence, is existence.

This really depends on your definition of known and existence.

I would argue that you have known many things - plants, dogs, cats, cows, chickens, humans, etc... that have, to the absolute extent of your knowledge, ceased to exist. You have no evidence of them continuing to exist after death so there is no evidence that you should.

I know that does not necessarily play within the rules of your existential solipsism game. But, thats just the way I am.

 

[Supercharts]

After death it will be the same as before you were conceived.

 

[Talby]

After death it will be the same as before you were conceived.

I can live with that. Oh, wait...