A Rational Argument for Continued Existence Afte Death

[Apathia]

Sorry, you don't get to conflate imagination and rationality.

 

[rocketdodger]

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

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about, and for the record I was afraid people would interpret it like this. I am not considering existence in general, I am considering my own existence only.

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

It means it was not rational for those people to think they were, which is exactly my point.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

Yes this is what our knowledge of the external world tells us. But our knowledge of our own existence only includes existence, not pre- or post-existence. My argument is that because we can't conceive of the end of our existence then it is not rational to think it exists.

Note that I did not say anything about an afterlife or any woo/religious mumbo jumbo. I am also not claiming that there *is* continued existence after death. I am only saying that it is rational for a person to not believe their existence will end. This is in direct opposition with what we believe due to all the external evidence we are given. Perhaps we have a limitation of human intellect here? The inability to conceive of our own end?

 

[rocketdodger]

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

Yes, but it isn't a problem for those premises. My point was that 3) and 4) seem to suggest a "not-existence" exists, yet to understand them we must be existing in the first place, etc.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

So you contend that a statement like "the left boulder seems to be larger than the right" would make any inferences made from that statement invalid?

No, you are wrong. I can put anything I want in a statement, and, as long as it is a properly constructed sentence, the rules of logic remain the same. The statement is either true or false. Granted, determining whether a statement like " blah blah seems to have greater weight" may be fairly difficult to determine, and perhaps only the one making the statement could say for sure. But it is still plain old logical thought.

 

[INRM]

Logic's flawed there.

According to a neurotheologist (sp?) the reason people wonder where they came from and developed God beliefs is because they can't recall the first 2 years of their lives.

Could be wrong though... I'm not sure what this guy said was actually proven or just theorized.

INRM

 

[rocketdodger]

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 did not claim that it is rational to believe one will continue to exist after death (although the thread title says as much, I did that for marketing purposes ). I claim that it is rational to not believe my existence will not continue upon my death.

In our logical system, the latter is equivalent to the former, and vica versa. However, what I am trying to explain is that (as you all should know) our logical system is incomplete and things can fall through the cracks. I think this is one such case. We know we will die and cease to exist, but at the same time we know nothing but existence. Therefore it may be rational to both believe we will cease to exist and to not believe we will cease to exist.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

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

Well ... duh.

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

Impossible?? I can do it quite easily. No mental gymnastics or rationality required, but then again, I do have a pretty good imagination.

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

This is true for me as well.

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.

Same here.

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

Umm ... yes?

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

Why? Aren't 1) and 2) predicated on your own existence, too? Is there something else that gives "much greater weight" to 1) and 2) ?

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

Actually, it doesn't seem rational at all. It sounds more like an argument from incredulity and a heavy reliance on your own imagination. Do you imagine that your "own existence" is a separate thing and may have different properties than mine? What makes you imagine that your mental existence is separate from your physical existence? Of course, your existence could simply be a product of my imagination -- dreams within dreams, and all that -- but we really don't want to go there. It's not rational.

I make no arguments either for or against continued mental existence after physical death. I have seen no compelling evidence for or against continued mental existence of any kind after physical death. I have, however, seen evidence of physical existence continuing after "brain death". I'm curious to know what you imagine is happening to that person's "existence" in those cases.

 

[AudioFreak]

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

The logic is circular. Your existance as you percieve it is not. The thing called "you" had a beginning. There is a finite point in time at which you were conceived. Before that; nothing. Ergo, you can surmise that you will have an end (comprehensible or not).

Your atoms won't cease to exist; they'll simply become parts of other things. The "you" which is identified as a person is a temporary state; a combination of organic parts with a limited lifespan.

Just because you cannot fathom non-existence does not in the slightest imply that there is another life.

 

[triadboy]

So you contend that a statement like "the left boulder seems to be larger than the right" would make any inferences made from that statement invalid?

As any lawyer knows - eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

Here's another statement that fooled our ancestors:

"The moon seems larger than the sun."

 

[Roadtoad]

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.

Evidence?

What can you provide that others can examine, study, review?

 

[Mobyseven]

Seems to me that someone has been reading Descartes...and missed the point. And the rebuttals. And the logical analyses.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The logic... It seems... Rather illogical.

I have no idea where to start trying to disprove it.

I think you missed some steps... Or something...

 

[hgc]

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

If it's all completely internal to you, what's it got to do with us? It's like you're saying flat-out that even though you've asked the question in a public forum, no one you've asked will have the answer.

 

[OldTigerCub]

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that I am a figment of my own immagination.

Logic's flawed there.

According to a neurotheologist (sp?) the reason people wonder where they came from and developed God beliefs is because they can't recall the first 2 years of their lives.

Could be wrong though... I'm not sure what this guy said was actually proven or just theorized.

INRM

Just curious...I never heard of a neurotheologist....would that be someone who uses prayer instead of surgery to treat brain or spinal injuries?
Like I said, just curious....

 

[rocketdodger]

Why? Aren't 1) and 2) predicated on your own existence, too? Is there something else that gives "much greater weight" to 1) and 2) ?

I already addressed this above, but if you want just get rid of 3) through 6), and the conclusion is the same.

It sounds more like an argument from incredulity and a heavy reliance on your own imagination.

That doesn't preclude it from being rational as well.

Do you imagine that your "own existence" is a separate thing and may have different properties than mine?

Don't know.

What makes you imagine that your mental existence is separate from your physical existence?

I don't think it is, never claimed otherwise. I explicitly said I was a materialist.

I make no arguments either for or against continued mental existence after physical death. I have seen no compelling evidence for or against continued mental existence of any kind after physical death.

And that is all I claim as well. I said "it is rational to not believe my existence will end upon my death."

 

[rocketdodger]

Ergo, you can surmise that you will have an end (comprehensible or not).

I can look at the evidence the world around me provides and surmise such a thing, yes. But like with the concept of infinity, being able to define, use, and speak about such a thing doesn't mean I believe it exists.

Just because you cannot fathom non-existence does not in the slightest imply that there is another life.

I absolutely, 100%, agree with you. I never said that there was such an implication (except in the thread title, which, like I said, was just a marketing strategy). I said that because I cannot fathom non-existence it is rational for me to not believe my existence will end.

 

[rocketdodger]

As any lawyer knows - eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

Here's another statement that fooled our ancestors:

"The moon seems larger than the sun."

Yet, everyone agrees that it was rational for them to think the moon was indeed larger than the sun, given the information they had on hand. Rationality isn't about being right, its about making logically valid inferences.

 

[rocketdodger]

Seems to me that someone has been reading Descartes...and missed the point. And the rebuttals. And the logical analyses.

I read Descartes some time ago, got the point, and the rebuttals, and the analyses, and this never occured to me during that time, so thank you for trying to make me look an undergraduate twit but in this case your read on me is incorrect.

 

[Mercutio]

1) Have you never been asleep? Are you aware of your existence then?

2) Dreamless sleep? No clue as to the passage of time--no experience of anything

You say you cannot imagine non-existence; you must have a vastly different imagination from mine. Of course, I never remember my dreams, so my "awareness of my existence" may be quite different from yours.

To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd.