The time to believe something is when there is good evidence for it. However, this just kicks the debate down the road into the what-counts-as-evidence territory. — Tom Storm
I mean it though - the notion of an afterlife simply has no conceptual coherence. After-life = life beyond death. This is no different to a square circle. The woo peddlers reckon they get get around this by cleaving life into two such that there is bodily life on the one hand and then - depending on who you ask because there is no precision here at all - mental, spiritual, conscious or soul-life. But no one has any idea what this last kind of 'life' is, or exactly how 'life' and any of these categories are meant to be conceptually articulated. Or how the 'life' that qualifies any of these latter things has anything in common with the 'life' of the body. It's complete wordplay. A grammar mistake that, because it is so obviously incoherent to anyone with a basic grasp of english ("dead life that is alive"), must cover it up by making internal distinctions that have no purport at all, and fall apart at the slightest prodding because held together by nothing than pseudo-grammatical glue.
One doesn't need to 'argue' that square-circles don't exist: anyone who thinks they do disqualifies themselves as a speaker of english. So too peddlers of 'the afterlife'. — StreetlightX
To even ponder a question like that we need to agree on the definition of words that we use. Like soul, existence and mind. — Don Kotlos
:smirk: (Play nice.) — 180 Proof
But what type of evidence would be reasonable to convince skeptics that an afterlife probably is a real possibility? — TiredThinker
A can of worms, with immortal worms in it. — Wayfarer
* — Wayfarer
But what type of evidence would be reasonable to convince skeptics that an afterlife probably is a real possibility? — TiredThinker
I wish you'd read my post that came from my own thoughts, and commented on it. — god must be atheist
After-life = life after the cessation life. This is no different to a square circle. — StreetlightX
After-life = life after the cessation life. This is no different to a square circle. — StreetlightX
This is a disingenuous strawman: 'afterlife' is taken to mean life for the individual after this life. — Janus
it is good form to at least try to understand what proponents of views incompatible with yours actually believe instead of mischaracterizing them and rejecting them out of hand. — Janus
there are some... have fun. Philosophy should be named Funosophy, because we don't do it for the love of it, but for the fun of it. Socrates very much being a pioneer in this movement.Point me to the post you are referring to and I'll be happy to comment on it. — Janus
this starts with a pedantic analysis of the wording of the OP. If this post of mine was read and taken seriously, the thread would be stopped dead in its tracks. But that's no fun.To me, if you reworded the question, the only proof would be personal. — god must be atheist
Debunking a skeptic -- this is a bit more meaningfulI think you are using an equivocation. — god must be atheist
my epistemological manifestoMany know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know. — god must be atheist
there are some... have fun. Philosophy should be named Funosophy, because we don't do it for the love of it, but for the fun of it. Socrates very much being a pioneer in this movement. — god must be atheist
To me, if you reworded the question, the only proof would be personal. — god must be atheist
Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know. — god must be atheist
my epistemological manifesto — god must be atheist
After-life = life after the cessation life. This is no different to a square circle. — StreetlightX
This is a disingenuous strawman: 'afterlife' is taken to mean life for the individual after this life. — Janus
Exactly what is different about what you said? — StreetlightX
there is nothing logically contradictory about imagining that there might be continuance of an individual life in some different (obviously unknown) form — Janus
Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know. — god must be atheist
my epistemological manifesto
— god must be atheist
To know just is to believe, unless it is direct. I see it is raining, therefore I know it is raining. — Janus
True it must be fun in the sense of interesting, but don't you acknowledge a dimension of philosophy that may inform the living of life? — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.