:up:Your logic and philosophy is really bad Sam! — Nickolasgaspar
it makes no sense – wastes time and effort – to wonder or fixate on where the flame goes when a candle blows/burns-out. Walking the path – living one's life (with courage & dignity as an end in itself) – is the destination, not some ... "afterlife". — 180 Proof
As the Buddha teaches, it makes no sense – wastes time and effort – to wonder or fixate on where the flame goes when a candle blows/burns-out. — 180 Proof
Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.There's a vested interest in materialism ... — Quixodian
for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.
You have not provided any publicly accessible evidence or sound arguments for an "afterlife" which hold up under even the most rudimentary scrutiny. What you think you "know", sir, is unwarranted, and therefore, dogmatic at best or delusional at worse. Your threads on this topic conspicuously corroborate my criticisms – and I have never based my rejection of your claims on "materialism" but on the demonstable insufficiency of your claims themselves.I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. It's an epistemological answer. I'm not guessing, surmising, giving an opinion, speculating, or expressing an intuition. — Sam26
Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias. — 180 Proof
because you were mis-quoting. The passage you're referring to about 'the candle being extinguished', was in a dialogue between the Buddha and a follower, about what happens to the Buddha's consciousness/mind after enlightenment. That's what cannot be speculated about. It's got nothing to do with Buddhist beliefs about the afterlife, so it's misleading in the context in which it was given.As the Buddha teaches... — 180 Proof
Might be true if the concept of matter was coherent, which it isn't, or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't. — Quixodian
I don't understand this reply.Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.
— 180 Proof
Might be true if the concept of matter was coherent, which it isn't, ... — Quixodian
How do you KNOW this?... or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't[
I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. — Sam26
Why do you think that is the case? It seems to me that the only question about the afterlife, you are convinced by 'overwhelming evidence,' that you can answer, is that it exists.Obviously there are questions that can't be answered about an afterlife — Sam26
Can you offer any conclusions from your musings regarding the nature and structure of the afterlife?And yes, I've mused over many of these questions, and will continue to muse over many other questions. — Sam26
Just because the evidence is overwhelming doesn't mean you can convince anyone or everyone of the conclusions that logically follow. — Sam26
If you had understood what I said about cogency this question wouldn't arise. — Sam26
As for my demonstrations, as you say, I've given them in the inductive argument. I guess you don't understand inductive arguments or you would've asked me this question. — Sam26
You can disagree with the argument, but the argument speaks for itself. If the argument is weak, then the conclusion probably doesn't follow, if it is strong (as I suppose it is), then the conclusion does follow. — Sam26
If the argument is weak, then the conclusion probably doesn't follow, if it is strong (as I suppose it is), then the conclusion does follow. — Sam26
Obviously there are questions that can't be answered about an afterlife
— Sam26
Why do you think that is the case? It seems to me that the only question about the afterlife, you are convinced by 'overwhelming evidence,' that you can answer, is that it exists.
99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth, are extinct, but do they all still exist in an afterlife? Or is it just humans that were born after ....... BCE? CE? — universeness
Can you offer any conclusions from your musings regarding the nature and structure of the afterlife? It seems to me that becomes your burden, based on your claims. — universeness
Well, I personally find E=MC2 very convincing, as it demonstrably works.
Do you think such as NDE's are as robust as E=MC2? — universeness
Can you help me understand what I have not so far understood about the term 'cogency' in the context you employ it? Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity. — universeness
An inductive argument is not capable of delivering a binary, true-or-false conclusion. This is because such arguments are often based on circumstantial evidence and a limited number of samples. Because of this limitation, an inductive argument can be disproven by a single negative or weak sample. — universeness
So if I argue that unicorns and fairies exist because I communicated with both, during my own NDE then they must both exist as my argument speaks for itself (you know that is a logical fallacy, right?)
I think you are overburdening the law of identity: — universeness
I find some of this discussion odd for a philosophy forum. — FrancisRay
Well perhaps I did not make my point clearly with the wording I chose. I was trying to ask you why you are only sure that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that an afterlife exists, and that's all you are sure of.Why do I think that there are many questions that we can't answer? — Sam26
So have you ruminated as to how you think the choice would be made for 'qualifies for the afterlife?' and who or what system would do, or has been doing the choosing?I don't know if all species go to an afterlife, probably not. It seems that certain animals do though. — Sam26
Your claim that the afterlife exists, was a very strong one.Why would you think that there is some burden for me to explain the nature and structure of the afterlife? — Sam26
If I claimed to you that I have overwhelming evidence that time travel into the future is available right now! Would you not expect me to provide some details of how it works and functions or would you just accept that my argument that I have personally experienced it but I cannot reveal the details or tell you what is going to happen due to a universal time prime directive (ie, those involved would kill me) speaks for itself. Would you suggest that such a claim, based on such evidence was absurd?I think the evidence is overwhelming — Sam26
I am writing a book called Stage II (stage 2) about an afterlife, but it only happens for approximately 1 in every 100 million humans. Just an interesting story (I hope,) nothing more. Where, how, why and the purpose of the stage II ascendents was fun to imagineer. Perhaps I didn't imagineer anything. Perhaps I was receiving Stage II communications, directly to my brain! :yikes:I think that space is, at least partly, an aspect of what we experience in an afterlife, i.e., as we move from place to place. — Sam26
Yep, perhaps you could write all your musing on the topic down in story form, and you might start a new religious/theosophist movement. I doubt my Stage II book (whenever I finish the f**ker) will start a new movement to rival the biggest growing new religion, 'The Jedi,' but I remain a dreamer. Perhaps your afterlife book, would be better and do better than mine.However, I do think the logic of my argument is very strong. So, it's not about robustness, but about the strength of the argument. — Sam26
I was tempted to not respond to your questions because many of the questions I've already answered several times in this thread. But I guess, one more time won't hurt. — Sam26
My belief is that consciousness is at the bottom of reality. It's a brute fact of reality. — Sam26
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.