You're citing Descartes first step in the proof of God - for what reason? (Reply #72)

In the discussion thread: "Proof" (?) of an afterlife [View all]

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #45)

Sun Oct 9, 2016, 04:41 PM

rug (82,333 posts)

72. You're citing Descartes first step in the proof of God - for what reason?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

98 replies	Author	Time	Post
"Proof" (?) of an afterlife [View all]	left-of-center2012	Oct 2016	OP
It's purely a matter of faith	grubbs	Oct 2016	#1
None, as far as I've ever seen. nt	SusanCalvin	Oct 2016	#2
There is no material evidence. We are left with Thomas.	rug	Oct 2016	#3
Doubting Thomas?	beveeheart	Oct 2016	#6
One and the same.	rug	Oct 2016	#8
The only thing that lives on is the good you do for others	Moostache	Oct 2016	#4
Plato and Sirach affirmed that.	Brettongarcia	Oct 2016	#23
There is much we don't know.	pipoman	Oct 2016	#5
We are here now. In what may be an infinite universe of infinite possibilities,	Doodley	Oct 2016	#7
That's essentially what I'm going to write.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#10
Thanks for the reply. I agree that is possible, but if it is inevitable we will return, is it also	Doodley	Oct 2016	#14
I've wondered about that.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#22
I agree that the chances of our existence seems to be so tiny that it appears	Doodley	Oct 2016	#53
And the chances of getting the correct number on all 100 roles of dice would be far greater	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#57
You keep trying to put the burden of proof on others for disproving your reincarnation theory	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#91
Throughout history	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#92
I'm not sure how this helps your argument	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#95
Ain't any.	Iggo	Oct 2016	#9
Zero evidence of afterlife.	Bernardo de La Paz	Oct 2016	#11
Also looking up to see the white operating table lights	Brettongarcia	Oct 2016	#86
Much as I'd like to live on forever after I die, writing a book just seems like too much work.	stone space	Oct 2016	#12
All reward and punishment in the afterlife is conveniently unverifyable	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#13
It is only unverifiable if we cannot confirm that we are not already in an afterlife.	Doodley	Oct 2016	#15
Even then it's still unverifiable because you can't confirm the after-afterlife	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#16
No you can't, but can you confirm that our existence now is life or the afterlife?	Doodley	Oct 2016	#34
Yes	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#37
Please point me to the evidence.	Doodley	Oct 2016	#44
Cogito ergo sum	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#45
You made a claim that a particular conscious-self can't ever reapear.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#46
No, I did not	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#47
I won't bet my life on in particular reality	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#48
Your reasoning process appears to rely heavily on the nonsequitur.	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#49
The question still remains unanswered.	Doodley	Oct 2016	#54
I already have	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#56
I use a similar argument against the requirement to prove the negative	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#58
Your assumption is just as far fetched	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#59
You haven't made any logical arguments against the possibility of conscious minds returning.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#61
I feel no obligation to disprove something that was never proven to begin with. YMMV.	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#63
I guess my multiple lines of reasoning will all remain unchallenged.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#64
Honestly I didn't think it was even worthy of as much effort	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#65
Science works because there are repeatable patterns in nature.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#66
As far as I can tell you are simply replacing "soul" with "conscious-self"	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#67
Conscious self is just another name for conscious mind.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#68
And yet you proceed to compare it to other processes in nature as if it were a thing	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#69
To me, the belief that a particular self can't return is	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#70
Belief in the supernatural requires the suspension of reason	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#71
I don't believe in the supernatural at all.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#73
And yet you are claiming your "conscious-self" not only can but has transcended your physical being	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#74
I have no evidence that my conscious-self is attach to any particular atoms in my body	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#75
You acknowledge "conscious-self" isn't a thing, yet base your premise on its transposition	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#78
I addressed the teapot above.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#80
You are getting harder to understand with each post	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#83
Is there a distinct you that is separate from somebody else?	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#88
There's lots of things which differentiate me from everyone else	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#90
Russell's Teapot doesn't apply here and doesn't help your position at all.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#93
I'm not claiming any position is the "default", which is where you are confused	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#94
What is consciousness? We can build computers but know very little about the human	Doodley	Oct 2016	#85
Yes, we know so little about consciousness.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#89
Music isn't a "thing." It is neither only soundwaves or perception. Can it be transposed? Yes.	Doodley	Oct 2016	#84
Music IS a thing, and isn't a state of being	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#87
Are you saying consciousness is not much different from being dead?	Doodley	Oct 2016	#96
No, and such nonsense is too ridiculous to be entertained	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#97
You are the one who made the claim. I am just asking you can back-up your claim.	Doodley	Oct 2016	#60
My "claim" was that any mention of an afterlife is conveniently unverifiable	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#62
I'm not demanding anything. I'm pointing out that we don't have a clue if	Doodley	Oct 2016	#50
If you really intended to be rhetorical about it...	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#51
You're citing Descartes first step in the proof of God - for what reason?	rug	Oct 2016	#72
What are the properties of the afterlife?	trotsky	Oct 2016	#21
You wouldn't anymore than you'd recognize you are alive. Similarly, there is a theory that	Doodley	Oct 2016	#35
Completely unfalsifiable theories are fun to think about,	trotsky	Oct 2016	#36
Those that tend to dwell on such things...	Major Nikon	Oct 2016	#38
Yeah, well...	trotsky	Oct 2016	#39
The same with there being other universes.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#43
Afterlife	Electron1	Oct 2016	#17
'Proof of Heaven' Author Has Now Been Thoroughly Debunked	left-of-center2012	Oct 2016	#19
There is no evidence available except witness-accounts.	DetlefK	Oct 2016	#18
Witness accounts aren't evidence.	Act_of_Reparation	Oct 2016	#20
Your energy will live on ............ read The Shack	Angry Dragon	Oct 2016	#24
"read The Shack"	left-of-center2012	Oct 2016	#25
Millions of people believe in an afterlife based on a fictional novel.	trotsky	Oct 2016	#33
my proof is in the first part............. I just suggested The Shack for your enjoyment	Angry Dragon	Oct 2016	#40
I believe there is...	Mike Nelson	Oct 2016	#26
Except reality.	cleanhippie	Oct 2016	#29
There is no proof because no one has ever made the return trip	Warpy	Oct 2016	#27
Well as a Buddhist	Loki Liesmith	Oct 2016	#28
no	left-of-center2012	Oct 2016	#31
How does that square with the doctrines of	Loki Liesmith	Oct 2016	#32
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.	still_one	Oct 2016	#30
And?	Goblinmonger	Oct 2016	#41
Whatever the OP wants it to be. I will not project anything else	still_one	Oct 2016	#42
I really enjoyed Michael Newton's 2 books on this topic.	Chemisse	Oct 2016	#52
You haved lived and you will live again. Let it be so.	The Wielding Truth	Oct 2016	#55
Look into	whathehell	Oct 2016	#76
I am doubting NDEs (near death experiences) more and more	Paula Sims	Oct 2016	#77
Here is a web site you may want to visit	awake	Oct 2016	#79
You get a turn at life, when its over, someone else gets a shot	Uben	Oct 2016	#81
"Thousands of years and no proof of an afterlife"	left-of-center2012	Oct 2016	#82
If you accept the premise of a Near Death Experience...	brooklynite	Oct 2016	#98

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.