God and an After-life

[Kuroko]

Want a good outlook on life? this is THE outlook. atheist, theist, deist, doesn't matter.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: samsara15 What if you were computer simulated up to the present moment, complete with accompanying memories, how would you know you were only seconds old? You could not know that the past you remember actually never happened. Just like the old creationist saw about God creating the world six thousand years ago with all appearance of the universe and Earth having been around billions of years? We can be deceived. There is an old saying that you cannot cross the same river twice, or even once.

Very true. There are all kinds of possiblities. I rarely discount anything totally. But we do need to follow what little common sense and knowledge we think we have. Like someone lost in the woods, if we find a well traveled path it's logical to assume it goes somewhere. Is it somewhere we really want to go? Hopefully... yes, even if we have to change our desires to fit the moment.

[samsara15]

I think that we have to act like everything we can learn about the universe is true. Which means rejecting easy outs, like solipism and creationism. And then try to live the best life we can live.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Ken Carman So therefore, am I the same person? Yes... and, in a sense, no.

Please do not get confused! You, what you call you remains same all through out your life. I think even eternally before birth as well as after death you are you only unchangeable (Ego that you are). For your information, you are not even soul cz we have a term Your Soul, confirming you are not soul even. Even in dream also you are the same YOU.

Yes! Only in physical sense (body + Memory) you do not remain defintely the same, I agree there with you.:)

[Kuroko]

Watch the damn video people..

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Kuldeep Please do not get confused! You, what you call you remains same all through out your life. I think even eternally before birth as well as after death you are you only unchangeable (Ego that you are). For your information, you are not even soul cz we have a term Your Soul, confirming you are not soul even. Even in dream also you are the same YOU. Yes! Only in physical sense (body + Memory) you do not remain defintely the same, I agree there with you.:)

If you think I mean that I have some rather odd mania regarding this; split personality, or physicality in the sense that Ken "A" has absolutely no relation to Ken "B," of course he does. I do disagree with the statement...

I think even eternally before birth as well as after death you are you only unchangeable

"Me" is all inclusive... including body and memory. These are not separate items. If you wish to separate them for the sake of discussion, I have no problem with that.

There are dreams that I have had where I am seemingly not me, but I imagine that is simply some extension of "self" I don't quite recognize.


I have no idea what the following means...

For your information, you are not even soul cz we have a term Your Soul, confirming you are not soul even.

[Jagged]

Quote by: dreamer Respectfully, It depends on ones mental capacity on ones own faith.

Then im not sure why you are putting forth your beliefs, for you seem to agree that people will only believe in what you said if and only if they hold that belief, or already hold that belief rather. In this case there is no change, and your time is wasted.

[Kuldeep]

@ Ken Carman

Who I am I !!!!??????

Under the circumstances when I feel that I am represented by my body, my hand, my foot, my limbs, my head, my heart, my head, my brain, my mind etc. etc. or simply by my body. I and all others recognise myself by my body. But when I would die, people would say he died!!! Logically meaning from this sentence that I was not the body. In the same breath they would lso pray "May his soul rest in opeace", Again does it not mean that I am not even the soul, otherwise why should they use his soul. Rather they should have prayed may he be peaceful.

Am I clear now!!! ????

[dreamer]

Quote by: Jagged Then im not sure why you are putting forth your beliefs, for you seem to agree that people will only believe in what you said if and only if they hold that belief, or already hold that belief rather. In this case there is no change, and your time is wasted.

Knowing that something is so is not simply a matter of believing that it is so, it also entails being justified in that belief.


The earlier that children develop sensitivity to the standards of sound thought and reasoning, the more likely they will develop desirable intellectual habits and become open-minded persons responsive to reasonable persuasion.


Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native.

[Jagged]

Quote by: dreamer Knowing that something is so is not simply a matter of believing that it is so, it also entails being justified in that belief. ... the more likely they will develop desirable intellectual habits and become open-minded persons responsive to reasonable persuasion...[using logic and such...]

I'm confused. On page 2 you simply stated your unjustified beliefs. You are entitled to do that, but then isherwood stated that "[only people who believe in what you said believe that]", or something very close along those lines, to which you replied: "It depends on ones mental capacity on ones own faith." What is this "mental capacity on ones own faith"? Simply stating that those who don't hold your beliefs just have a lesser mental capacity for God isn't persuasion or even remotely sensical when you know you are presenting your arguement to unbelievers.

Last time i checked you couldn't claim to be a knower of something, then claim the definition of "knowing" something is believing it as well as it being "justified," so thus whatever you 'know' is true through this seemingly unjustified definition of "knowing" as well as your unjustified "justification."

I hope you enjoy that, because, although it makes sense, its going to see as indistinguishable as your statements. If you dont take time to write out clear messages, then you dont deserve others to do it for you.

[dreamer]

Quote by: Jagged I'm confused. On page 2 you simply stated your unjustified beliefs. You are entitled to do that, but then isherwood stated that "[only people who believe in what you said believe that]", or something very close along those lines, to which you replied: "It depends on ones mental capacity on ones own faith." What is this "mental capacity on ones own faith"? Simply stating that those who don't hold your beliefs just have a lesser mental capacity for God isn't persuasion or even remotely sensical when you know you are presenting your arguement to unbelievers. Last time i checked you couldn't claim to be a knower of something, then claim the definition of "knowing" something is believing it as well as it being "justified," so thus whatever you 'know' is true through this seemingly unjustified definition of "knowing" as well as your unjustified "justification." I hope you enjoy that, because, although it makes sense, its going to see as indistinguishable as your statements. If you dont take time to write out clear messages, then you dont deserve others to do it for you.

Not even going there.
Dreamer

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Kuldeep @ Ken Carman Who I am I !!!!?????? Under the circumstances when I feel that I am represented by my body, my hand, my foot, my limbs, my head, my heart, my head, my brain, my mind etc. etc. or simply by my body. I and all others recognise myself by my body. But when I would die, people would say he died!!! Logically meaning from this sentence that I was not the body. In the same breath they would lso pray "May his soul rest in opeace", Again does it not mean that I am not even the soul, otherwise why should they use his soul. Rather they should have prayed may he be peaceful. Am I clear now!!! ????

Uh, not exactly, although I think I understand a tad more. Maybe it's me being dense:confused: as well as the sentence structures you are using.

If someone says "he" died, why would that mean "not the body?" "His soul" is, admittedly, a little redundant. But since when is common usage always sensible? I would assume that the "soul" is within the body, throughout it perhaps, but separates at death.

I think you may be confusing usage that often includes synonyms and phraseolgy that essentially means the same thing, or similar things. English is a cesspool, at best. Of course I could be wrong, I was... once.

[Jagged]

Quote by: dreamer Not even going there. Dreamer

Sweet, now i know what its like to be Christian.

[Kuldeep]

English is a cesspool, at best. Of course I could be wrong, I was... once.

You translate the sentences used describing a person as framed by me regarding death or soul to any world's langauge, the meaning would come out to be same as I am not the body or the soul, but somethin beyond i.e. "ONLY I" THE FORCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS :)

[samsara15]

I feel that is correct. The you which you identify as yourself is the part of you that enables you to self-reference, to be self-aware.

However, an observer would not know if your consciousness had been replaced by another, for example, split/multiple personalities within the same body that closely resembled your present self.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Kuldeep You translate the sentences used describing a person as framed by me regarding death or soul to any world's langauge, the meaning would come out to be same as I am not the body or the soul, but somethin beyond i.e. "ONLY I" THE FORCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS :)

I'm sorry. To me, that's gibberish. Perhaps the fault is mine. Anyone else want to translate since I am unable to understand what was typed above?

[Kuldeep]

@ samsara15

That is ignorance of observer!

@ Ken Carman

If writing is not clear, possibly we should meet and talk!!!

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Kuldeep @ samsara15 That is ignorance of observer! @ Ken Carman If writing is not clear, possibly we should meet and talk!!!

Well, you in India, me in the States... anyone want to fund two plane tickets? I'm going to be honest here, I don't tend to meet with people I don't really know from the web. Nothing to do with you, specifically, just an overall security concern. Even those who seem the most rational might actually be quite insane, and that should be the same concern for anyone who converses with me, I'm sure, although I know I'm sane. The question is, can the other person be sure?

Maybe, perhaps...

"In the next life... when we're cats?"

[Kuldeep]

Anyway thanks for your honesty. Me too not that much insane though!

We learn so much from each other which is a good divident from internet system. Let me have one more try:

Under the conditions people call "your body, your soul and your....etc", it definitely sounds the YOU are something different than either body or soul.
As regards we are not the body, it gets confirmed at the time of death, when body remains motionless and people around it call HE is dead. Now the HE is different that body. Simlarly it is said May His soul rest in peace, implying HE is not even the soul.

Concluding thanks for reading IT once more, probably last time!!!!:)

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Kuldeep Anyway thanks for your honesty. Me too not that much insane though! We learn so much from each other which is a good divident from internet system. Let me have one more try: Under the conditions people call "your body, your soul and your....etc", it definitely sounds the YOU are something different than either body or soul. As regards we are not the body, it gets confirmed at the time of death, when body remains motionless and people around it call HE is dead. Now the HE is different that body. Simlarly it is said May His soul rest in peace, implying HE is not even the soul. Concluding thanks for reading IT once more, probably last time!!!!:)

Yeah, you're probably right. We're not really getting wherever we need to go.

How else would we say this? Language is an imperfect vehicle. If I say "your toes," or nose, or liver, or fingers, or spleen... in no way do I mean they are not a "part" of you. Are they "all" of you? Obviously not. I really feel, for most people, you are assuming an intent that really isn't there. As a kid I lost a toe. Was that part of me? Yes. It isn't anymore. If there actually is such a thing as "soul," then I would say the body is somewhat like my toe, only on a much larger scale. I don't believe that "dead" is as much directed at the actual person as it is at the body. But if we were to say "his body is dead," then couldn't one assume his brain, or organs, are alive elsewhere? I believe that specific usage has less to with whatever happens after that event than just simplification... especially in a theistically and socially diverse culture. It usually avoids confusion, discussions and arguments with those whose concept of what happens after death conflict, or what we should do with corpses, or their parts. Not in this case, however. :(

For example when we say someone is "brain dead," do we always mean there's no impulses whatever within that specific organ? No, we usually mean anything from minimal to "stupid."

Simplification, my friend, simplification. Not always the best way to present syntax... but it happens anyway. I have remarked many, many times that English teachers often act like someone standing on train tracks. The train: the always evolving ways we use words and phrases. They scream, "STOP!" But the train always moves on.

It will never be perfect. But, hell, if it were "perfect" I'd probably find writing a chore, rather than an exciting adventure.:)