This thread is from an atheist perspective.

A friend of mine put an argument to me the other day.

They claimed that I would never die.

I have always been taught that other than our own existence, the one thing we can be sure of is that we all die eventually. However, I do see the point as being one similar to the sun rising tomorrow argument.

A few points I've thought about on my own since they said this are:

i) If I did die, I would never know
ii) I haven't died yet, so he must have some kind of evidence.

The only problem I can see with his argument is that his point can never be proven, as in, either I do die (thus ending the debate, but I would never be aware of this), or I stay alive (thus continuing the debate). Under no circumstances could it be said I will never die and end the debate.

I anticipate his response when I see him as being that the first option (I die) is speculative, unproven, and also, given my continuing life so far, unlikely to presume change. The second option (I stay alive), I anticipate him arguing, is the maximum proof his argument could be expected to acquire, therefore it would be unfair for me to request more evidence.

i) Am I right in my objections, or
ii) The responses I anticipate are reasonable, in which case I need to know what to argue back

Thanks!

This thread is from an atheist perspective.

A friend of mine put an argument to me the other day.

They claimed that I would never die.

I have always been taught that other than our own existence, the one thing we can be sure of is that we all die eventually. However, I do see the point as being one similar to the sun rising tomorrow argument.

A few points I've thought about on my own since they said this are:

i) If I did die, I would never know
ii) I haven't died yet, so he must have some kind of evidence.

The only problem I can see with his argument is that his point can never be proven, as in, either I do die (thus ending the debate, but I would never be aware of this), or I stay alive (thus continuing the debate). Under no circumstances could it be said I will never die and end the debate.

I anticipate his response when I see him as being that the first option (I die) is speculative, unproven, and also, given my continuing life so far, unlikely to presume change. The second option (I stay alive), I anticipate him arguing, is the maximum proof his argument could be expected to acquire, therefore it would be unfair for me to request more evidence.

i) Am I right in my objections, or
ii) The responses I anticipate are reasonable, in which case I need to know what to argue back

Thanks!

Er. So what stops you from making a general argument stating that usually human beings die after a certain period of time? (It's like 70 ~ 90 years I think?)

If he disagrees that you can trust that pattern (invoking the Problem of Induction), then your response should be "How can I trust the pattern of not having died yet, then?".

Seems pretty turnkey.

If he disagrees that you can trust that pattern (invoking the Problem of Induction), then your response should be "How can I trust the pattern of not having died yet, then?".

I would suggest that there is no objective proof that we exist, and never has been any...We must rely upon the testimony of others to the fact that we live and have meaning...That is the purpose of all our forms, which are all forms of relationship, and that is to ensure our survivals, and to recognize us for who we are...

He cant. This point is actually already included into the opening post.

This thread is from an atheist perspective.

A friend of mine put an argument to me the other day.

They claimed that I would never die.

I have always been taught that other than our own existence, the one thing we can be sure of is that we all die eventually. However, I do see the point as being one similar to the sun rising tomorrow argument.

A few points I've thought about on my own since they said this are:

i) If I did die, I would never know
ii) I haven't died yet, so he must have some kind of evidence.

The only problem I can see with his argument is that his point can never be proven, as in, either I do die (thus ending the debate, but I would never be aware of this), or I stay alive (thus continuing the debate). Under no circumstances could it be said I will never die and end the debate.

I anticipate his response when I see him as being that the first option (I die) is speculative, unproven, and also, given my continuing life so far, unlikely to presume change. The second option (I stay alive), I anticipate him arguing, is the maximum proof his argument could be expected to acquire, therefore it would be unfair for me to request more evidence.

i) Am I right in my objections, or
ii) The responses I anticipate are reasonable, in which case I need to know what to argue back

Thanks!

He cant. This point is actually already included into the opening post.

There is. This very post, everything you have ever seen, heard, or sensed in any way, is a proof. Ilusions exist.

This thread is from an atheist perspective.

A friend of mine put an argument to me the other day.

They claimed that I would never die.

I have always been taught that other than our own existence, the one thing we can be sure of is that we all die eventually. However, I do see the point as being one similar to the sun rising tomorrow argument.

A few points I've thought about on my own since they said this are:

i) If I did die, I would never know
ii) I haven't died yet, so he must have some kind of evidence.

The only problem I can see with his argument is that his point can never be proven, as in, either I do die (thus ending the debate, but I would never be aware of this), or I stay alive (thus continuing the debate). Under no circumstances could it be said I will never die and end the debate.

I anticipate his response when I see him as being that the first option (I die) is speculative, unproven, and also, given my continuing life so far, unlikely to presume change. The second option (I stay alive), I anticipate him arguing, is the maximum proof his argument could be expected to acquire, therefore it would be unfair for me to request more evidence.

i) Am I right in my objections, or
ii) The responses I anticipate are reasonable, in which case I need to know what to argue back

Thanks!

I am certain you confuse evidence with proof...

The argument against which you are arguing is unreasonable, so it hardly matters what you anticipate in response to your remarks. The person appears to be confusing knowing something and it being the case. You cannot know that you are dead, but that does not prove that you cannot be dead.

As for the anticipated argument that you have not died yet, and therefore will not likely die, this is just the same sort of argument as, my new car has not yet needed a repair, so it is unlikely to ever need a repair. Anyone stupid enough to argue that way is hardly worth speaking with.

I am certain I do not. Could you perceive if you didnt exist?

I think his friend assumes an "everything is an ilusion" scenario. In that case, there is no evidence to indicate that death is likely, unlike the evidence that indicates that your car is likely to eventually need repairs.

...

I think his friend assumes an "everything is an ilusion" scenario. In that case, there is no evidence to indicate that death is likely, unlike the evidence that indicates that your car is likely to eventually need repairs.

I do not exist...I live, and humanity exists, at least for a time... The reason we have our forms, as I may have mentioned is to ensure our immediatie survival and to give us evidence that we are real, at a psychological level, through recognition... Other than that, of being I have no objective proof...

If everything is an illusion, then one living at all is an illusion.

Pyrrho;156470 wrote:

manored;156150 wrote:

...

I think his friend assumes an "everything is an ilusion" scenario. In that case, there is no evidence to indicate that death is likely, unlike the evidence that indicates that your car is likely to eventually need repairs.

If everything is an illusion, then one living at all is an illusion.

No, because living is required to be inside an ilusion.

Then it is false that everything is an illusion. QED.