afterlife

@Zetherin,

Zetherin, by that same assumption you give the ant little to no life and that is it for its existance. It drew the short straw and you got an entire human life. Lucky God doesn't exist it would be a real gem if It had .

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

Zetherin, by that same assumption you give the ant little to no life and that is it for its existance. It drew the short straw and you got an entire human life. Lucky God doesn't exist it would be a real gem if It had .

Why do you interpret our lives as the short straw through my assumption? On the contrary, if given the choice, I'd rather have lived as a human. Life is breathtaking with reason and intelligence, though I do think it's silly to point us humans out as being anything special. We are life just like any other, and considering we aren't the only conscious, why are we the only ones with a supposed God? Just because we can contrive one?

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

Zetherin, by that same assumption you give the ant little to no life and that is it for its existance. It drew the short straw and you got an entire human life. Lucky God doesn't exist it would be a real gem if It had .

Well prove such a "god" or creator or designer of this existence dose not exist

O ya.. only your word's can prove or dispove such and existence, just because people cant physicaly show proof of such, dosnt mean there isnt such, for you cant even show proof there is not, for the only proof we are allowed to have are the word's we say, therefore we make the proof with are word's...

Some thing's we are not allowed to prove or think of, such as new color's that are not in are existence and new line formation's that dont exist...

So therefore just like the computer's man has made from there own image and understanding, we can all only think what we are designed/made to be able to think, therefore we live in a finite existence of a limited amount of matter and thought's we may think... So that very fact give's more proof that there was an intelectualy designed existence made for such thought's that I type and you type...

So if you got any logical/intelectualy based information that point's to the sign/or no sign of intelectual thought or intent in the creatation of the existence that we live in at this current moment... Fill free to speak of such if you have such:rolleyes:for i spoke of such a sign of such that support's such a "designer" of are finte existence

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/young-philosophers-forum/1232-existance-nothing-4.html#post16133 (related topic)

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

Well prove such a "god" or creator or designer of this existence dose not exist

O ya.. only your word's can prove or dispove such and existence, just because people cant physicaly show proof of such, dosnt mean there isnt such, for you cant even show proof there is not, for the only proof we are allowed to have are the word's we say, therefore we make the proof with are word's...

Some thing's we are not allowed to prove or think of, such as new color's that are not in are existence and new line formation's that dont exist...

So therefore just like the computer's man has made from there own image and understanding, we can all only think what we are designed/made to be able to think, therefore we live in a finite existence of a limited amount of matter and thought's we may think... So that very fact give's more proof that there was an intelectualy designed existence made for such thought's that I type and you type...

So if you got any logical/intelectualy based information that point's to the sign/or no sign of intelectual thought or intent in the creatation of the existence that we live in at this current moment... Fill free to speak of such if you have such:rolleyes:for i spoke of such a sign of such that support's such a "designer" of are finte existence

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/young-philosophers-forum/1232-existance-nothing-4.html#post16133 (related topic)

Well, just because we live in a finite universe doesn't mean there was a designer. Additionally, it doesn't mean any existence was intellectually designed.

You're also contradicting yourself here. You say in your other post things are because they are, there is no question of why, and then here you scream that there must be a designer (implying there is an answer, there is a why)!

Your second contradiction lies here: "O ya.. only your word's can prove or dispove such and existence, just because people cant physicaly show proof of such, dosnt mean there isnt such, for you cant even show proof there is not, for the only proof we are allowed to have are the word's we say, therefore we make the proof with are word's..."

Well, if you follow this theory then the proof you have of a designer also falls under the category of just words. Or are you just going to excuse yourself that categorization and believe your 'proof' transcends this? Wink

Perhaps I just didn't understand you.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin and NoOne, I don't understand either of you. The ant is the one who drew the short straw as all of its entire existance is stuffed into the minute life that is the ant. Of course I am assuming that the life of an ant is nothing more than what we percieve and so that is all it is. Now if God does exist and this is what life is what a waste of time it is existing. I certainly don't wish to live just as a human.

Either way, if God doesn't exist, life has no meaning other than to eat drink and die, nothing we do effects us at all and cancer is not a disease it is a way we die. Why care for the future if we are not a part of it. Why bother with the past if we were not there to construct it. Why do we count time forwards if to die is the end. We might as well count everything backwards hoping to hit zero at the right time, it would be a grand way to spend life

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

Either way, if God doesn't exist, life has no meaning other than to eat drink and die, nothing we do effects us at all and cancer is not a disease it is a way we die. Why care for the future if we are not a part of it. ...

Not to divert or otherwise derail this fine discussion, but isn't this a most-negative, most personally-destructive way to look at it?

With no afterlife where consciousness survives, no christian god, doesn't that make life so much more precious? So much more meaningful? Doesn't the notion that my life's meaning isn't predefined give so much more 'meaning' in that meaning I give? Oh my gosh!

Good thread, good post, but I'm hoping there are others out there who view the non-existence of an afterlife and god as bringing meaning and enhancing worth (rather than removing it).

... I'll go back to my corner now Wink

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

Zetherin and NoOne, I don't understand either of you. The ant is the one who drew the short straw as all of its entire existance is stuffed into the minute life that is the ant. Of course I am assuming that the life of an ant is nothing more than what we percieve and so that is all it is. Now if God does exist and this is what life is what a waste of time it is existing. I certainly don't wish to live just as a human.

Either way, if God doesn't exist, life has no meaning other than to eat drink and die, nothing we do effects us at all and cancer is not a disease it is a way we die. Why care for the future if we are not a part of it. Why bother with the past if we were not there to construct it. Why do we count time forwards if to die is the end. We might as well count everything backwards hoping to hit zero at the right time, it would be a grand way to spend life

Well, there's no point arguing over how you should spend your life, but yes, I think it's a great possibility there may just be absolutely nothing after this...so yes, eat drink and die.

Hey, I still have hope. I'm an agnostic that has a cross around the neck.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Not to divert or otherwise derail this fine discussion, but isn't this a most-negative, most personally-destructive way to look at it?

With no afterlife where consciousness survives, no christian god, doesn't that make life so much more precious? So much more meaningful? Doesn't the notion that my life's meaning isn't predefined give so much more 'meaning' in that meaning I give? Oh my gosh!

Good thread, good post, but I'm hoping there are others out there who view the non-existence of an afterlife and god as bringing meaning and enhancing worth (rather than removing it).

... I'll go back to my corner now

That's a good point, however, there's no way I can view it that way Wink

To me, it'd be just as depressing as the way urangutan explained.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Well, just because we live in a finite universe doesn't mean there was a designer. Additionally, it doesn't mean any existence was intellectually designed.

You're also contradicting yourself here. You say in your other post things are because they are, there is no question of why, and then here you scream that there must be a designer (implying there is an answer, there is a why)!

Your second contradiction lies here: "O ya.. only your word's can prove or dispove such and existence, just because people cant physicaly show proof of such, dosnt mean there isnt such, for you cant even show proof there is not, for the only proof we are allowed to have are the word's we say, therefore we make the proof with are word's..."

Well, if you follow this theory then the proof you have of a designer also falls under the category of just words. Or are you just going to excuse yourself that categorization and believe your 'proof' transcends this?

Perhaps I just didn't understand you.

Im not implying a single thing... Im just displaying a side of thought within the finite thought's we can think concerning this topic of a creator/designer of this existence we live in...

Allso there is an oppisite hint that could show that there is not.

Yet it will allway's come down to the point of which people think what they think is more true or completly true, compaired to what the other think's..

Yet personaly, Im in the middle, of everything.

I pick not to go right nor the oppisite, nor do I pick good nor do I pick the oppisite...

Nor do I pick a God, or the oppisite...

(word's are only proof if you say they are, therefore you make the proof your self, it's then a madder of how much more your proof wiegh's over another's proof that they have made...)

Please dont miss quote me... your added perception is not mine, keep such to your self and just ask what I meant... therefore I can give you better understanding of what perception I was portraying within finite, therefore you would not see such "contradiction's".

Also it's best for one not to blindly go about calling contradiction's, without stating what and why they are contradiction's(also by showing what two peice's do not fit to geather)(save's me more time&less work:rolleyes:doing such4u)(due to Im allway's a neutral)

Yet to end it all with such grace and wisdom...and to answer the only question that you asked. "Or are you just going to excuse yourself that categorization and believe your 'proof' transcends this?"

No, there is only one thing that can ever transcend such a categorization, and that is the "Truth" and only the "Truth".

Word's become more than word's when they are true, therefore they have more weight than those that are not true, mainly due to the fact that they are oppisite's within finite thought in are existence.

Secondly... it's not a theory, I was portraying a finite oppisite thought within are existence that hint's to the existence of a designer of this existence from a true infinity existence, hence the reason why I attached a link to an other topic, to relate.

Some time's i beat around the bush sorry about that I should have just said that there is no such thing as proof, only truth.

I was just hoping another would see that truth...

The reason why, is due to the fact the truth was not made by human's...(human's say and make own from word's yet word's only only word's unless there the truth, and not made from there own perception or the perception of another.)

For that we can all agree on.

So what did create truth?

Example-> Im on the earth and drop and apple, it will fall

And not because I or another say it dose...because it dose, for it's the truth.

And the truth is it's own proof.

So do I believe proof? Well you did miss understand, because I dont believe in proof, only the truth.

I hope this has cleared up some miss understanding's of my intent's of what i meant, if it has not, please ask more question's

(instead of slander like comment's:rolleyes:)

@No0ne,

I really want to better respond to this, but honestly, I can't comprehend.

I did specify at the end of my past post that I may have misunderstood you, and it's clear I am. Please try not to take offense to me pointing out a contradiction, and yes, I did specify how I thought it was a contradiction.

Contradition 1:
A: You say there is no reason to question why
*contradiction*
B: You give reason to question why by preaching a designer

Contradiction 2:
A: You say that our only proof are the words we say
*contridiction*
B: You say that there is a proof of a designer, based on your explanation that you seemed to imply transcends words

(Please note: I've laid each contradiction out just so you can better understand where I was coming from. I do understand, however, I've misunderstood you entirely.)

You're right, I shouldn't have pointed out contradictions because I clearly have no grasp of what you're even saying. I've read your post a total of 3 times now, and I just can't connect the tangents. I apologize for coming off slanderish, and I'll try to be more respectful. Furthermore, I'll keep investigating your writings to better my understanding and ultimately elicit a better response.

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

Zetherin and NoOne, I don't understand either of you. The ant is the one who drew the short straw as all of its entire existance is stuffed into the minute life that is the ant. Of course I am assuming that the life of an ant is nothing more than what we percieve and so that is all it is. Now if God does exist and this is what life is what a waste of time it is existing. I certainly don't wish to live just as a human.

Either way, if God doesn't exist, life has no meaning other than to eat drink and die, nothing we do effects us at all and cancer is not a disease it is a way we die. Why care for the future if we are not a part of it. Why bother with the past if we were not there to construct it. Why do we count time forwards if to die is the end. We might as well count everything backwards hoping to hit zero at the right time, it would be a grand way to spend life

The only meaning this existence will ever have is the one that you say it has , or another say's it has...therefore making the meaning of this existence only what you or another say's it is. And this is the truth...

Nicely done(A portrait of word's displaying both side's), with the poetical sense , I hope people dont take those word's litterly, but take it as self created philosophical art.

Yet the choice of how we may waste the time, for the future is made from the present action's, with the future becoming the present just to become the past, as a second go'se past.

My choice is to use my time, the only waste of time, is the time that you spend doing what you truly dont want to be doing, so if you see your self living in this existence bound by these rule's as somthing that you dont want to do, and you see your self with no choice in how your time is spent within this existence, would it be a grand way to spend life

or would it not?

@Zetherin,

Yes your correct about it's a matter of a lang barrier...

Do you mean a contradiction as in--> a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of somthing.

Or do you mean a contradiction as in--> a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconcsistent.

Please as I said before dont put word's into thing's that I Did not say...

You have choice picked word's and left word's out of the sentence...

As displayed in #2-B

You typed " B:You say that there is a proof of a designer

I typed in the passage that you pulled those word's from "So that very fact give's more proof that there was an intelectualy designed existence made for such thought's that I type and you type..."

The key word is "That Very Fact Give's MORE" since there was not another person that gave any word's hinting there was not, therefore the fact of are limited thought's just as a computer OS, which would be the fact that impley's a hint of a designer, therefore #2 contradiction is not... contradiction in both way's that word is defined in...

Now for contradiction #1

You typed
A: You say there is no reason to question why
*contradiction*
B: You give reason to question why by preaching a designer

Yet the word's " There is no reason to question why" is not found in the text that I typed in reply to a post made by raven, nor in the link that was placed within that post...

Yet I cant see my self ever saying that there is no reason to question why, because that is all I have ever done to learn from nature...

So it sound's like those would be your word's or interpation of other word's that I spoke of..

To fully resolve #1 Please post a link to the post where I have made such a statement

Also when you call out a contradiction, it's un wise to add your own perception in, just state the two or more statement's

(example "by preaching a designer" cant be a contradiction because I never typed those word's, you did...)-->(nor was or is my intent)

#1-B void''s the contradiction
A: You say there is no reason to question why
*contradiction*
B: You give reason to question why by preaching a designer

Because you added word's that I did not say, such as the reason why "B" contradic's "A" is because I gave a reason to why "BY" preaching a designer, therefore you voided your contradiction by adding your perception to my word's and also by lacking the correct wording of how it was displayed in the text where I posted such, allso I still dont know what post you pulled those word fragment's from... PLease post a link to it >.<

(also by what a contradiction is defined by, both of what you say are contradiction's are not contradiction's, and in the manner that you presented them, you made your contradiction's, contradiction's of them selve's)

If you still disagree, by all mean's do so...It's your right to see thing's how you wish to see them, I strictly promote people to do so, therefore they kind find the form's of philosophy that suite's there own life and not the life another define's for them.

Thank you for your time in reading this and my other post's.
(I'll try to locate that post where con#1 was pulled from)x.X

@No0ne,

I don't think this is about spelling corrections, buddy. I think there's a language barrier here.

@Zetherin,

Khethil, I don't think it revolves around the imagined forms of Afterlife defined in scripture. What I am implying is that we do not exist solely as humans, just as the ant will not only ever be that single form of life. It may be an ant ten million times, a fish thirteen times, a flower for three springs but a human it will be once. This goes in the reverse of course and my point is I would rather see some of this or whatever life I become from the senses of the being than to live the life without. It is not just a matter of carrying the soul into this life and not simply defining my life as a human throught the awarenesses I would encounter but also to see what life is as the being I am. I certainly do not consider for a moment I will be born again as another human and I do not belive I have been a human life before. I will or have been other life though. Of that I can assure you.

Just so there can be awareness, I am not biding my time as a human to see these other life existances and nothing can prove to me better of the idea that God exist than this does. You can claim through the Bible that God exists and you can claim your belief in the lord Jesus proves there is God but I am not a part of a cult.
If this comes out in large print I am sorry.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know