I will never die

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » I will never die

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

xaul
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 08:51 pm
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!
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 09:07 pm
@xaul,
xaul;155518 wrote:
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 believe life never ends due to the infinity of the universe, that is, there is always somewhere the mind can escape to. You died? Someone froze your brain and ressurected you eons later, or you realize it was all a dream, or christians turn out to be correct, etc. But you dont die =)
 
DaMunky89
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 09:32 pm
@manored,
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.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 09:33 pm
@xaul,
xaul;155518 wrote:
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 wish I could help you... I am too busy trying to prove I am alive by doing something meaningful to spend any time proving I have not died...Being alive, and living in a world where it seems we have always existed precludes people from consciously accepting the idea of death for themselves...Every morning for well over twenty years, when my feet hit the floor every morning I said: today is the day I may die... I had a dangerous job, and that is how I lived: Prepared to die... Now I may be as near to death as ever; and I think it some times, but not to give it words... As I said; I want to prove I am alive, and I have no time to worry about a death that is inevitable...If old smiley is gonna kitch me he better git on his runnin shoes...

---------- Post added 04-22-2010 at 11:40 PM ----------

DaMunky89;155529 wrote:
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.

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...

If people miss me at the Y when I skip a day, it is possible they might miss me if I died... When they greet me instead, it reminds me of how alive I am, proof or not...
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:04 pm
@DaMunky89,
DaMunky89;155529 wrote:

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

Fido;155530 wrote:

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...
There is. This very post, everything you have ever seen, heard, or sensed in any way, is a proof. Ilusions exist.
 
DaMunky89
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:22 pm
@manored,
manored;155944 wrote:
He cant. This point is actually already included into the opening post.


But that's my point. If he can't trust his past pattern of not having died, then there is no basis of believing that he will never die, thereby disproving his friend's point.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:28 pm
@xaul,
xaul;155518 wrote:
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!


Wait, what was their argument for thinking that you will never die?
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 05:05 am
@manored,
manored;155944 wrote:
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.

I am certain you confuse evidence with proof...
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:33 pm
@xaul,
xaul;155518 wrote:
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!


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.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 02:15 pm
@xaul,
Its an argument constrained by the definitional boundaries it sets. In other words, its a word/logic trap that doesn't hold water.

Montaigne, in his essays, quoted Diogenes in a wonderful response to this kind of thing, saying, "... Why should I unravel that? It is bad enough all knotted up!"

Good luck Smile
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 04:17 pm
@Fido,
Fido;156010 wrote:
I am certain you confuse evidence with proof...
I am certain I do not. Could you perceive if you didnt exist?

Pyrrho;156112 wrote:
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 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.
 
William
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 05:51 pm
@xaul,
As far as whether or not we die is not as important as why we do. If we can figure that out it can't be determined what will be the results of that. Everything we do is trying to prevent that death from occurring. It is our utmost concern, exceptions understood and noted. In our possessive nature we don't want to let go and in that effort we race through life not appreciating the true measure of it mentally or physically. You've heard of the "human race" before, I'm sure, ha! If it's all the same to you, I would just as soon be disqualified from participating in that race if that is the way it is always going to be. I get tired just thinking about it, ha!

If we did truly slow down, how long we would live.................who knows? A long happy life sure beats a short miserable one. Of course if it is a miserable one, the shorter the better. Vice Versa is appropriate here too in that a short happy one beats the hell out of a long miserable one.

William
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 05:57 am
@manored,
manored;156150 wrote:
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 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...
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:16 am
@manored,
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.
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 05:57 pm
@Pyrrho,
Fido;156369 wrote:
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...
Well, cant really help you with that. You will have to figure out for yourself.

Pyrrho;156470 wrote:
If everything is an illusion, then one living at all is an illusion.
No, because living is required to be inside an ilusion.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:59 pm
@manored,
manored;156567 wrote:
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.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 08:52 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;156645 wrote:
Then it is false that everything is an illusion. QED.
I didnt think you would actually make this point, since its just playing with logic, and obviously the sentence will work anyway with just a bit of modification.

"Everything, except my life, my mind and the truth of this sentence, is an ilusion".

Dont we oftenly use the word "everything" as "mostly everything"? =)
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:35 pm
@manored,
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that everything other than one's own existence is an illusion, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that one will live forever. What the argument appears to be is this:
[INDENT][INDENT]
Premise: Everything other than one's own existence is an illusion.

Premise: The supposed reasons to believe that one is mortal are due to those things which, according to the first premise, are an illusion.

First conclusion: Therefore, there is no reason to believe one is mortal.

Second conclusion: Therefore, one is immortal.
[/INDENT][/INDENT]


Aside from the fact that the first premise needs support before it is accepted as true, the reasoning to the second conclusion is committing the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. Not having any reason to believe that one is mortal does not give one any reason to believe that one is immortal. This fallacy is commonly committed in all sorts of areas, such as with arguments regarding the existence of God:

[INDENT][INDENT]We don't know that God does not exist, therefore God exists.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

Or:

[INDENT][INDENT]We don't know that God exists, therefore God does not exist.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

Both are committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, which essentially goes from saying we don't know to the conclusion that we know.

From the idea that most of the common experiences of life are an illusion, we cannot reasonably conclude that we are immortal.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:42 pm
@Pyrrho,
When im dead, will I ask the same question about death ? will I ever live? did I ever live? If I do, did I die? If I can ask any question, then what is life what is death?
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 03:02 pm
@xaul,
Russian filosopher Fyodorov

Wiki: Immortality for all
Achieving immortality and revival of all people who ever lived are two inseparable goals, according to Fedorov. Immortality is impossible, both ethically and physically, without revival. We can't concede that our ancestors, who gave us life and culture, are left to die, that our relatives and friends die. Achieving immortality for living individuals and future generations is only a partial victory over death, only the first stage. The complete victory will be achieved only when everyone is returned to a transformed immortal life.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » I will never die
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 05:36:01