Re: PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH.!!!!!!!!! FALSE TEACHING
From: Mitchell Jones (mjones_at_jump.net)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: whopkins_at_csd.uwm.edu: "Kinetic Energy, Mass, Momentum; derivation E=mc^2 & E = mv^2/2"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH.!!!!!!!!! FALSE TEACHING"
- Next in thread: Mitchell Jones: "Re: PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH.!!!!!!!!! FALSE TEACHING"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:03:57 GMT
In article <JvZOd.61289$B8.29399@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:
> "Mitchell Jones" <mjones@jump.net> wrote in message
> news:mjones-FEE6CE.01215711022005@chiapp18.algx.net...
> > In article <WYANd.39055$K7.33102@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> > "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
> >> ISBN 0-380-44610-3
> >> (concerning life after death)
> >> If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
> >> I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not
> >> accept.
> >> I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
> >> I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith
> >> it
> >> is so")
> >> I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
> >> atheist?")
> >> I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have
> >> been put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
> >> I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend
> >> who
> >> went to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
> >> And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are
> >> eliminated,
> >> there turns out to be nothing.
> >
> > ***{I'm an atheist myself, but the above conclusion is incorrect. To
> > see why, consider this: before each of you--the readers of this
> > group--came into the world, multitudes of other creatures, both
> > human and animal, came into it, and none of them were you.
> > Multitudes of the newly hatched or born--bugs, spiders, squirrels,
> > monkeys, humans, and otherwise--looked upon the world, and you
> > did not see through their eyes. It was only when a particular infant
> > at a particular time and place opened his or her eyes, that you saw.
> > Only one out of the multitudes was you. Your stream of
> > consciousness resided in only one brain; that brain controlled
> > only one body, saw through only one pair of eyes, heard through
> > only one pair of ears, tasted through only one
> > mouth, etc.
> >
> > But why? Why, when a newly hatched spider looked upon the
> > world through compound eyes, did you not see? Why, when a
> > newborn squirrel looked upon the world, did you not see? What
> > disqualified each of the teeming multitudes of newly made
> > creatures, save one, from being you?
> >
> > Only one answer is possible: none of those creatures, save one,
> > had the characteristics necessary to be you. That means there
> > was a recipe defining the essence of what you were, and until
> > a creature came into the world which satisfied that recipe, you
> > did not, and could not, exist.
> >
> > Most importantly, that recipe existed even during the time, which may
> > have been eons, when you had no physical form. It existed in the same
> > sense that nuclear power existed in the stone age, when there were no
> > nuclear power plants on the Earth, and no man capable of building
> > one--to wit: it existed as a potentiality, as something the mechanical
> > universe was capable of producing, but which did not, in fact, exist.
> >
> > The implication is straightforward: when you die, you will cease to
> > exist in the physical world. Once again, there will be no creature
> > which has the characterics necessary to be you. But you will still
> > exist as a potentiality, as something the mechanical universe is
> > capable of producing. The fact that you exist now is proof that
> > the mechanical universe can produce you, and there is no reason
> > for thinking that, when you die, it will suddenly lose that capability.
> > Thus when you die, you will return to precisely the same state that
> > you occupied before you were born: you will no longer exist as a
> > physical being; but you will continue to exist as a potentiality.
> >
> > Further, with a sufficient passage of time and a sufficient amount of
> > variation--with untold billions of creatures being born every day on
> > untold numbers of planets throughout the mechanical universe--there
> > will come a day when another infant appears, on some unknown
> > planet in some unknown galaxy, perhaps long after the Milky Way
> > has ceased to exist, and that infant will have the characteristics
> > necessary to be you. And you will live again.
> >
> > Bottom line: atheisim does not require a disbelief in the possibility
> > of life after death, but, instead, requires the contrary.
> >
> > Asimov didn't think of that, now did he? :-)
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> If you want to argue the point, present the EVIDENCE.
***{I just did. The entire first paragraph is a description of facts.
Facts become evidence when they have logical implications supportive of
a particular conclusion. The implications of the facts stated in the
first paragraph are stated in the paragraphs that follow. The conclusion
which they support is also stated. If you disagree at any point, feel
free to insert your comments at that location in the text. --MJ}***
> Androcles
- Next message: whopkins_at_csd.uwm.edu: "Kinetic Energy, Mass, Momentum; derivation E=mc^2 & E = mv^2/2"
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH.!!!!!!!!! FALSE TEACHING"
- Next in thread: Mitchell Jones: "Re: PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH.!!!!!!!!! FALSE TEACHING"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
