If there is a life after death.....

[Valjean]

Other: life -worldly and spiritual- is cyclical.

Whether buried, burnt or left be, one’s body decomposes and disintegrates into soil (from dust to dust) - unless embalmed, that is …but lifeless; an intact body is a “soulless” corpse nonetheless.

One’s “soul” too returns to source: a “universal consciousness” that goes by many names - by some, referred to as “God”. There, all experience unites and perspective is all-encompassing.
Spirit -like organism- is ever evolving: the portion of “soul” that incarnates today, unconsciously carries and lives by all universal experience acquired so far and its experience of living from that perspective, shapes the universal wisdom of tomorrow.

But this presupposes that a "soul" exists. What evidence do you have for that?

I can see, touch, and measure bodies, thus, I believe they exist. I cannot do this for souls. Doesn't this put them in the same category as leprechauns and invisible pink unicorns?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I can see, touch, and measure bodies, thus, I believe they exist. I cannot do this for souls..

What are you saying? You don't believe that we are "characters" acting on our own volition?

 

[Trailblazer]

You are choosing to limit yourself through the belief you choose for yourself. You also assume I am using beliefs in order to justify your belief so you can keep the limits you seem to want and need so badly.

You are choosing to limit yourself through the belief you choose for yourself.
You deny you have a belief so you can keep the belief you seem to want and need so badly.
I admit I have a belief but it does not limit my actions in this world, although it prevents me from holding false beliefs.

Why do you do this?

I do not put limits on myself just because I do not believe what you believe.
I could just as easily say you put limits on yourself since you limit yourself to what you believe.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Quagmire]

Life is a video game. When we die we just go back to one of the places where we had the game saved.

 

[Valjean]

What are you saying? You don't believe that we are "characters" acting on our own volition?

I'm not seeing the connexion. Clarify?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not seeing the connexion. Clarify?

Well, I see it all too often..
..a knee jerk reaction to the concept of a soul.

My body is not speaking to you .. I am.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all.
How do you know that the thing you believe to be true that can't be shown to be real, in fact can't be shown to be real because it is of the category of "not real"?

I know because it was revealed in scriptures. That is where religious truths are located.

Sure, but as said, you can say that about any unfalsifiable thing your imagination can produce.
So how does it help your case?

I know it is real because it was revealed in scriptures.

Like my wooden chair doesn't mean it's wood from a tree?
What is "non-physical life"? How is it a thing? What are you talking about?

That is all explained in scriptures.

I believe my wooden chair is made form wood that doesn't come from a tree.
That makes just as much sense.

It makes just as much sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me.

You should know by now that religious scriptures are of no relevance to me at all.
These are all just more claims that don't clarify anything.

That's too bad, because religious scriptures are the only way to know about things like God and the soul.

View attachment 84073

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

That doesn't clarify anything again. You're just going in circles.

You will know that the afterlife is real if you die and you still have consciousness. Then you will know that 'you' are not dead even though your body is dead.

I disagree.

Fine.

I don't believe in ghosts. I have no reasons to.
Show me a ghost.

I was not referring to ghosts. Ghosts are souls who come back to the physical world after they die and can be seen by some people.
I was referring to souls who have ascended to the spiritual world and exist there in another form, a spiritual body.

All this is indistinguishable from imagination.

I'm done now. We have reached the end of the conversation. Everything that will come after this will just be you continually running around in circles.
I've lost interest

Okay.

 

[Valjean]

Well, I see it all too often..
..a knee jerk reaction to the concept of a soul.

My body is not speaking to you .. I am.

Still not following.
Knee jerk reaction to the concept of a soul? What knee-jerk reaction?

 

[Valjean]

I know it is real because it was revealed in scriptures.

That is all explained in scriptures.

It makes just as much sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me.

That's too bad, because religious scriptures are the only way to know about things like God and the soul.

In the Guru Granth Sahib? The Popol Vuh? The Vedas? The Silmarillion?
There are a lot of scripted stories, all different. Can they all be right?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

A logical fallacy remains a fallacy. The conclusion is invalid, even if accidentally truehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I was not referring to ghosts. Ghosts are souls who come back to the physical world after they die and can be seen by some people.
I was referring to souls who have ascended to the spiritual world and exist there in another form, a spiritual body.

OK. Do you have objective evidence for the existence of either?

 

[Trailblazer]

In the Guru Granth Sahib? The Popol Vuh? The Vedas? The Silmarillion?
There are a lot of scripted stories, all different. Can they all be right?

Only the scriptures of the true religions that were revealed by Messengers of God are right, but even some of those scriptures contain falsehoods, since they were written by fallible men.

A logical fallacy remains a fallacy. The conclusion is invalid, even if accidentally trueCircular reasoning - Wikipedia

A logical fallacy does not mean a belief is not true.
If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

If an argument is sound, then it is valid and has all true premises. Since it is valid, the argument is such that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A sound argument really does have all true premises so it does actually follow that its conclusion must be true.
Phil 106: Critical Thinking

Of course, since nobody can ever prove that the premises of a religious belief are true, logical arguments cannot be used to assert the the truth of the conclusion. However, that does not mean the conclusion is not true. It could be true or false.

OK. Do you have objective evidence for the existence of either?

No, I have no objective evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Only the scriptures of the true religions that were revealed by Messengers of God are right, but even some of those scriptures contain falsehoods, since they were written by fallible men.

How do we distinguish these Messengers of God from your garden variety lunatic? People making extraordinary claims of this kind are a dime a dozen. I see them walking down the street "talking to angels," You can find them in any mental health facility. There are hundreds of active cults with such 'messengers'.

A logical fallacy does not mean a belief is not true

Yes, even a broken watch is correct twice day, but it is an accidental correspondence.

.If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

If the math is done correctly, with no logical errors

Of course, since nobody can ever prove that the premises of a religious belief are true, logical arguments cannot be used to assert the the truth of the conclusion. However, that does not mean the conclusion is not true. It might be true or false.

Yes, it may be true, and rolling a pair of dice might give a correct arithmetic answer, but both would be accidental. Neither would be valid -- or reliable.

I

 

[Trailblazer]

How do we distinguish these Messengers of God from your garden variety lunatic? People making extraordinary claims of this kind are a dime a dozen. I see them walking down the street "talking to angels," You can find them in any mental health facility. There are hundreds of active cults with such 'messengers'.

There are criteria that can be used to distinguish between them. I have my own set of criteria and it would eliminate most of the claimants right off the bat. I can post the list if you want to see it.

Yes, even a broken watch is correct twice day, but it is an accidental correspondence.

The existence of a logical fallacy does not prove a belief is true or false.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

If the math is done correctly, with no logical errors

Religion is not math.

Yes, it may be true, and rolling a pair of dice might give a correct arithmetic answer, but both would be accidental. Neither would be valid -- or reliable.I

Trying to use logic to determine if God exists or not is the first mistake atheists make, since God is not subject to being proven with a logical argument.

 

[Valjean]

There are criteria that can be used to distinguish between them. I have my own set of criteria and it would eliminate most of the claimants right off the bat. I can post the list if you want to see it.

By all means. Please post it.

The existence of a logical fallacy does not prove a belief is true or false.

True, it indicates only that the conclusion is invalid, and, thus, irrational.

Religion is not math.

But logic is.

Trying to use logic to determine if God exists or not is the first mistake atheists make, since God is not subject to being proven with a logical argument.

So how might it be proven, or even evidenced?
Psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists have studied religion. It is a powerful and ubiquitous social phenomenon, but it is not an artifact of evidence, reason or logic.

 

[Saved by grace 2]

Jesus said " I am the Resurrection and the Life! Anyone that believes in me even after dying will live, and any who Lives in me and puts their faith in me, Will never Die!" Jesus claims to be the creator of all the universe, of all living things.........and to all who take him for his Word and believe, that makes him the Authority on all matters pertaining to Life and death!

 

[Trailblazer]

By all means. Please post it.

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.​

​

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.​

​

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.​

​

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.​

​

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.​

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

True, it indicates only that the conclusion is invalid, and, thus, irrational.

Invalid, but not necessarily irrational.

So how might it be proven, or even evidenced?

The evidence for the existence of God is the Messenger of God, since that is what God offers as the evidence.
The evidence that the claims of a Messenger of God are true is what the Messenger tell us is the evidence.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

You might want to call that circular, but if you do not think that is the evidence, then you tell me what would be evidence and why it would be the evidence - If a man was a Messenger of God.

Psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists have studied religion. It is a powerful and ubiquitous social phenomenon, but it is not an artifact of evidence, reason or logic.

Not all religions are an artifact of evidence, reason or logic, but I believe my religion is, since it is evidenced, reasonable, and logical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus claims to be the creator of all the universe, of all living things.........and to all who take him for his Word and believe, that makes him the Authority on all matters pertaining to Life and death

No, Jesus did not claim to be the creator of all the universe, of all living things. God is the creator of all the universe, of all living things.
God is the Authority on all matters pertaining to Life and death. God revealed that information to Jesus and Jesus passed it along to humanity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Jesus said " I am the Resurrection and the Life! Anyone that believes in me even after dying will live, and any who Lives in me and puts their faith in me, Will never Die!" Jesus claims to be the creator of all the universe, of all living things.........and to all who take him for his Word and believe, that makes him the Authority on all matters pertaining to Life and death!

In reality, it's an unsubstantiated old book (or other medium of communication) that claims that.

 

[McBell]

All the definitions in your quote concern physical living things, except 1 and there it concerns a religious idea, which is exactly the one I'm questioning and which can't be properly defined or demonstrated at all.

: spiritual existence transcending (see TRANSCEND sense 1c) physical death
his craving … for the release into the life to come—Rodney Gilbert

Like I said, cherry picking definitions.
You conveniently left out:

6: a way or manner of living​

the life of the colonists​

​

9: an animating and shaping force or principle​

the life of the constitution … has been not logic but experience—F. A. Ogg & Harold Zink​

​

10: SPIRIT, ANIMATION​

saw no life in her dancing​

​

11: the form or pattern of something existing in reality​

painted from life​

​

12: the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something​

the expected life of the batteries​

​

14: a property (such as resilience (see RESILIENCE sense 1) or elasticity) of an inanimate (see INANIMATE sense 1) substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being​

​

16​

a: human activities​

b: animate activity and movement​

What I find even more interesting is you go from:

Whenever someone refers to life, any living thing, they are talking about a physical organic object that fits the definition of "alive".

To:

All the definitions in your quote concern physical living things

Now if you do not see a problem here...

 

[Valjean]

Jesus said " I am the Resurrection and the Life! Anyone that believes in me even after dying will live, and any who Lives in me and puts their faith in me, Will never Die!" Jesus claims to be the creator of all the universe, of all living things.........and to all who take him for his Word and believe, that makes him the Authority on all matters pertaining to Life and death!

No. I say He didn't.
Your turn....

 

[Valjean]

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

If everyone were free to invent their own criteria we'd have a billion different religions, wouldn't we?

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.​

So mirrored current Judeo-Christian principles...

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.​

So was in good company with thousands of persons in mental health facilities or outpatient psychotics.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.​

So was indistinguishable from thousands of other inspired, literate psychotics.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.​

Hasn't the ability to amass followers been typical of despots and cult leaders from time immemorial?

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.​

The vagaries of politics?

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Invalid, but not necessarily irrational.

The evidence for the existence of God is the Messenger of God, since that is what God offers as the evidence.
The evidence that the claims of a Messenger of God are true is what the Messenger tell us is the evidence.

Just listen to yourself! A self-verifying mythology, verified with your own criteria, corresponding with your own mythos.
Hardly an objective assessment.

You might want to call that circular, but if you do not think that is the evidence, then you tell me what would be evidence and why it would be the evidence - If a man was a Messenger of God.

I'd expect the Author of the Universe to be capable of making His existence and His will clear and objective.

Not all religions are an artifact of evidence, reason or logic, but I believe my religion is, since it is evidenced, reasonable, and logical.

Agreed. In fact, I can't think of a single one.
First, establish the existence of God, with clear, objective evidence. Then we can talk about how S/He reveals Herself -- if at all.

I'd think a God interested in being known would do a better job of revealing Herself -- with some objective evidence. Hard to imagine a God capable of creating an entire universe who can't make His existence or desires known universally.