What Happens When You Die?

[Penumbra]

There are no facts or evidence favoring a God created universe, or a spontaneous one. Therefore it's a 50-50 proposition.

It doesn't work like that.

There's no evidence for or against a council of elder faeries creating the universe. So that's an option too.

So we're at 33.3% no god, 33.3% god, 33.3% council of elder faeries.

The point is, assigning arbitrary probabilities doesn't work like that. And if you get to specific characteristics about any given deity, then there certainly can be evidence for or against it. So even "god" is not one option.

 

[ArtieE]

It doesn't work like that.

There's no evidence for or against a council of elder faeries creating the universe. So that's an option too.

So we're at 33.3% no god, 33.3% god, 33.3% council of elder faeries.

The point is, assigning arbitrary probabilities doesn't work like that. And if you get to specific characteristics about any given deity, then there certainly can be evidence for or against it. So even "god" is not one option.

Please don't leave out the possibility that advanced aliens from another dimension made this universe which makes it an even 25%.

 

[godnotgod]

[/COLOR]At no point did I say I have those answers. Cogito ergo sum isn't about those.

Yes, it is, as it asserts a self.

Buddhism does propose consciousness, though. It does not propose an unchanging, permanent self. It doesn't assert pure nothingness, in other words.

OK. So who is it, vis a vis, cogito ergo sum, that exists because it thinks? (ie: 'thinker of thoughts')

And who is it that dreams? (ie; 'dream-er of dreams')

...and lives? ('liv-er' of life)

...and dies? ('dy-er' of death)

re: 'nothingness': consciousness IS no-thing-ness.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, it is.

No it's not. It merely is, "I think therefore I am".

It makes zero claims about what "I" is. Even Descartes elaboration on his quote merely identifies the thinker as "something".

OK. So who is it, vis a vis, cogito ergo sum, that exists because it thinks?

And who is it that lives?

And who is it that dies?

That's not part of the axiom. Cogito ergo sum makes no statements about what "I" is.

 

[godnotgod]

No it's not. It merely is, "I think therefore I am".

It makes zero claims about what "I" is. Even Descartes elaboration on his quote merely identifies the thinker as "something".


That's not part of the axiom. Cogito ergo sum makes no statements about what "I" is.

It does'nt have to: cogito ergo sum firmly establishes the concept of a self, in the "I".

"I" think; therefore "I" exist.

It logically follows that a self that exists is integral to thinking, living, dying, and dreaming.

If Descartes is identifying the thinker as something, then he is establishing an agent of thought, and that agent of thought is a self referred to as "I".

 

[Penumbra]

It does'nt have to: cogito ergo sum firmly establishes the concept of a self, in the "I".

"I" think; therefore "I" exist.

I think you're adding extra baggage here to the concept of what "I" is that Descartes was not.

It logically follows that a self that exists is integral to thinking, living, dying, and dreaming.

If Descartes is identifying the thinker as something, then he is establishing an agent of thought, and that agent of thought is a self referred to as "I".

It's called "I" because that's our word for it. He was a French dude that put it in Latin and this is an English term.

You can call it bezurpable if you want. It's the concept rather than the word that's important.

The statement is merely saying that if there is thinking, then something is doing the thinking.

 

[Warren Clark]

That pink unicorn discussion should have died a long time ago.

You don't use faith to prove God...or anything.
The rational you use to believe is what matters.

I decided on faith in answering the question...
Which came first?.... Spirit or substance.

From that decision came all else.

Deciding upon a Creator wasn't hard to do.
Creation without it's Creator is an incomplete 'photo'

Oh!...that's right....no photos!
hehehehe.

who said there was creation?
a fantasy novel?
The pink unicorn has just as much merit as your fantasy.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think you're over estimating that.

If you insist, 50-50 between divine creation and a spontaneous one--although the chance for polytheism is virtually zero compared to monotheism for reasons that would enjender a discussion that would swamp this thread.

who said there was creation?

Science. Cosmic background radiation. Look it up. The theological and philosophical question is what preceded/caused it, ergo the 50--50.

 

[godnotgod]

I think you're adding extra baggage here to the concept of what "I" is that Descartes was not.


It's called "I" because that's our word for it. He was a French dude that put it in Latin and this is an English term.

You can call it bezurpable if you want. It's the concept rather than the word that's important.

The statement is merely saying that if there is thinking, then something is doing the thinking.

...and therein lies the problem: he is, by your admittance, claiming an AGENT of thought. Whether that agent is 'something' or 'I' is unimportant.

There is no thinker of thoughts; there is only thinking itself, in the same manner that there is no river that flows, or wave that waves.

There are no separate 'things' in the universe that act; 'things' (and 'some-thing') are only mental constructs. They don't exist in reality.

So if anyone is adding something that simply is not there, it is Descartes, who does not understand that the 'I' which thinks is an illusion to begin with, as it is a self-created principle.

'Cogito ergo sum' is Latin, not French. "Je pense donc je suis" is French.

The correct translation from Descartes:

"I noticed that while I was trying to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth, "I am thinking, therefore I exist "[cogito ergo sum] was so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were incapable of shaking it, I decided that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of philosophy I was seeking."

Wikipedia

And so, my original criticism of this premise was phrased in the question:

"So, when you are NOT thinking, then you, of course, do NOT exist, correct?"


...which reveals one of the basic flaws in its logic.

The problem here is that it is assumed that consciousness is local; that it is contained within an entity called the self, or "I", a separate ego that acts upon the world, and in terms of the topic at hand, a self that lives and dreams and dies.

 

[godnotgod]

Science. Cosmic background radiation. Look it up. The theological and philosophical question is what preceded/caused it, ergo the 50--50.

Science is now saying that the universe came out of nothing, which is what the mystics have stated for centuries. But what you see as 'creation' may only be manifestation. The assumption is that the universe is real, rather than illusory. Quantum Mechanics is showing us the illusory side to 'reality'.

 

[Thief]

This didn't respond to the points that were described.

In some religions, the golden rule is not sufficient for the ultimate end. In other words, simply following the golden rule would lead to mediocrity, maybe at best a high point within Samsara but still bound to illusion. Further work would be required.

So simply holding faith that one way is the best way just doesn't cut it if other religions end up being more accurate than yours. You'd have to be accurate or at least equally accurate for your method to be optimal.

No religion circumvents the 'golden rule'.

Accurate?.....as in the cut of a sword?

Many religions have hierarchy.
And though I have no religion.... I believe in hierarchy.

It matters not which religion you think is accurate.

 

[Thief]

who said there was creation?
a fantasy novel?
The pink unicorn has just as much merit as your fantasy.

And obviously...you're not going to approach the question....
Which came first?...Spirit or substance.

 

[Agnostic75]

It matters not which religion you think is accurate.

Do you mean that you do not have any problems with deism, which has had such adherents as U.S. presidents John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson?

 

[Thief]

Do you mean that you do not have any problems with deism, which has had such adherents as U.S. presidents John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson?

Any belief at all will do.
I say...the line drawn, has been drawn, for centuries.

The famous quote of the golden rule seems to be prehistoric.
Written in stone long before the Carpenter made it well known.

So anyone walking this earth will hear of it.
And no one leaves this life not hearing of it.

I believe the 'golden rule' places the consequence of your life in your hands.
No exceptions.

 

[Penumbra]

...and therein lies the problem: he is, by your admittance, claiming an AGENT of thought. Whether that agent is 'something' or 'I' is unimportant.

There is no thinker of thoughts; there is only thinking itself, in the same manner that there is no river that flows, or wave that waves.

There are no separate 'things' in the universe that act; 'things' (and 'some-thing') are only mental constructs. They don't exist in reality.

So if anyone is adding something that simply is not there, it is Descartes, who does not understand that the 'I' which thinks is an illusion to begin with, as it is a self-created principle.

'Cogito ergo sum' is Latin, not French. "Je pense donc je suis" is French.

The correct translation from Descartes:

"I noticed that while I was trying to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth, "I am thinking, therefore I exist "[cogito ergo sum] was so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were incapable of shaking it, I decided that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of philosophy I was seeking."

Wikipedia

And so, my original criticism of this premise was phrased in the question:

"So, when you are NOT thinking, then you, of course, do NOT exist, correct?"

...which reveals one of the basic flaws in its logic.

The problem here is that it is assumed that consciousness is local; that it is contained within an entity called the self, or "I", a separate ego that acts upon the world, and in terms of the topic at hand, a self that lives and dreams and dies.

For this part:

"So, when you are NOT thinking, then you, of course, do NOT exist, correct?"

No. If A requires B, it does not necessarily logically follow that B requires A as well.

As for the rest of the post, the various 'assumptions' you're claiming are in those three words are your assumptions rather than inherently asserted in the statement itself.

 

[Penumbra]

No religion circumvents the 'golden rule'.

Accurate?.....as in the cut of a sword?

Many religions have hierarchy.
And though I have no religion.... I believe in hierarchy.

It matters not which religion you think is accurate.

But the point is, simply having faith in a religion doesn't make that particular religion accurate.

If you meet religion X's requirements but not religion Y's requirements and assert that you're totally covered because you have faith in X, it's not a robust argument.

 

[godnotgod]

For this part:

"So, when you are NOT thinking, then you, of course, do NOT exist, correct?"

No. If A requires B, it does not necessarily logically follow that B requires A as well.

However, the premise that Descartes is attempting to establish is dependent on thinking, the evidence of which points to existence. Therefore, where there is no thinking, in keeping with the logic behind the premise, there can be no existence. In short thinking = existence, therefore, not-thinking = non-existence; that is to say: without thought, there is no existence. Thought is the condition for existence, as put forth by Descartes.

But, as I said, Descartes failed to understand the illusory nature of the self, which you, yourself, seem to agree with. Descartes was in error from the get-go.

As for the rest of the post, the various 'assumptions' you're claiming are in those three words are your assumptions rather than inherently asserted in the statement itself.

I assume nothing. If cognito ergo sum is true, then the rest logically follows, "I" being the active agent in all actions. If thinking is evidence of the existence of "I", then where there is dreaming, there is the "I" that is the dreamer, and so on.

Again, Descartes is guilty of seeing things where none exist. This can be summed up in the Zen aphorism:

"Just because the water in a teapot boils when placed over a fire does not mean there is a fire-god within the fire."

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

Since our universe began you did not exist until you did... what happens when you die is most likely very similar to what happened to you prior to you existing in the first place.

The way I often think about it is... For billions of years I was not born and it did not trouble me at all so I would imagine after death it would be quite similar.

 

[godnotgod]

Since our universe began you did not exist until you did... what happens when you die is most likely very similar to what happened to you prior to you existing in the first place.

The way I often think about it is... For billions of years I was not born and it did not trouble me at all so I would imagine after death it would be quite similar.

You are the universe and have always been here, Unborn and Deathless. You just don't remember, that's all.

 

[atanu]

---
The problem here is that it is assumed that consciousness is local; that it is contained within an entity called the self, or "I", a separate ego that acts upon the world, and in terms of the topic at hand, a self that lives and dreams and dies.

My friend, consciousness is also local. When you pinch yourself, does your brother feel it?

Non-local consciousness has all the power, IMO, to create local pods. Destroying those local pods or denying them cannot be in the power of ego-self since it is an illusion, as you say.