It Wouldn't Take Much

[carlo]

"I think ChrisV is simply (and eloquently), stating that as the brain dies, so does consciousness. As the brain is altered, so is consciousness. Therefore, it does not follow that only a moron would dismiss life/consciousness existing after death.

You are presupposing a soul plain and simple. You jump to a conclusion in order to arrive at a conclusion."

He says:



[ QUOTE ]
While it's impossible to say for certain that there is no life after death, THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE POINTING IN THAT DIRECTION.

[/ QUOTE ]


Lets be clear as to what I'm saying. I am taking issue with the thoughts involved in the debunking of a soul/spiritual reality. I have asked him to proceed to the conclusions which will come in evidentially manner from this line of reasoning.

No, I am not presupposing a soul but am working to the realities of the world piecemeal and have no difficulty coming to an evidentially perception of the soul. But this is really beside the point for as noted above I asked him to follow the inevitable consequence of his thoughts in light of reality. The consequence of this thinking is FEAR and from here one can fall into a trap and continue with specious reasoning or continue on with COURAGE and from there one can proceed into the realm of reality and knowledge.

In the example of Russell his work displays the downtrodden depression in the expressive life of the materialist in which he displays rancor within his depressive funk.

[carlo]

I have to back track a bit. I know that you guys are ever hopeful and this carries into your thoughts no matter where they lead. The truth is that when you die your thoughts do not come with you. They are the one thing(s) that have no consequence to further lives. One's enthusiasm or warmth of soul for one's work on the contrary stand tall in the after life. Enthusiasm leads to love in the next life and for this we can all be thankful.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">. I have asked him to proceed to the conclusions which will come in evidentially manner from this line of reasoning. </font>

I don't understand. You want him to proceed to what conclusion? He's already stated that evidence seems to point away from life after death.

<font color="blue">. But this is really beside the point for as noted above I asked him to follow the inevitable consequence of his thoughts in light of reality. The consequence of this thinking is FEAR and from here one can fall into a trap and continue with specious reasoning or continue on with COURAGE and from there one can proceed into the realm of reality and knowledge. </font>

Now you're just making stuff up. What fear? What courage? By what means do you conclude that his line of reasoning has fear as its consequence? What makes you think that an alternative way of thinking is courage?

Once again, you are making presuppositions to arrive at your *desired* conclusions.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have asked him to proceed to the conclusions which will come in evidentially manner from this line of reasoning.

I don't understand. You want him to proceed to what conclusion? He's already stated that evidence seems to point away from life after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I've done this before and will try again. What is being said is that all that is Man can only be related to his physicality or specifically the physicality as perceived by modern materialistic science.

the syllogism is: All Men are physical body only
I am a Man
I am only physical body.

The next syllogism is: All Men die
I am a Man
I will die.

Next: Death is the corruption/degeneration of the physical body
I am only physical body
At death, I am not(annihilation).


If one LIVES INTO the consequences of this series of thoughts into the conclusions then one will come to FEAR which is the consequential feeling of the series of thoughts.

Please note that the syllogisms ,on the surface, do not lead to the soul but they do display the pitfalls of materialism whether you choose to live there or not.

[Lestat]

Please have some patience with me. I'm trying to understand. I follow you up until....

<font color="blue"> If one LIVES INTO the consequences of this series of thoughts into the conclusions then one will come to FEAR which is the consequential feeling of the series of thoughts. </font>

This makes no sense to me. What are you trying to say? I only see a run-on sentence with words that make little sense next to each other. The order and/or context you're using them is one long nonsequiter to me. Can you spell out what you mean here? Treat me as a 1st grader. Use little words and shorter sentences. Maybe a strategically placed comma or two would help. I really don't understand what this means, but would like to.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

Please have some patience with me. I'm trying to understand. I follow you up until....

If one LIVES INTO the consequences of this series of thoughts into the conclusions then one will come to FEAR which is the consequential feeling of the series of thoughts.

This makes no sense to me. What are you trying to say? I only see a run-on sentence with words that make little sense next to each other. The order and/or context you're using them is one long nonsequiter to me. Can you spell out what you mean here? Treat me as a 1st grader. Use little words and shorter sentences. Maybe a strategically placed comma or two would help. I really don't understand what this means, but would like to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try and realize that this fear thing may be over the top in the sense that the syllogisms from my perspective were enough to make the point.

Words or thoughts that stand behind the words have meaning but its not of the type that is looked up in the dictionary. Each word or series of words have a feeling aspect which may or may not be consciously obvious to the recipient or the speaker himself. So if one says"dog" it is not just the word in the abstract but standing behind the word "dog" is tonal aspect which is associated with the language. You could say that one hears the word but what is contained behind the word is a living reality of the word. Depending upon how one uses the intellect 'dog" in the abstract can have many meanings or none at all, a mere word.

Ok,getting worse, but I'm trying. In the syllogisms one comes to the perception of "annihilation" as a consequence of logical thinking. To "live into " the concept of annihilation in relation to death one experiences the living reality of the tonal aspect of the word within the language and this tonal aspect is fear. Remember, this not not the same as one being cowardly but the being of "fear" staring one in the face so to speak. so I would say that the most courageous or the most pusillanimous will experience the same being within these circumstances. Of course, the effect uipon each individual can be different and in fact may not be noticed at all. Like taking a trip to the countryside where one is open to nature totally and therefore obtains many experiences in which a person grows. Another may go through the same journey and be impervious to most if not all of the experiences. There is a difference in growth between the two individuals. this is not meant as a judgment call but to try to explain our relationship to the "word" or language. All in good time.

"Living into" annihilation when one considers one will be annihilated can be rife with discomfort due to the nature of its being. Reading poetry is as close as one can get to this type of experience. Reading Walt Whitman or the Iliad and the Odyssey are experiences which speak to what were talking about. Art, in general, does the same.

I hope this helps, but remember, the non experience has to do with many factors but one cannot deny intellectually that "annihilation" is not a good state of affairs for oneself.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if any of Lestat's miracles occurred you would consider that stronger than the appearance of an entire universe?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, because our universe is a given and doesn't in any way point towards a Christian God. Lestat's miracles point towards a specific Christian God.

[ QUOTE ]
If physicists show that virtual particles do appear from nothing at all



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They don't.


[/ QUOTE ] I must be mistaken, I thought there were some theories on the existence of virtual particles.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are clearly not aware of the 'theory of pure Actuality'

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Words or thoughts that stand behind the words have meaning but its not of the type that is looked up in the dictionary. Each word or series of words have a feeling aspect which may or may not be consciously obvious to the recipient or the speaker himself. So if one says"dog" it is not just the word in the abstract but standing behind the word "dog" is tonal aspect which is associated with the language. You could say that one hears the word but what is contained behind the word is a living reality of the word. Depending upon how one uses the intellect 'dog" in the abstract can have many meanings or none at all, a mere word. </font>

Cool. I understand this. I think... Basically you're saying that we can each have our own perception of a word. As in, how do I know that my "yellow" is the same as your "yellow"? We both know what the word yellow means, and would even identify the same color. But we can't be sure that we're really seeing the same thing or that our perception is the same. Is this right?


<font color="blue">To "live into " the concept of annihilation in relation to death one experiences the living reality of the tonal aspect of the word within the language and this tonal aspect is fear. </font>

Please explain this. Why is it fear? Why not sadness, anger, or even apathy. Why do you assume fear?

<font color="blue"> "Living into" annihilation when one considers one will be annihilated can be rife with discomfort due to the nature of its being. </font>

It can be, but certainly doesn't have to be. Of course, theists who imagine that an eternal life awaits them will be discomforted by the alternative. But non-believers are not under such dillusions or aspirations from the get-go. You are simply describing YOUR own fear and discomfort from YOUR OWN perspective with respect to death. Not mine or anyone else's.

<font color="blue"> one cannot deny intellectually that "annihilation" is not a good state of affairs for oneself. </font>

Again, its neither good nor bad. It's simply what happens. It's what is. Sure, being immortal is a nice thought. So is being able to fly, or leap tall buildings in a single bound. Unfortunately, reality is all we've got and some prefer to live within it and not some fantasy world.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I agree with your post Lestat, although I don't like the internet example. </font>

Just curious what you don't like about it. If an all-knowing God really did speak to people 2000 years ago, why couldn't there have been some mention of the internet, or a world with heavier-than-air vehicles flying in the skies, or even 9/11? Why is it unreasonable to expect even one such prediction or warning from an all-knowing god? There doesn't seem to be any shortage of "attempted" vauge and unproven predictions in the bible.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Would you really expect Him to become man, live a perfect life, die a horrible death and be resurrected - all because He loves us and wants to save us from our rebellion against Him? </font>

Certainly nothing as drastic as all that, when the much sublter things I mentioned in the OP would be sufficient to save us from our rebellion.