Why The Afterlife is a Fact.

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive. So when you die again, it makes perfect logic sense that you will have another opprotunity for life.


Before I was born I was non-existent and now I'm alive. Once I die I will again be non-existent.

"Perfect logic sense" is not your friend




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

you were dead, and now you are alive.


Here is where the logic breaks down.

Prove to others that they were dead or existed before birth/conception.


The proof is obvious.

There is death (non-existance) before life. Then you are born and you exist. That is life after death. So that means when you die and are dead, you have the opportunity for life.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive. So when you die again, it makes perfect logic sense that you will have another opprotunity for life.


Before I was born I was non-existent and now I'm alive. Once I die I will again be non-existent.

"Perfect logic sense" is not your friend



No. It is not your friend.

The proof is obvious.

You were non-existant before you were born and then you were born and you exist. That is life after non-existance. If it happened before, it is perfect logic that it can and it will happen again.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


Intriguing links, I will check them out.

Meanwhile.....while I will remain on the fence about it (figure we will all find out the truth some day, anyhow!!), to go along this topic, and be entertained and even (hopefully) laugh along the way, is one...one of many....of my favorite movies: "Defending Your Life".

I think it is under-rated, might have a fan base (like myself) that possibly elevates it to *cult* status, dunno.

Stars Meryl Streep (I mean, when has she ever made a bad film??) and comedian/writer Albert Brooks :

IMDb linky...

Still makes me laugh every time I see it....comes about as close to what I hope is the *real* answer as anything else....



Here, I found a clip that is a good summary:




posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive. So when you die again, it makes perfect logic sense that you will have another opprotunity for life.


Before I was born I was non-existent and now I'm alive. Once I die I will again be non-existent.

"Perfect logic sense" is not your friend


How then, pray tell, can death contain life. Isn't it the other way around, wherein death is but a part of life?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
something that does not exist can not be dead or alive. So the OP does not make any sense.
I beleive firmly in an afterlife, but you will not ever see reafl proof of that while you are here. You may see crappy pics of "ghosts" that turn out to be hoaxes, you may listen to the debunked Sylvia Brown on Montel talking to spirits, or you may listen to anecdotal accounts from less than sane people channelling "spirits", but none of that is proof.
We do not have proof, because with proof there can be no faith. Anf faith is the key to everything.
Yes there is an afterlife - can I prove it to you? Never.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

you were dead, and now you are alive.


Here is where the logic breaks down.

Prove to others that they were dead or existed before birth/conception.




Here's an even better one for you...

Via experiential logic, can you prove to yourself (through an experiential avenue) that you were born?

If you cannot...what does this 'prove'?

Akushla



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I agree, life is good, we only experience it more than until now .. new world is on the way, you will experience much much more, than you know now!



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrissiel123
something that does not exist can not be dead or alive. So the OP does not make any sense.


A possible valid argument, but tell me, what is the difference between not existing and being dead?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive. So when you die again, it makes perfect logic sense that you will have another opprotunity for life.


So every blade of grass. Every midge. Every lichen. Has an afterlife?


Ladder of life forms?!

Akushla



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive. So when you die again, it makes perfect logic sense that you will have another opprotunity for life.


Before I was born I was non-existent and now I'm alive. Once I die I will again be non-existent.

"Perfect logic sense" is not your friend


How then, pray tell, can death contain life? Isn't it the other way around, wherein death is but a part of life?

Unless you hold to the view, because you're an atheist, that you are a mere "thing" and are not an intrinsic part of a larger process called life..?



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ozvaldo

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive. So when you die again, it makes perfect logic sense that you will have another opprotunity for life.

Now, that doesn't mean that there is a heaven or hell, it simply means there is definitely life after death as before this life, you were dead, or not alive (same thing), and now you're alive. Life after death.
edit on 6-10-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)


I don't suppose you could message me your dealers number could you?


Perhaps you could just wake up and stop dreaming?

Akushla



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive. So when you die again, it makes perfect logic sense that you will have another opprotunity for life.


So every blade of grass. Every midge. Every lichen. Has an afterlife?


Its existence is its after life. When it dies, it can be born again because it was born from a period of non-existence before.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trolloks
The matter that you are made on lives on yes, but our conciousness/soul/what makes you you dies with you. You was not concious before birth, and you are not when you are dead, only when alive, conciousness needs a body to work, something to interact with, when you are dead, your body dies with you, and with it your conciousness.

Fact, as you would say.


FACTS are merely the framework on which our current existence state is hung. They cannot elucidate what needs no framework.

Akushla



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
How then, pray tell, can death contain life. Isn't it the other way around, wherein death is but a part of life?


I would say that death is related to but not part of life; rather death is the absence of life. However life would have no context without death. They are two sides of the same coin. The real question is "What is the coin?" I would argue that it is the body, and the two sides are its temporal modes of existence. Living bodies are animated by a force, and dead bodies lack such animation.

I view near-death experience as a short period wherein the animating force leaves the body, resulting in the body's "death," and when it returns, the body "revives."



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wagnificent

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
How then, pray tell, can death contain life. Isn't it the other way around, wherein death is but a part of life?


I would say that death is related to but not part of life; rather death is the absence of life. However life would have no context without death. They are two sides of the same coin. The real question is "What is the coin?" I would argue that it is the body, and the two sides are its temporal modes of existence. Living bodies are animated by a force, and dead bodies lack such animation.

I view near-death experience as a short period wherein the animating force leaves the body, resulting in the body's "death," and when it returns, the body "revives."


The 'coin' must be that which the body, and the lack thereof are hung upon...the vehicle needs a driver...or more to the point, the driver needs a vehicle...

Cheers to you
Akushla



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josonic

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive.


Before you were born (and before your conception) you were not dead, you weren't anything. You were non-existent.


Okay. But isn't dead just another word for non-existent?

Dead implies that there was a preceding life, so it is a more focused and direct term in that it adds in the variable of having lived, but dead fits into the category of non-existent.

In other words what is non-existent isn't necessarily dead, but what is dead is non-existent.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by Josonic

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Before you were born, you were dead, and now you are alive.


Before you were born (and before your conception) you were not dead, you weren't anything. You were non-existent.


Okay. But isn't dead just another word for non-existent?

Dead implies that there was a preceding life, so it is a more focused and direct term in that it adds in the variable of having lived, but dead fits into the category of non-existent.

In other words what is non-existent isn't necessarily dead, but what is dead is non-existent.



...yes, and if the whole population of the world, bar one were colorblind red, does this mean that red is non-existent, and this one person is delusional?

This existent, non-existent argument can go round and round in circles...much of what is discussed on this forum site revolves around what one experiences. If you are one of the non-colorblind people, you will never convince the color-blind sceptics of anything...they are color-blind!

Akushla



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by juveous

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Its simple.

you were dead, and now you are alive.


Here is where the logic breaks down.

Prove to others that they were dead or existed before birth/conception.


The proof is obvious.

There is death (non-existance) before life. Then you are born and you exist. That is life after death. So that means when you die and are dead, you have the opportunity for life.


No, the only thing obvious is the manipulation of definitions here.

Why do you assume death is a precursor for life? Everyone understands the recycling of matter/energy and how death can't really exist in that sense, but that is not what you are arguing.

Nonexistence is not an attribute of the living, it would be closer defined as a consequence because of aging which leads to a perishing of the symptoms for that living creature. No where does this constitute the opportunity for that living creature to exist again.

Look at endangered species. If I kill all but one, your logic says that if that one dies, the opportunity for another exists.






top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join