Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: "Proof" (?) of an afterlife [View all]cpwm17
(3,829 posts)88. Is there a distinct you that is separate from somebody else?
Last edited Tue Oct 11, 2016, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)
What is it that makes you, you? Do you think you have a soul that makes your conscious-self you, or do you think your conscious-self is a brain process without a soul?
What is meant by I think therefore I am from René Descartes?:
I think; therefore I am was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In Latin (the language in which Descartes wrote), the phrase is Cogito, ergo sum.
I think; therefore I am was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In Latin (the language in which Descartes wrote), the phrase is Cogito, ergo sum.
The I in I think; therefore I am is the conscious-self, and I know I exist as a conscious being. I have no doubt of this fact. I also know I am a distinct conscious being, separate from other conscious beings. The I that experiences my consciousness is not a thing. (*Edited this next line) The I is produced by my brain processes that create my consciousness.
When I became a conscious being, presumably in my mother's womb, nothing was transported to my brain to make me conscious. Nature doesn't need to transport anything to create consciousness. It's not part of the process, but yet I'm here.
Not that many years ago nature did just fine creating my consciousness. There is nothing inherent in this process, that I know of, that will prevent this exact same natural process from happening again. If you know of a reason that nature can't repeat the same process to create me again, you can tell me what it is.
Here's my math again. I'll also copy what I replied to Doodley:
"When I was young I thought it interesting that I was alive at that moment. With only one life the odds were greatly against my existence at that or any particular time, considering how old our Universe is. During most of the life of our Universe I hadn'tt existed (as far as I knew). I hadn'tt yet thought about there potentially being more than one life for each self.
Lets say that our Universe is the only universe and time will soon end. With only our Universe and one life, someones chances of existing at a particular time (with a 75 year life span & our 13.8 billion year old Universe) are 1 in 13,800,000,000/75 = 1 in 184,000,000. Lotteries have much better odds than that.
But the odds get much worse. Our Universe will likely be around extremely far into the future, many times its current age if not forever. Imagine an infinite time-line to the future representing all of time that will probably ever exist. Let's say that there is no reincarnation and we only get one life. What are the chances that I would be alive at a particular moment if I had only one life on the infinite time-line? It is zero, since (one life time)/(total time Universe will exist) = finite#/infinity = infinitely small number = zero, which would be the odds of me living right now with only one life and our Universe exiting forever into the future.
So it would be impossible for me to be conscious right now if I only got one life and time is infinite. Since my consciousness existing right now is very important for my consciousness, my existence right now is the equivalent of me winning the lottery with zero odds of winning. So it seems with infinite time I must be reincarnated an infinite number of times for it to be possible for me to exist right now."
So, out of the infinite time that probably has happened and probably will happen, it would be an impossible coincidence that this so happens to be my only chance at life. The math doesn't work. Something has to give. The simplest, and really only reasonable explanation, is that I am not limited to one life. I have to have an infinite number of lives through infinite time. That fixes the math.
It's impossible to absolutely prove the negative for Russell's Teapot. But Russell's Teapot is a far-fetched claim in the first place. Without proof, or at least good evidence, Russell's Teapot not existing is the default.
It's impossible to absolutely prove either way whether we only get one life. Unlike Russell's Teapot, consciousness is natural and my consciousness existing in my brain is expected. No one can explain why my consciousness can only exist in a brain one time. Unlike Russell's Teapot, which can't be explained, I can make an argument for multiple lives. You don't get to claim the default for single lives any more than I get to claim the default for multiple lives.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
98 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Thanks for the reply. I agree that is possible, but if it is inevitable we will return, is it also
Doodley
Oct 2016
#14
And the chances of getting the correct number on all 100 roles of dice would be far greater
cpwm17
Oct 2016
#57
You keep trying to put the burden of proof on others for disproving your reincarnation theory
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#91
Much as I'd like to live on forever after I die, writing a book just seems like too much work.
stone space
Oct 2016
#12
It is only unverifiable if we cannot confirm that we are not already in an afterlife.
Doodley
Oct 2016
#15
Even then it's still unverifiable because you can't confirm the after-afterlife
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#16
No you can't, but can you confirm that our existence now is life or the afterlife?
Doodley
Oct 2016
#34
You haven't made any logical arguments against the possibility of conscious minds returning.
cpwm17
Oct 2016
#61
I feel no obligation to disprove something that was never proven to begin with. YMMV.
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#63
And yet you proceed to compare it to other processes in nature as if it were a thing
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#69
And yet you are claiming your "conscious-self" not only can but has transcended your physical being
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#74
I have no evidence that my conscious-self is attach to any particular atoms in my body
cpwm17
Oct 2016
#75
You acknowledge "conscious-self" isn't a thing, yet base your premise on its transposition
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#78
I'm not claiming any position is the "default", which is where you are confused
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#94
What is consciousness? We can build computers but know very little about the human
Doodley
Oct 2016
#85
Music isn't a "thing." It is neither only soundwaves or perception. Can it be transposed? Yes.
Doodley
Oct 2016
#84
You are the one who made the claim. I am just asking you can back-up your claim.
Doodley
Oct 2016
#60
My "claim" was that any mention of an afterlife is conveniently unverifiable
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#62
You wouldn't anymore than you'd recognize you are alive. Similarly, there is a theory that
Doodley
Oct 2016
#35
my proof is in the first part............. I just suggested The Shack for your enjoyment
Angry Dragon
Oct 2016
#40
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.
still_one
Oct 2016
#30