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]Major Nikon
(36,917 posts)90. There's lots of things which differentiate me from everyone else
Physical properties like DNA are one of them, and physical changes and stored memories are another. I don't feel the need to invent some abstract concept of a soul to think of myself as unique. You use words like "conscious being" that just don't have that much different connotation than religious ideas of a soul. I am a being that happens to presently be in a state of consciousness. Eventually I'll become a being that happens to be in a state of death. For me it need not be anymore complicated.
Descartes isn't defining a "soul", he is defining the basis of knowledge which requires an assumption of a state of existence.
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.
Russell's Teapot says I feel no obligation to even try.
Regardless of whatever chances you think of some random person existing are, the chance of you in particular existing is pretty much 100% unless I'm incredibly high or in some other form of psychosis and just imagined you. Assuming this not to be the case and building on the fact that you're replying, I'd go one step farther and say your chance of being conscious is also 100%. To work off your lottery analogy, if you hold the ticket with the winning numbers, your chance of winning is 100%, not 5.7 e-11%. Now if you want to play the game of the monkey banging on a typewriter writing War and Peace, "you" might be physically identical to you, but you would be "reincarnated" in the same sense as a recycled ball bearing.
Russell's Teapot is intended to be far fetched. That's pretty much central to the whole point. Asserting that I'm claiming any "default" is strawman. I've already told you I never said you were wrong, just that I have no reason to believe you are right. You keep confusing those two things.
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