13
   

What is the purpose of life after death ?

 
 
MyViewpoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 11:11 am
@cicerone imposter,
Then the universe, the earth, and every living being, are just man-made concepts.

Religion is a man-made concept, but not the God of the Bible, who is everlasting and eternal.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 11:35 am
@MyViewpoint,
Are you really that dumb?

You wrote,
Quote:
Religion is a man-made concept, but not the God of the Bible, who is everlasting and eternal.


Prove it? It's a very simple question.
MyViewpoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 12:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Prove what?
What is the "very simple question?"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 12:34 pm
@MyViewpoint,
That your god exists.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 12:34 pm
@MyViewpoint,
MyViewpoint wrote:

Then the universe, the earth, and every living being, are just man-made concepts.

Religion is a man-made concept, but not the God of the Bible, who is everlasting and eternal.



That seems very arbitrary. Why is the case that every concept we have is man-made, but not God?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 01:15 pm
@Ding an Sich,
MV doesn't understand that man created all languages and concepts - including gods. When I say gods, I'm talking about the many gods that were created before the christian god by thousands of years.

Why is the christian god any more factual than the other gods when none can prove their god even exists. Faith is a wonderful thing, but even faith should have some basis of reality.

Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 01:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

MV doesn't understand that man created all languages and concepts - including gods. When I say gods, I'm talking about the many gods that were created before the christian god by thousands of years.

Why is the christian god any more factual than the other gods when none can prove their god even exists. Faith is a wonderful thing, but even faith should have some basis of reality.




But faith has little to no basis on reality for the Christian. In fact, it is something that goes beyond a possible experience (Kant).

Oh and here's a proof for the existence of God. It's Godel's proof, not mine.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3Yi34O67M6o/SeQj1oO0SJI/AAAAAAAAAko/kB5wUuNDO8I/s800/godel+ontological.png
MyViewpoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 01:30 pm
Sorry, I can't prove that God exists. Even if I claimed I could, people wouldn't believe me anyway. I'll just let God prove Himself ... in his own way, in His own time .... to each person who seeks that proof. However, the evidence of His existence seems to be present in every minute atom of the universe.

"Man cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen."
~~Michel de Montaigne

JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 04:03 pm
@Ding an Sich,
So much for the value of "proofs".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 05:27 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding, I'm not sure why you even bothered to post Godel's proof of god; you need to translate that for me/us, because I/we don't understand it in that form.

That's what I call formula garbage; it's a mesh-mash of bull shite.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 08:29 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Ding, I'm not sure why you even bothered to post Godel's proof of god; you need to translate that for me/us, because I/we don't understand it in that form.

That's what I call formula garbage; it's a mesh-mash of bull shite.


It not formula garbage as far as I can gather; in fact, it's a very nice proof using modal logic (although it is questionable).

Translation of the proof

Ax. 1. If an object, phi, has property P and necessarily for all x if x is phi then x is an object psi, then psi has property P.

Ax. 2. An not phi has the property P if, and only if, it is not the case that object phi has the property P.

Th. 1. If an object phi has the property P, then possibly there exists an x such that x is phi.

Df. 1. x has the property of God-like property if, and only if, for all objects phi, phi has the property P and x is phi.

Ax 3. The God-like property is the property that includes all positive properties.

Th. 2. Possibly there exists an x such that x is God-like.

Df. 2. x is essentially phi iff x has the property phi and for all psi if x is psi, then necessarily for all x if x is phi, then x is psi.

Ax 4. if phi has the property P, then necessarily phi has the property P.

Th. 3. if x is God-like, then x is essentially God-like.

Df. 3. x has the property of Existence if, and only if, for all phi if x is essentially phi, then necessarily for all x, x has the property of phi.

Ax. 5. Existence is a property P.

Th. 4. necessarily, there exists an x such that x is God-like.

It may seem like "mesh-mash", but I assure you it is not. It is dubious though.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 08:30 am
@MyViewpoint,
MyViewpoint wrote:

Sorry, I can't prove that God exists. Even if I claimed I could, people wouldn't believe me anyway. I'll just let God prove Himself ... in his own way, in His own time .... to each person who seeks that proof. However, the evidence of His existence seems to be present in every minute atom of the universe.

"Man cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen."
~~Michel de Montaigne




Doesn't that pressupose that, well, God exists, and that He can do such things? I thought we were trying to determine in the first place whether or not God does indeed exist. Or am I missing something?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 11:04 am
@Ding an Sich,
No, you're not missing anything, but MV lives with his belief system, because he was brainwashed with it since he was a toddler. He has to resort to, "god will reveal himself," because that's the only recourse he has left in his book of tricks/magic.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 01:44 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Why should I accept definition 1? Indeed, why should I accept any of the axioms? It seems to me that everything debatable in this "proof" is asserted in the axioms, reducing the "proof" to a jargon-infested exercise in question-begging. I would be surprised if this really originated from Goedel, or indeed from any reputable logician not engaged in satire. Can you give me a source?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 04:29 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding wrote,
Quote:
Ax. 1. If an object, phi, has property P and necessarily for all x if x is phi then x is an object psi, then psi has property P.


You may believe you are expressing a form of logic, but it misses on the definition of what phi is. Give it to us in an example using subjects rather than algebraic formula. You can't do it, because it doesn't exist.

You can't prove something from nothing.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 05:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
the lack of information is information in its self.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 06:22 pm
@hamilton,
Yes, mostly based on ignorance.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2011 03:34 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Why should I accept definition 1? Indeed, why should I accept any of the axioms? It seems to me that everything debatable in this "proof" is asserted in the axioms, reducing the "proof" to a jargon-infested exercise in question-begging. I would be surprised if this really originated from Goedel, or indeed from any reputable logician not engaged in satire. Can you give me a source?


The purpose of my posting the proof was to give "proof" for the existence of God, since no one else on the thread, in particular the Christians, failed to do so. I do not espouse the proof itself, although it is a nice exercise in modal logic. Furthermore, I concur that the proof is not very convincing.

Here is a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godels_ontological_proof
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2011 03:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Ding wrote,
Quote:
Ax. 1. If an object, phi, has property P and necessarily for all x if x is phi then x is an object psi, then psi has property P.


You may believe you are expressing a form of logic, but it misses on the definition of what phi is. Give it to us in an example using subjects rather than algebraic formula. You can't do it, because it doesn't exist.

You can't prove something from nothing.


We are not proving something from nothing. I, and hopefully Godel, assumed a domain of "objects", or a non-empty set.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2011 04:45 pm
I can't seriously address the question, "What is the purpose of LIFE AFTER DEATH" because there is no reason to assume there is life after death. I could, albeit still not seriously, address the question "What is the purpose of DEATH AFTER LIFE" because there is death after life. I do not know about the "purpose" factor, however.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 05:18:02