Is there life after death Free Dating, Singles and Personals

Is there life after death Posted: 6/9/2008 6:26:15 AM
The notion of life after death is a totally man made irrational concept which cannot be proven. People seem to find some comfort in the fact that as it cannot be proven, it "might" exist by virtue of it not being proven to not exist. This is not logical at all. You cannot use 'not proof of non existance' to add substance to an argument. If you come up with an idea, the burden of proof lies on you to prove it. For example, I'll quote from a blog I wrote about opinions (edited slightly), but this can be applied directly to the topic at hand (with with a notion of god/afterlife): "I could say that I believe there is a pink elephant is on mars. Is the statement inherently correct/not wrong because it cannot be disproven? NO. Yes there could be a minute chance of a pink elephant is on mars, but without any proof of any kind at all you should disregard the statement entirely. Why should you disregard my statement? Because if you go with the argument that there is a minute chance of a pink elephant on mars, then you inadvertently subscribe to the argument that there is a chance of everything happening. Saying that anything can happen is just pure BS. Theoretically, yes there is a stupidly small chance that anything could happen. But to say that because this chance exists validates your argument is nonsensical; as the exact opposite event will also occur in a universe of infinite possibilities, thus cancelling out your event’s significance. i.e there is x probability that the pink elephant exists, but also the exact same x probability that it doesn’t exist in a universe where everything can happen (as everything has happened in an infinite environment). Therefore we are left with the outcome of the elephant half existing and not existing at the same time. What does this tell us? Well it tells you that you cannot rely on the view of non-proof to support an argument. Why not? Look around, does the monitor you are reading this note on exist? Yes it does, don’t try to be a smartarse and give the “but is it really there” answer. It is there for all intents and purposes. However according to your little theory it should also not be there at the same time, but it clearly is? How can this be? I’ll tell you how, we do NOT live in a universe were everything can happen. The very fact that the monitor exists proves the opposite argument that it does not exist wrong. As you can see, the ‘everything’ argument is a reversal of the above scenario – and it doesn’t work! You cannot reverse this argument to say: “because a paperclip does not exist on my desk, this is proof that it does exist on my desk” – Does that sound logical to you!? No amount of belief in your opinion will make that paperclip magically materialise. It doesn’t exist. Therefore to say it does exist by virtue of its non existence is WRONG and utterly idiotic. Therefore one can say that tangible observable things (on a macroscopic level) have far more persuasive weight than intangible faith objects. A scenario to demonstrate the above in action: There are two brothers, A owns a digital camera and the other B does not. A goes to the pawn shop to sell his digital camera, he hands it over to the pawnbroker and receives £50. B goes to the pawn shop and claims to the pawnbroker that in his opinion he has a digital camera in his hands and wants £50 for it. B states that he believes it exists. The pawnbroker looks at B’s hands and sees that they are empty. Would you buy B’s supposed faith camera?"

Free Dating Site