Is the Critique of Islam Islamophobic?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:12 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:26 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:38 am What arguments do you have for the root of theism other than blind faith?
These have been discussed many times, both here and in print elsewhere. To go over them all would be to waste a ton of time and space, since they all have been outlined so many times before. So let me direct you to the best source for many -- not just one -- such argument. This source isn't quite comprehensive of all of them, but it gets the major ones in. You'll note it's published by Blackwell, not by a local or vanity press, too.

https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Compan ... B003VIWZEM

A quick look at the index will give you a sense of the overview. But to understand the arguments in a sophisticated way, you'd need to read some of the individual essays.
Here is a review of the book in opposition to the arguments presented;
So let's get this straight. You still have no idea what the arguments are. You just fished up someone to tell you that they don't like them...and him, you believe.

Oy vey.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:14 am My point with the use of the term 'programmed' is find a suitable term to represent what is observed in reality on a empirical basis.
It's not "empirical." It's metaphorical. You're using the language of planning and computers do explain the activity of something (Nature) which you insist is incapable of these particular activities in any literal sense.

Nature does not "plan," unless Nature has a mind. Nature does not "program," unless Nature is already intelligent. But you say these things are not so, because that would make Nature some kind of "god" -- a conscious entity that was producing these things.
  • P1 All humans has an inherent instinct to strive and to survive against all odds till the inevitable [i.e. mortality].
Do you have any issue in the above?
Absolutely. In addition to the grammar problems, like "has" and "till," it's got two different premise terms mashed into one, "strive and survive." Then it uses a cliche, "against all odds," and ends with a truism so obvious it adds no information at all, "the inevitable". Yes, people stop doing things when they die...so?
In addition, a basic syllogism has three premises, not four. You've accidentally created a "chain syllogism" in which this first "link" has no clear attachment to the main argument. It doesn't even really belong.
P2-P4 still have the problems I identified above.
Nah, you are too pedantic.
No, I just know basic logic. You really could use a course...even the start of a course would do you a ton of good in learning how to form valid syllogisms.
The alternative to a conclusion can be the use of a narrative form where one premise follow from one another to the conclusion.
No, "narrative" means "story." And "stories" don't form elements of syllogisms.

Here: this will help. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... ogism.html

In particular, read the "rules."
P2 is still a tautology. It says "To survive, one has to avoid dying." True, but totally circularly so.
Nah how can that be circular?
Because it repeats a single idea as if it were two.

To "survive" means, by definition, "not to die." "To avoid dying" means, by definition, "to survive." Not only that, but the idea that "dead things are things that don't survive" is trivial. We know that. But what information does it add to the idea of "surviving"? None.
I still don't get how can that be an issue?
Because it essentially is like saying, "The red house is red." Tautologies use the same term, or a synonym for it twice, instead of presenting two distinct terms, which is what each premise in a syllogism is supposed to do.
Therefore even if my P2, is a truism, there is no issue because it is still true.
A "truism" isn't just a truth. It's a true statement so simple and obvious that it adds no information.
There is nothing when I state it is programmed via nature.
"Nature" is not an agency that "programs." You're anthropomorphizing "Nature." "Nature" just means "randomness," according to evolutionary theory. And "randomness" has never "programmed"
Ok, noted.
I will omit the term programme in this case.[/quote]
That's what I was saying at the top of this message. The word is just inapt here.
Principle of Charity means understanding my original intentions even when there are some slight errors or slips.
Well, what does one do when the wording is so unclear that the recipient can't even tell what the "intention" might have been? In such cases, the Principle of Charity tells us not to make things up, thereby telling the speaker what her "intention" really was, but to ask for clarification, if it can be had. And that's what I'm doing.
C is still obviously untrue anyway. So nothing connects. It does not follow correct deductive form. It also has erroneous content. Logicians call the former "invalid" and the latter "untrue." In total, they call your argument "unsound."
My logic is proper the only counter you can give is the argument is unsound i.e. not realistic.
"Unsound" does not merely mean "unrealistic." It means that both in form and in content, the argument is incorrectly structured and articulated, and thus unreliable for any conclusion. See https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html
I don't believe the above.
Logicians do. You'll see it's basic to the formation of syllogisms.
An argument can be very logical, i.e. if it satisfy the structure of logic, i.e. all the premises followed to the conclusion, but the conclusion is not sound if it is not realistic, because all or one of the premises is not true.
This is not how it works.

In a syllogism, if the premises are a) both correctly formed, and b) true in content, then the conclusion follows automatically, and ought to be believed. Only by defeating the premises, either for their form or their content, can you be warranted in rejecting the conclusion.

My revised argument would be;
  • P1 DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will-to-live against all odds till inevitable mortality.
    Essentially, it reads, "Human beings fear death."
    P2 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one is instinctually driven to avoid death.
    Human beings fear death.
    P3 To avoid death, it is instinctual to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
    Human beings fear death.
    C4 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one will instinctually fear death [subliminally or consciously].
Therefore, human beings fear death.
Now you've got an even worse problem. Instead of having three key terms in your "syllogism," and two premises and a conclusion, you've got four premises -- but every one of them is just a rewording of the conclusion. So none of the premises provide any support for it at all now.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: my deism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
ALL humans are programmed by nature NOT to have a conscious fear of death at all times

Let the above point sink in
That is why as a normal person you do not have a conscious fear of death . If you ever did it would only be temporary

If the above restraining inhibitors are weaken and the person have a persistent conscious fear death then the person is
recognized as mentally ill per DSM V i e suffering what is term THANATOPHOBIA
What evidence do you have for the mental state of ALL humans at ALL times with regard to a conscious fear of death
You cannot make universal statements about something that cannot be measured independently
You therefore have absolutely no idea what the mental state of ALL humans at ALL times is

Your argument also lacks consistency with regard to how you have presented it :

I ALL humans are programmed not to have a conscious fear of death at ALL times
2 A normal person could have a fear of death but it would only be temporary
3 Anyone who does have a persistent fear of death is therefore mentally ill

2 and 3 both contradict I which means either :

ALL humans are NOT programmed to have a fear of death at ALL times
The programme can be overridden if the fear of death actually exists

What about those who are terminally ill or very old who therefore know that death is very close
They are obviously not programmed by nature not to have a conscious fear of death at all times
This demonstrates that this programme is therefore not absolutely effective for ALL human beings at ALL times or that there is no such programme
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: VA

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
PI DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will to live against all odds till inevitable mortality

P2 To ensure one survive with the will to live one is instinctually driven to avoid death

P3 To avoid death it is instinctual to fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]

C4 Therefore to survive with the will to live one will instinctually fear death [ subliminally or consciously ]

Show any one of the above premise if false then the conclusion is false
PI is false because DNA is just genetic information so is not responsible for survival against all odds

P2 is a tautology because you obviously have to survive in order to avoid death

P3 is false because it is not necessary to fear death in order to avoid death

C4 is false because PI and P3 are false
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:12 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:26 pm
These have been discussed many times, both here and in print elsewhere. To go over them all would be to waste a ton of time and space, since they all have been outlined so many times before. So let me direct you to the best source for many -- not just one -- such argument. This source isn't quite comprehensive of all of them, but it gets the major ones in. You'll note it's published by Blackwell, not by a local or vanity press, too.

https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Compan ... B003VIWZEM

A quick look at the index will give you a sense of the overview. But to understand the arguments in a sophisticated way, you'd need to read some of the individual essays.
Here is a review of the book in opposition to the arguments presented;
So let's get this straight. You still have no idea what the arguments are. You just fished up someone to tell you that they don't like them...and him, you believe.

Oy vey.
What??

Hey! Didn't you notice I provided my reasons why I believe the arguments in the book are not tenable.

The reviewer's view is not strong.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:14 am My point with the use of the term 'programmed' is find a suitable term to represent what is observed in reality on a empirical basis.
It's not "empirical." It's metaphorical. You're using the language of planning and computers do explain the activity of something (Nature) which you insist is incapable of these particular activities in any literal sense.

Nature does not "plan," unless Nature has a mind. Nature does not "program," unless Nature is already intelligent. But you say these things are not so, because that would make Nature some kind of "god" -- a conscious entity that was producing these things.
Yes my use of 'programme' was intended to be metaphorical to represent what is going on that is empirical and can be justified empirically.

I have read of many who used 'programmed' in relation to nature, e.g. in relation to instincts established over millions or billions of years.
However they avoided 'programming' since this action is not determinable in a way.
  • P1 All humans has an inherent instinct to strive and to survive against all odds till the inevitable [i.e. mortality].
Do you have any issue in the above?
Absolutely. In addition to the grammar problems, like "has" and "till," it's got two different premise terms mashed into one, "strive and survive." Then it uses a cliche, "against all odds," and ends with a truism so obvious it adds no information at all, "the inevitable". Yes, people stop doing things when they die...so?
As far as grammar is concern, I would request for 'The Principle of Charity' since my mother tongue is not English.

I can change that to;

P1 All humans has an inherent instinct in striving to survive against all odds till the inevitable [i.e. mortality].

"Against all odds" is empirical evident from living things and humans that has survived despite the negative forces against their survival, e.g. the Eskimos, the desert Bedouins, etc. Your counter in this case is not valid since what I stated in the empirical truth.
This point is critical to support why theists are so desperate against all odds and do whatever it takes to avoid the fear of death, thus will war against and kill non-believers under the commands of their God.

It is the same for you and other theists who will defend their faith "oxymoronically" with arguments, since faith is belief without proofs nor justified reason.

'Till the inevitable' is a fact.
If I don't put 'till the inevitable' someone will bring up mortality.
That is to make my P1 truer and more realistic.

There is nothing false about my P1, therefore it stands.
In addition, a basic syllogism has three premises, not four. You've accidentally created a "chain syllogism" in which this first "link" has no clear attachment to the main argument. It doesn't even really belong.
P2-P4 still have the problems I identified above.
Nah, you are too pedantic.
No, I just know basic logic. You really could use a course...even the start of a course would do you a ton of good in learning how to form valid syllogisms.
I have read up on basic logic and justifying an argument.
My approach is not wrong.
Show me where in the world, philosophers insist arguments must absolute in 3-statements syllogism.
The alternative to a conclusion can be the use of a narrative form where one premise follow from one another to the conclusion.
No, "narrative" means "story." And "stories" don't form elements of syllogisms.

Here: this will help. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... ogism.html

In particular, read the "rules."
There are narrative arguments.
Why not?
A standard syllogism can be in the from to two stories leading to the conclusion.

What I intended re 'narrative' earlier was, an argument can be the form of more that 3 statements syllogism or even 100+ statements provided one premise follows from another to the conclusion.

It is very common within Philosophy Forums where a more than 3 statements argument is presented. As I stated such a format of argument is valid as long as the premises follow one from the previous premise. I recall some called it the 'narrative format' if not there should be proper name for such an argument.

Are you insisting a more than 2 premises with a conclusion is not valid?

I often read the claim the central portion of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one whole argument, i.e. with many chapters, sections and sub-sections.
P2 is still a tautology. It says "To survive, one has to avoid dying." True, but totally circularly so.
Because it repeats a single idea as if it were two.

To "survive" means, by definition, "not to die." "To avoid dying" means, by definition, "to survive." Not only that, but the idea that "dead things are things that don't survive" is trivial. We know that. But what information does it add to the idea of "surviving"? None.
I still don't get how can that be an issue?
Because it essentially is like saying, "The red house is red." Tautologies use the same term, or a synonym for it twice, instead of presenting two distinct terms, which is what each premise in a syllogism is supposed to do.
My P2 is definitely not similar The red house is red."
It is more like 'The red house is not green' or not any color other than red.
This is useful to warn someone from using a green paint.
Therefore even if my P2, is a truism, there is no issue because it is still true.
A "truism" isn't just a truth. It's a true statement so simple and obvious that it adds no information.
A truism merely represent the same truth in another perspective.
Truism = a self-evident, obvious truth.

I agree it adds no new facts, but it is not false, so no critical damage to the argument.

I could state, 'To survive, is instinctively driven to fear death'
But I had used a truism to avoid a sudden jump, thus the flow is gradual.

P2 is thus not an issue nor does in make my argument to that stage false.

My revised argument would be;
  • P1 DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will-to-live against all odds till inevitable mortality.
    Essentially, it reads, "Human beings fear death."
    P2 To ensure one survive with the will-to-live one is instinctually driven to avoid death.
    Human beings fear death.
    P3 To avoid death, it is instinctual to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
    Human beings fear death.
    C4 Therefore to survive with the will-to-live, one will instinctually fear death [subliminally or consciously].
Therefore, human beings fear death.
Now you've got an even worse problem. Instead of having three key terms in your "syllogism," and two premises and a conclusion, you've got four premises -- but every one of them is just a rewording of the conclusion. So none of the premises provide any support for it at all now.
  • P1 DNA wise all humans has an inherent instinct to strive to survive with a will-to-live against all odds till inevitable mortality.
    Essentially, it reads, "Human beings fear death."
Your "human beings fear death" do not represent my argument at all.

As far as my argument is concern it starts with a Major Premise, P1 , i.e. "ALL humans .."
It is evident the following premises 2 and 3 as Minor premises are all subsumed under the major premises.

I don't see you understanding the Principles of Logic in this case.

You have not show me where my Major Premise do not follow through to the conclusion.

Btw, the above merely statement of premises.
The point is each premises and its elements must be supported by justifications with empirical evidences.
For example, there is a need to explain how instincts came above.

"striving against all odds" I have given you examples. To be convincing I will have to provide more evidence.

It is the same with P2 I will have to provide greater details to justify this premise is true.

It is just that there is a limitation in such a forum to support my premises thoroughly.

Nevertheless I welcome whatever counter arguments you can give, but the last one
Essentially, it reads, "Human beings fear death" is intellectually ridiculous.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:22 am
What about those who are terminally ill or very old who therefore know that death is very close
They are obviously not programmed by nature not to have a conscious fear of death at all times
This is a very good point surreptitious57

Not one single one of us has ever been aware of their death. The same idea can be applied to being born. No one has ever been aware of their birth. Fears about birth or death are irrational, as such these ideas are what knowledge informs, and yet birth and death cannot be directly experienced by any one. We can witness another persons birth and death, but we have no experience of what that other persons birth or death is actually like, so we are still stuck in that dilemma of not knowing birth and death as an actual experience...simply because the awareness that we are cannot experience birth and death literally because awareness is neither alive nor dead.
Peoples minds often cannot compute this when you lay it out to them. .... birth and death like all concepts known are just ideas formed from knowledge which only informs the illusory nature of reality, in that knowledge is just THOUGHT which are illusions appearing real.

However...within the dream of separation...birth and death apparently are real, seem real anyway, as we identify with our conceptual knowledge born of thought within the mind as reality itself.

Here is just one of many stories arising here in Awareness...>
Many old and terminally ill people are in a very serene place within their mind. Normal intelligence people understand the reality of death as a necessary part of life itself. Awakened people are already dead while they live, so those awakened ones are having the best of both worlds anyway.

A lot of people who are nearing the end of their lives actually welcome death with open arms. Some people can't wait to die. Others just couldn't care less what happens, they're just enjoying the free ride. No one alive ever asked to be born in the first place and so they probably if they were totally honest with themselves wouldn't even care if they died or never existed ever again. Some people just don't bother with identifying with the irrational emotion of fear, those people even live on the very edge of life and death itself, they are called the adrenalin junkies who live only to walk the fine line between life and death. Death is a wonderful event, it's total freedom and nirvana, most people know this instinctively. The entire existence is already enlightened. It's the mind of knowledge that puts a big doubt upon what is always free and enlightened.

Also, every night when we go to sleep, we do not go to sleep fearing will never wake up again, we know we will wake up. That's how awakened people live their lives, they do not fear death in the same context they do not fear going to sleep at night. The point is, who you are never dies because who you are was never born...only the thought of you is born, not you.

.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: my deism

Post by surreptitious57 »

surreptitious57 wrote:
What about those who are terminally ill or very old who therefore know that death is very close
They are obviously not programmed by nature not to have a conscious fear of death at all times
On reflection I think that this is true only for some not for all so some people who are terminally ill or very old will have a fear of death
Also they may not be afraid of death itself so much but of dying because that might be physically and psychologically damaging for them
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: my deism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
ALL humans are programmed by nature NOT to have a conscious fear of death at all times

Let the above point sink in
That is why as a normal person you do not have a conscious fear of death . If you ever did it would only be temporary

If the above restraining inhibitors are weaken and the person have a persistent conscious fear death then the person is
recognized as mentally ill per DSM V i e suffering what is term THANATOPHOBIA
What evidence do you have for the mental state of ALL humans at ALL times with regard to a conscious fear of death
You cannot make universal statements about something that cannot be measured independently
You therefore have absolutely no idea what the mental state of ALL humans at ALL times is
Psychologist and psychiatrists recognized THANATOPHOBIA, i.e. one who persistently fear death conscious and suffer because of it is a mental illness as in DSM-V.

One can infer from the above, all humans are inherently and naturally conditioned not to have a conscious fear of death persistently.
Otherwise if all humans are to be conscious of death persistently with severe anxieties, then, all humans has serious mental illness per DSM-V.

The evidence is almost everyone will confirm they do not have a serious issue of being having a conscious fear of death.
Isn't you who stated you do not have a fear of death, i.e. consciously.

Your argument also lacks consistency with regard to how you have presented it :

I ALL humans are programmed not to have a conscious fear of death at ALL times
2 A normal person could have a fear of death but it would only be temporary
3 Anyone who does have a persistent fear of death is therefore mentally ill

2 and 3 both contradict I which means either :

ALL humans are NOT programmed to have a fear of death at ALL times
The programme can be overridden if the fear of death actually exists
You missed out some premises, i.e.

1. ALL humans have an instinct to fear death at the subconscious level.
2. ALL normal humans are inherently condition [suppressed] not to have conscious fear of death. (note the difference between subconscious and conscious)
3. When the suppression in 2 is weakened due to some reasons, the normal person could have a conscious fear of death, e.g. when attending a funeral or visiting a morgue. But this is temporary.
4. Anyone who has a persist conscious fear of death in contrary to 2 is mentally ill.
What about those who are terminally ill or very old who therefore know that death is very close
They are obviously not programmed by nature not to have a conscious fear of death at all times
This demonstrates that this programme is therefore not absolutely effective for ALL human beings at ALL times or that there is no such programme
Those who are terminally ill or very old has the inherent subconscious fear of death and the a suppressed conscious fear of death.
As with old age a large % of neurons are atrophized and with illness the person constitution is weakened.
Therefore it is likely the suppression of the conscious fear of death is weakened and thus they will have a persistent conscious fear of death which is a mental illness and they will be treated accordingly with the appropriate medicines.

However there may be a % of those who are very old and terminally ill, but if their suppression of the conscious fear of death is still strong, then they will not be bothered with the conscious fear of death. There are many of such examples, e.g. those who has meditated for a long time, practice impulse control in this regards, e.g. Buddhist monks and other spiritualists, those who are very Stoic, etc.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: my deism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Dontaskme wrote:
Death is a wonderful event it is total freedom and nirvana
Death is the end of all suffering and so should be more accepted because of this
When one sees it from this perspective to be afraid of it is completely irrational
And so I am looking forward to my own death because I will not suffer any more
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:36 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
What about those who are terminally ill or very old who therefore know that death is very close
They are obviously not programmed by nature not to have a conscious fear of death at all times
On reflection I think that this is true only for some not for all so some people who are terminally ill or very old will have a fear of death
Also they may not be afraid of death itself so much but of dying because that might be physically and psychologically damaging for them
Any fear is born of the unknown to be honest. The mind doesn't like not having control of it's own invented power, therefore psychological fear is AN inevitable by product of the irrational mind, the fear is always about not-knowing unknowns, never about the knowns which are comforts to the mind. The mind seeks only for familiarity, pleasure and comfort.

As for the dying process, this again is the unknown aspect of reality that the mind does not like. But once the mind is all accepting of it's not-knowing reality, it will surrender and become all accepting in total obeyance even during the experience of pain and amid all other chaos. Yes, the dying process is what we fear, not actual death itself.

There is a saying: when you are going through hell - keep going...we simply cannot avoid the inevitable, but until the inevitable comes there is nothing to fear AT ALL except fear itself, which is in and of itself just another illusion of the senses.



.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:44 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Death is a wonderful event it is total freedom and nirvana
Death is the end of all suffering and so should be more accepted because of this
When one sees it from this perspective to be afraid of it is completely irrational
And so I am looking forward to my own death because I will not suffer any more
Wonderful, I'm right there with you surreptitious57 :wink: :D
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: my deism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Dontaskme wrote:
the dying process is what we fear not actual death
Some fear death too because they do not want to be separated from loved ones and / or because they do not want to be be dead for all of time
But these fears only exist within their conscious mind as once they are dead they no longer exist so why then worry about them in the first place
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:09 am
Some fear death too because they do not want to be separated from loved ones and / or because they do not want to be be dead for all of time
And yet for me, even the idea of being separated from loved ones is just another irrational fear. For me, I don't see my loved ones separated from me, I see them as extensions of what I AM, so even in my death I will live on in my loved ones lives. I'm happy for my loved ones that are still alive when I am dead, simply because they still get to enjoy all the things that I did, so I feel as though life continues for me in them, except to say, just in a different body. So that's how I personally see it, I'm not suggesting everyone should see it like that, but I've always seen it like that.

Also, for me, there is no fear of not existing forever when I die, for I know there will be no one around to know that they are not existing forever.

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:09 amBut these fears only exist within their conscious mind as once they are dead they no longer exist so why then worry about them in the first place
Exactly.

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: my deism

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:09 am
Dontaskme wrote:
the dying process is what we fear not actual death
Some fear death too because they do not want to be separated from loved ones and / or because they do not want to be be dead for all of time
But these fears only exist within their conscious mind as once they are dead they no longer exist so why then worry about them in the first place
I recall having a deep conversation about the future plan of man walking on Mars with my brother who loves all things to do with astrophysics, astronomy and the universe.

He lamented to me about how much he would have loved to be the lucky person who actually gets to walk on the planet mars in realtime. He seemed sad that he would not get to experience the exploration of mars because of not living long enough to actually be witness of such an event.

So I just said to him, but you will be able to witness man walking on mars when that event happens. You will be there walking on mars when the event happens. But he didn't seem to understand what I was trying to say to him.

.
Post Reply