Animals and the Afterlife

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 320
#271
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Well those ate interesting questions and certainly each of those things has an effect on the physical world and each has a physical component. Batman exists in as much as ink physically exists and is used as a medium to tell stories about him. Thoughts exist in as much as electrical activity in the brain physically exists and thoughts are an emergent property of this physical activity. Without any physical impact however I'm not sure how we would even be able to discuss the concepts. Like how would we discuss notbatman? Like whether fictional characters already imagined or even that ever will be imagined "exist" fictional characters who are never imagined don't exist even to this limited degree.
Topic's author
#272
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
For me, both actually exist but exactly as you described. If no one ever had the brainwave that put ink to paper and wrote the first Batman story, he'd not exist, but here we are. 

Existence can only be sensibly defined as occupying space for an interval of time. In order to occupy space, you have to have physical properties. I've yet to encounter anyone who has a materially different explanation, and saying "that's true of all things but this" without demonstrating it is obviously special pleading. 
#273
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not accept that anything non physical exists and am not even sure what non physical means unless it is a synonym nor nonexistent. That's as close to a simple yes or no I can give such an incoherent idea.
 I didn't t say say you had to accept that "non physical" things do in fact exist. I am asking whether you know if they can exist.

The second question should be easy enough to answer with a yes, no, or I don't know:

Can something only exist if it is made up of physical material?
#274
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Existence can only be sensibly defined as occupying space for an interval of time. In order to occupy space, you have to have physical properties. I've yet to encounter anyone who has a materially different explanation, and saying "that's true of all things but this" without demonstrating it is obviously special pleading. 
Well stated. I'm not sure were to begin if I were to try to describe something that existed in no space for no time.
#275
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Can something only exist if it is made up of physical material?
Well matter or energy but pedantry aside...

It certainly seems to be the case that only physical things exist. In absence of evidence to the contrary I must conclude that the idea of a non physical thing is logically incoherent. 
#276
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Now unless you have such evidence I have to ask that we get back on topic which is whether or not belief in the bible is speculative. I don't see how it even matters if a nonphysical thing can exist for it to be speculation to propose one sans sufficient evidence. 
#277
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Condolences, my friend.

If your position were that individuals with no soul could not go to heaven or hell, I would ask if angels and demons have a soul. I think the consensus would be 'no'. This leads me to believe a soul wouldn't be required to go to heaven or hell.

As for 'believing in Jesus' as a prerequisite for heaven, I suppose it depends... I mean did Moses or Noah except Jesus? I don't see how that would be possible given the Biblical time frames. Are they in heaven? I think most Christians would accept they are. That being the case, there is necessarily some exceptions to that rule.
#278
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
It certainly seems to be the case that only physical things exist. In absence of evidence to the contrary I must conclude that the idea of a non physical thing is logically incoherent.
Why is it logically incoherent? There is a whole realm of philosophy devoted to this subject.


Now unless you have such evidence I have to ask that we get back on topic which is whether or not belief in the bible is speculative.
That was a tangent from the actual topic, which was my dispute that you know that no one knows why there is something rather than nothing.
#279
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Why is it logically incoherent? There is a whole realm of philosophy devoted to this subject.
Rather say entirely speculative which is after all your primary objection here. That we may only speculate or admit ignorance? How does speculating about some non physical thing specifically resolve this issue?
That was a tangent from the actual topic, which was my dispute that you know that no one knows why there is something rather than nothing.
We can only speculate.
#280
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
salvation is only required for humans because Adam fucked up. 
I disagree totally that we are at all affected by Adam's free choice to disobey by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He and Eve became mortal as a result, but the atonement of Christ paid for that transgression, so we don't have to worry about it. I wish more Christians understood that; we do not suffer one whit due to Adan and Eve. In fact, you will note that Adam and Eve had no children until they were banished from the garden. I believe until they became mortal, they were unable to have children. As a result, the "Fall" was actually a rise in potential, because by the fall, we were able to be born on Earth and live mortal lives; a necessity to allow us to advance even further that as spirit children of God.
#281
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@ludofl3x
My third point of my #243 answers that; all animals have souls, i.e., spirit bodies. You will note that Genesis appears to have description of two creation events, not just one. A lot of people are wrapped around the axle with that. I think it's simple: the first is a creation in spirit, and the second a creation of physical properties, thus my belief that all life is both of spirit and physical properties.
#282
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,360
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
I would suggest that all organisms have material properties, and are generated and maintained  by an energy principle (life), which could be referred to as spirit.

Whether such properties are residual after material decay, is speculative, but nonetheless a reasonable proposition.

I would further suggest that the nature and possible purpose of said hypothetical residue, becomes so speculative that it quickly ascends without any chance of verification, into the fantastical.

Though I see no reason why all living organisms should not possess the same properties.
#283
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Various faiths have various views on whether or not animals have souls or spirits. I've never read anything in monotheism to indicate that animals have spirit and have any sort of afterlife. Most pagan faiths have some basis in animism and the idea that everything has a spirit and everything gets the in afterlife. I know plenty of monotheists who will tell you their pet went to heaven even though there's nothing in any of their holy books to indicate that's the truth. So it largely depends on what you believe as far as whether or not animals have a spirit and if they do they have an afterlife. Why an animal would go to hell makes no sense to me but if you want to consider that they might I guess that's possible.
#284
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
I have to say that I am not sure whether your pet will go to heaven or not.  I do think that animals will be in heaven.  

I would like to think that pets go. But I don't have any evidence to support that they will.  

On the other hand, I do think that there will be many animals in heaven of sorts of varieties including perhaps many of our extinct ones.




#285
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,360
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Hypothetical animal souls in a hypothetical heaven.

Undoubtedly.


Hypothetical viruses, bacteria and fungi too.


And hypothetical LGBT orgies.


And hypothetically, what ever one f**king desires.


#286
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Hypothetical animal souls in a hypothetical heaven.
Interesting response.  I would think that pets that we live with now are hmmm not hypothetical.  Perhaps you have imaginary ones? 

Heaven is not hypothetical.  You don't know where it is and how to get there - that is because you choose to rely on other people's testimonies.  Have you been to the Solomon Islands?  If not, do you think it is merely a hypothetical place?  If you think it is real, on what basis? On someone else's testimony.  Of course you could jump in a plane and go there. But you won't. You might say you could - but that is just a hypothetical. And all based on someone else's testimony until you actually do it.  But you won't. You have no need to go there.  So it is always going to be hypothetical based on someone's testimony that you believe is a fact for you.  The thing is - while you hold such hypotheticals in your head - and this is just one really silly one, that you reject other people's views as hypothetical is nothing short of hypocrisy.  Now that is fine so far as it goes - but just remember - it is what it is. 

Undoubtedly.
For you this possible the case. 

Hypothetical viruses, bacteria and fungi too.
Our scientists every year estimate thousands of new species are lost - hypothetically without ever producing proof of it. 


#287
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,360
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Hmmmm.....I never mentioned pets.....Just hypothetical souls.


Heaven is not hypothetical. 
So where exactly is it then.


Undoubtedly.
Well, any hypothesis is hypothetical


Our scientists every year estimate.
Undoubtedly....But what does that prove?

Other than scientists hypothesise.....Which is only to be expected.



And your reference:

To the Solomon Islands.
Is a corker of a strawman argument.
#288
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Heaven is God's home on earth.  AKA the Garden of Eden. AKA as paradise. 


To the Solomon Islands.
Is a corker of a strawman argument.


And yet this argument is not an strawman, is it?  You believe entirely on someone else's testimony that the Solomon Islands is true. You have never been there. So you are trusting someone else's testimony, aren't you? You are not using reason or logic or science.  You are using the fact that people are testifying to its existence. Now you could get off your backside and go there - but you won't.  Because you are prepared to TRUST other people's testimony. Many of whom you have never met - or know anything about. Many who you even know are fraudsters and who are power hungry. But that won't make you stop trusting them in this instance. 

This is not a strawman argument. You do believe that Solomon Islands exist.  But only because someone told you.  Not because you can say beyond a shadow of doubt - because you have personally experienced it.  This is my point.  It is testimony you trust. Just saying you could go there - is not proof. Or giving someone a location. 

You trust testimony - and not because it has been proved as credible - but because "it fits your narrative".  If it does not fit your narrative - then you don't believe it - no matter what the evidence is.   That is the nuts and bolts of it Zed. And that is how most people in our world think.  We think according to our narrative.  For most of us - evidence is helpful - but we don't generally need it. We listen to the narrative and that fills out the gaps in what we can see or not. 


#289
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,360
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
AKA make believe, in a mythical narrative embellished with fantasy.

Whereas The Solomon Islands are not make believe.

I do not need to go there to know that they exist.

That's the real nuts and bolts Trade, as well you know.
#290
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
so here's the cruncher. Make me believe the Solomon Islands are real without referring to testimony. 

Can you do it? 


#291
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,360
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
The simple fact is, I don't need to do it.

Just as you don't need to prove the existence of a specific GOD.

Though the underlying reality is obvious.

I can prove the Solomon Islands 

But you cannot prove your GOD.

And it's inevitably at this point that the theist invokes the strawman.

By saying, ah but you cannot prove that a specific GOD doesn't exist.

So are you saying that I cannot prove that the Solomon Islands exist?


And making someone believe, is both easy and impossible.

And in this instance, it would  all depend upon you rather than me. 

Though believing, by definition, proves nothing.....Other than a lesser or greater acceptance of certain hypothetical data.

Nonetheless; validate the hypothesis and belief becomes irrelevant anyway.


The fact that the basis of your faith is only belief, currently tells me all that I need to know.

You cannot actually prove the existence of a specific GOD.


And I do not believe in the Solomon Islands.

Because they do exist.

Can you prove that they don't exist.
#292
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
The simple fact is, I don't need to do it.

Just as you don't need to prove the existence of a specific GOD.
Yes that is correct.  But the point is you believe the Solomon Islands exist ONLY upon testimony.  That is the point.  It is ok to concede. 


Though the underlying reality is obvious.

I can prove the Solomon Islands 
Well, that is the point - you can't prove it.   You must rely upon testimony.  And at the end of the day - even if you prove it to yourself by going somewhere - to prove it to me requires what? Your testimony. Unless you are going to pay for me to travel to a place - you think is called the Solomon Islands.    This is the point. It is a ridiculous standard. 


But you cannot prove your GOD.


Well to the same standard as you require to prove the Solomon Islands are true - I could easily prove God - a particular God is true.  To that same standard. Not a problem. 

So you first - - prove to me that the Solomon Island is true. 


And it's inevitably at this point that the theist invokes the strawman.

By saying, ah but you cannot prove that a specific GOD doesn't exist.

So are you saying that I cannot prove that the Solomon Islands exist?

But you are incorrect. I will prove to you that the Trinity God of the Bible exists as soon as you prove the Solomon Island exists.  


And making someone believe, is both easy and impossible.

And in this instance, it would  all depend upon you rather than me. 
This is true to some extent. The question is what might make you believe that the Trinity God exists? Or perhaps we might ask - what might make me believe that the Solomon Island exists? There is subjective and objective. 


Though believing, by definition, proves nothing.....Other than a lesser or greater acceptance of certain hypothetical data.

Nonetheless; validate the hypothesis and belief becomes irrelevant anyway.
I am not sure what you are saying. 


The fact that the basis of your faith is only belief, currently tells me all that I need to know.

You cannot actually prove the existence of a specific GOD.

I do believe in God - but it is not based in faith.   I can prove God exists. In exactly the same way you can prove to me that God exists. 


And I do not believe in the Solomon Islands.

Because they do exist.

Can you prove that they don't exist.
I don't have to prove anything,  I know God exists - not believe He does exist, no question in my mind. 

#293
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,360
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I know God exists.
That is untrue.

You believe that a God exists.



If a God was actually known to exist, then why wouldn't we all accept the fact.


Gods are the basis of  various naive creation hypotheses.

The outdated BIG BANGS, as it were.



Topic's author
#294
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, that is the point - you can't prove it.   You must rely upon testimony.  And at the end of the day - even if you prove it to yourself by going somewhere - to prove it to me requires what? Your testimony. Unless you are going to pay for me to travel to a place - you think is called the Solomon Islands.    This is the point. It is a ridiculous standard. 
Wait, so the only standard of evidence you'd accept on the existence of anything is first hand experience? So the countless pieces of evidence pointing to the existence of the Solomon Islands, like pictures of it, accounts of others about their travels there, location on a map, numerous independently verifiable evidence, none of those convince you? I don't need to go to Wyoming to know it exists. Do you? Just trying to understand your position here. 
#295
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I know God exists.
That is untrue.

You believe that a God exists.
I know God - the God of the Bible exists.   I have faced this fact many times. It is about time you did as well. 


If a God was actually known to exist, then why wouldn't we all accept the fact.
Well the obvious answer is - arrogance and pride.  And the fact that as humans we want NO ONE to tell us how to live our lives. 

The other obvious answers are ignorance and stupidity and foolishness.  



Gods are the basis of  various naive creation hypotheses.

The outdated BIG BANGS, as it were.
There is ONLY ONE GOD which counts.  The rest are gods of the imagination or persons with an exaggerated sense of the Ego. 



#296
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, that is the point - you can't prove it.   You must rely upon testimony.  And at the end of the day - even if you prove it to yourself by going somewhere - to prove it to me requires what? Your testimony. Unless you are going to pay for me to travel to a place - you think is called the Solomon Islands.    This is the point. It is a ridiculous standard. 
Wait, so the only standard of evidence you'd accept on the existence of anything is first hand experience? So the countless pieces of evidence pointing to the existence of the Solomon Islands, like pictures of it, accounts of others about their travels there, location on a map, numerous independently verifiable evidence, none of those convince you? I don't need to go to Wyoming to know it exists. Do you? Just trying to understand your position here. 
That is not what I am saying.  And what are the countless pieces of evidence point to Solomon Island being real?  A picture can be faked.  People's accounts can be wrong and mistaken.   Just because people say they have been there is not evidence.  A location can be suggested.  None of these are actual evidence of its existence. All of this is simply testimony. Other people's testimony. And my point is Zed believes all of this on faith.   

If I produce a book which talks about Heaven, and it provides a picture of heaven.  Obviously the picture is not a photo - but it was written before cameras were invented. But it provides good pictures by way of words.  If this book also includes a person who has been to heaven and come back, not just one but several.  If this book provides all of this testimony is it evidence? 

In a court room it might be considered evidence if the person swears on it.  But Zed would suggest that it is only words in a book - and someone else's words at that.  Yet he is willing to believe that the Solomon Islands exists on nothing more than testimonials. And I suggest the same applies to you. 

For you to believe that the Solomon Islands - compared to whether God exists or not - is not a matter of evidence. It is a matter of faith on both counts.  For me - it is not faith - for me - since I know I exist - I know God exists.  For me it is that simple.  I also know that the Solomon Islands exists - but I do this on faith - on the good faith that I think most people are not trying to fool me when they tell me it is true.  I think the same thing applies to the bible and also to many people I know who do know that God exists.    


#297
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
There is ONLY ONE GOD which counts.  The rest are gods of the imagination or persons with an exaggerated sense of the Ego. 
LOL, the irony.
#298
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,339
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
tradesecrete wrote: Well, that is the point - you can't prove it.   You must rely upon testimony.  And at the end of the day - even if you prove it to yourself by going somewhere - to prove it to me requires what? Your testimony. Unless you are going to pay for me to travel to a place - you think is called the Solomon Islands.    This is the point. It is a ridiculous standard. 
ludofl3x wrote: Wait, so the only standard of evidence you'd accept on the existence of anything is first hand experience? So the countless pieces of evidence pointing to the existence of the Solomon Islands, like pictures of it, accounts of others about their travels there, location on a map, numerous independently verifiable evidence, none of those convince you? I don't need to go to Wyoming to know it exists. Do you? Just trying to understand your position here. 
Tradesecrete wrote: That is not what I am saying.  And what are the countless pieces of evidence point to Solomon Island being real?  A picture can be faked.  People's accounts can be wrong and mistaken.   Just because people say they have been there is not evidence.  A location can be suggested.  None of these are actual evidence of its existence. All of this is simply testimony. Other people's testimony. And my point is Zed believes all of this on faith.   

FFS!,  You are drowning in your own bullshite and just cannot accept it.


 If this book provides all of this testimony is it evidence? 

No. It is only testimony until it is proven and accepted to be fact, my lawyer friend.  The ancient anonymous writers of the gospels were not eyewitness accounts and neither are you.


In a court room it might be considered evidence if the person swears on it.

 Nope! And here you are again bringing an ancient story into a 21st century  the courtroom setting. You have attempted this bullshite before and failed miserably.
You have once more painted yourself into a tight theological corner from which there is no getting out of. And typically arguing for arguments sake!

Jesus makes it reasonably clear what and where the/his "kingdom of heaven" is, as does historian Josephus and it is not up in the fkn sky. I did say that you hit the post with an earlier comment#23 but then shot yourself in the foot with your following comment.
And in fact, Josephus gives us a lovely description of the "kingdom of heaven" which strangely has been omitted from the NT. I wonder why?

But Zed would suggest that it is only words in a book

As do  YOU, and often;


"The bible "?  The same bible that you say is "just a book that can't cause anything". #3 ?

And  full of words about which you say "Words are words, and that is all they are". #45 ". 


Are you saying that the Solomon Islands do not exist? Are you saying that Her Majesty Queen of England is not the head of state for the Solomon Islands. Here educate yourself you pompous penis.



#299
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,360
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Sorry Trade.

But that is all arrogant bunkum.

You have your GOD implanted in your head, as acquired and stored data.

Your GOD is currently not known to be anywhere else.
#300
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,339
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Sorry Trade.

But that is all arrogant bunkum.

It is.  And well worthy of the man that he tells us he aspires to be like.#76