THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (4784)	3/25/2002 6:27:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 21057

What about the energy, Tim? Maybe we have to get metaphysical here. If we have a soul, by definition non-matter, then is the soul a form of energy? But isn't that at least close to being a circular argument. If you start with the assumption that their is such a thing as a soul, that we are more then just physical, then yes your argument that we persist beyond death makes sense (but I suppose that it is concievable that the soul like the body could transform to a non-living state without being destroyed). Your ideas on this fit together well, they are internally consistent, and I wouldn't even say that I think they are wrong, but they aren't really an argument for non-believers. If someone does not believe in God or souls then your argument - ("If matter and energy cannot (by law) be created or destroyed, but only transformed, one could rationally infer that the process we know as "death" does not necessarily, or even logically, mean the end of our existence. ") would be unconvincing. If on the other hand the person who you are talking to does believe in God and souls then your argument is probably unnecessary. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next