Presumtion of 'Heaven'

[Mega City 5]

Your primary failure is not one of philosophy, unless you're extending the umbrella over history and/or science. You're asserting things that must be demonstrated, and cannot be deduced. You would inevitably fail in an attempt to demonstrate them, because they were invented hundreds to thousands of years ago by several cultures of varying levels of ignorance. You won't demonstrate a god, so your argument cannot be accepted as a sound one. It's that simple.

You're speaking from a position of ignorance (in the literal sense of the term, i.e., "unknowing"). The immortality of the soul is a question of philosophical anthropology, and ultimately falls under metaphysics (one of the philosophical speculative sciences). The question of the existence or non-existence of a God, again, is a question of metaphysics, and can only be approached after we do ontology (a sub-section of metaphysics). And we shouldn't really be doing any of that until we have some basic understanding of the Aristotelian philosophy of science (in particular, the Posterior Analytics) and certain important, basic parts of his physics [physics in the sense of one of the philosophical speculative sciences).

It would take over a week of lectures just to give you a crash course in the philosophy of science and the basic part of his physics (and you really would only know the basics).

Ultimately, history and science are irrelevant to the question.

By definition, we are concerning ourselves with supersensible realities, whereas the natural sciences can only deal with sensible realities.

And history can only supply us with empirical instances/particular matters of fact, which isn't really what we are concerned with.

May I recommend Fr. Joseph Owen's Elementary Christian Metaphysics?

[Arach-Naga Combine]

I get frustrated when people assert things after I repeatedly ask for justifications rather than unsupported fairytales.

Bold: a thing that is by definition unobservable, is by definition not real. If the afterlife cannot by definition be demonstrated, then it necessarily does not exist. You can't prove that a thing exists by logic, you must do so by demonstration. And of course, a couple of ignorant monks have absolutely nothing to show there.

I made no such assumption. The state or relative scale of life/afterlife is irrelevant because you made one INFINITE. It doesn't matter if that afterlife is pretty awful, you made every individual experience meaningless. I reject your assumptions about the afterlife(which you made the sentence after you strawmanned me for those I didn't make), and ask that you DEMONSTRATE that your metric(s) for valuation of a life are anything other than trash.

Ohhhh lordy, you're one of those people, eh? You must get along with Zoice and Risotta pretty well, I bet. Even got the whole anger thing down, too.

Well, I can already tell you that you've made up your mind, and nothing I or anyone else says is going to change that conclusion. Closed minds make for insular discussions.

It's silly that you're looking for "proof" of a fucking religious concept that is a matter of belief, NOT physical proof, as otherwise it's not religion, it's fact. I fail to understand why people can't seperate the two. If you cannot believe something without needing proof, then you lack faith, and that's all there is to it. Matters of faith are, therefore, not something you should even think of presuming to understand jackshit about, as you clearly can't even bring yourself to believe something you don't see in one form or another. If you want to stick to your logic and reasoning and metrics and measurable instances, that's fine. Go right ahead. But it's two very, very different playing fields, my friend- they are not equal.

As for "DEMONSTRAT"ing the metrics of how one values life, I have to point out that you can't. Nobody can. It's too damn subjective. Someone who spends their entire life combing the beach for driftwood to whittle and sell can be just as happy with their life as someone who makes seven figures, has a big, fancy house, multiple cars, a happy family, whatever you want to call it. It's not quite as black and white as "good life/bad life".

As for strawmanning you, go back and look at your post, in context. Do it now. Do you see why I may have made the conclusion that I did? It's not strawmanning if my explanation made sense from my perspective, it's misunderstanding on my part, one that I heartily apologize for. If you feel slighted, I'm sorry. Welcome to the Internet.

Now, can we try to be civil? Is that too much to ask for? Or are you going to go angry agnostic on me?

I don't know who those people are, why you bring them up, or why you think this is personal. You're debating in a public forum, and I have made it clear my position opposes your own. I don't know why you are surprised that I reject the axioms underpinning your argument - I made that pretty clear early on.

Faith is inherently irrational, and abandoning it allows positions to be rationally held more often. Other reasons for believing are indeed inferior, that's why i've been using reason rather than assumption and faith as others here are wont to do.

You don't have to kick up a stink when I call you out on something. I don't care if you mention it, just stop doing it and move on. Fallacies don't get anything done.

I am being civil. I'm frustrated that you assume so much about my positions, then turn around and proclaim that I have assumed too much about you - and of course, never answer any of my challenges. If you feel combatted, well, welcome to the internet.

And it's atheist.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Your primary failure is not one of philosophy, unless you're extending the umbrella over history and/or science. You're asserting things that must be demonstrated, and cannot be deduced. You would inevitably fail in an attempt to demonstrate them, because they were invented hundreds to thousands of years ago by several cultures of varying levels of ignorance. You won't demonstrate a god, so your argument cannot be accepted as a sound one. It's that simple.

You're speaking from a position of ignorance (in the literal sense of the term, i.e., "unknowing"). The immortality of the soul is a question of philosophical anthropology, and ultimately falls under metaphysics (one of the philosophical speculative sciences). The question of the existence of non-existence of a God, again, is a question of metaphysics, and can only be approached after we do ontology (a sub-section of metaphysics). And we shouldn't really be doing any of that until we have some basic understanding of the Aristotelian philosophy of science (in particular, the Posterior Analytics) and certain important, basic parts of his physics [physics in the sense of one of the philosophical speculative sciences).

It would take over a week of lectures just to give you a crash course in the philosophy of science and the basic part of his physics (and you really would only know the basics).

Ultimately, history and science are irrelevant to the question.

By definition, we are concerning ourselves with supersensible realities, whereas the natural sciences can only deal with sensible realities.

And history can only supply us with empirical instances/particular matters of fact, which isn't really what we are concerned with.

May I recommend Fr. Joseph Owen's Elementary Christian Metaphysics?

I am uninterested in apologetics. I am interested in rational evaluations based on reality. If you can't give me evidence for the existence of god, you have failed your burden of proof.

[Godular]

THINGS!

Oh, I just noticed I didn't address your comment about subjectivity and logic.

My reply is thus: All knowledge is subjective, limited by the extents of our awareness. To claim that logic must have some form of objective basis is incorrect because it cannot be correct. The only basis required for logic to begin its work is that which is agreed-upon. Your idea about what the afterlife might be requires me to accept certain premises on faith, as you do. This is something I do not intend to do, and is also illogical by its own nature. My idea requires you to do... absolutely nothing.

Think I'll just stick with occam's razor on this one.

[Mega City 5]

I am uninterested in apologetics.

The title is "Elementary Christian Metaphysics," but it's neither elementary nor distinctively Christian.

It's a philosophical, not a theological work.

I am interested in rational evaluations based on reality.

It's a philosophy text book for undergraduate students of metaphysics.

If you can't give me evidence for the existence of god, you have failed your burden of proof.

Again, I could give you the proof, but you'd just answer me with a blank stare. It would be like speaking Chinese to you.

[Edit: And even if, miraculously, you understood the proof, that wouldn't get us anywhere when it comes to an afterlife.]

The book I recommend does a very thorough job at it, if you're at all interested.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

I am uninterested in apologetics.

The title is "Elementary Christian Metaphysics," but it's neither elementary nor distinctively Christian.

It's a philosophical, not a theological work.

I am interested in rational evaluations based on reality.

It's a philosophy text book for undergraduate students of metaphysics.

If you can't give me evidence for the existence of god, you have failed your burden of proof.

Again, I could give you the proof, but you'd just answer me with a blank stare. It would be like speaking Chinese to you.

[Edit: And even if, miraculously, you understood the proof, that wouldn't get us anywhere when it comes to an afterlife.]

The book I recommend does a very thorough job at it, if you're at all interested.

Aquinas et al are apologetics. The metaphysics is the thing entirely disconnected from reality.

You're making a lot of assertions here. How about you just try to demonstrate already? You're wasting a lot of words presuming that I am unable to evaluate it.

[Jolet]

Ohhhh lordy, you're one of those people, eh? You must get along with Zoice and Risotta pretty well, I bet. Even got the whole anger thing down, too.

Well, I can already tell you that you've made up your mind, and nothing I or anyone else says is going to change that conclusion. Closed minds make for insular discussions.

It's silly that you're looking for "proof" of a fucking religious concept that is a matter of belief, NOT physical proof, as otherwise it's not religion, it's fact. I fail to understand why people can't seperate the two. If you cannot believe something without needing proof, then you lack faith, and that's all there is to it. Matters of faith are, therefore, not something you should even think of presuming to understand jackshit about, as you clearly can't even bring yourself to believe something you don't see in one form or another. If you want to stick to your logic and reasoning and metrics and measurable instances, that's fine. Go right ahead. But it's two very, very different playing fields, my friend- they are not equal.

As for "DEMONSTRAT"ing the metrics of how one values life, I have to point out that you can't. Nobody can. It's too damn subjective. Someone who spends their entire life combing the beach for driftwood to whittle and sell can be just as happy with their life as someone who makes seven figures, has a big, fancy house, multiple cars, a happy family, whatever you want to call it. It's not quite as black and white as "good life/bad life".

As for strawmanning you, go back and look at your post, in context. Do it now. Do you see why I may have made the conclusion that I did? It's not strawmanning if my explanation made sense from my perspective, it's misunderstanding on my part, one that I heartily apologize for. If you feel slighted, I'm sorry. Welcome to the Internet.

Now, can we try to be civil? Is that too much to ask for? Or are you going to go angry agnostic on me?

I don't know who those people are, why you bring them up, or why you think this is personal. You're debating in a public forum, and I have made it clear my position opposes your own. I don't know why you are surprised that I reject the axioms underpinning your argument - I made that pretty clear early on.

Faith is inherently irrational, and abandoning it allows positions to be rationally held more often. Other reasons for believing are indeed inferior, that's why i've been using reason rather than assumption and faith as others here are wont to do.

You don't have to kick up a stink when I call you out on something. I don't care if you mention it, just stop doing it and move on. Fallacies don't get anything done.

I am being civil. I'm frustrated that you assume so much about my positions, then turn around and proclaim that I have assumed too much about you - and of course, never answer any of my challenges. If you feel combatted, well, welcome to the internet.

And it's atheist.

Zoice and Risotta are other users on the forums, hold a "belief" system very similar to yours. Only difference is that you're an out-of-the-closet atheist and they aren't.

Yet.

That's also why I called you an agnostic. Not going to bother apologizing for that, it's apparent that most things I say fall on deaf ears.

Secondly, why are you trying to apply your own faith system and then use that to declare a conclusion as truth? That'd be no different than me hopping up on my desk, pointing at you and shrieking, "HERETIC!" at the top of my lungs. It's unproductive. You knew that this was going to be a debate of faith coming in, why are you surprised you're encountering it? Furthermore, reason doesn't require evidence, it requires logic. Why are you looking for evidence to back up assertions? Is it because the reasoning makes sense and you're looking for something to disprove it? In which case, you're approaching it from an inductive standpoint, which probably the wrong way to go about religion. I've yet to see a philosopher inductively reason the existence or nonexistence of God, and there's likely a reason for that.

Your challenges consisted of, if I am not mistaken, "Where is your proof?" And "How is that objectively defined?" To which I answered, "There is and can be no proof" and "There is no objective definition". Any further questions?

[Godular]

I am uninterested in apologetics.

The title is "Elementary Christian Metaphysics," but it's neither elementary nor distinctively Christian.

It's a philosophical, not a theological work.

I am interested in rational evaluations based on reality.

It's a philosophy text book for undergraduate students of metaphysics.

If you can't give me evidence for the existence of god, you have failed your burden of proof.

Again, I could give you the proof, but you'd just answer me with a blank stare. It would be like speaking Chinese to you.

[Edit: And even if, miraculously, you understood the proof, that wouldn't get us anywhere when it comes to an afterlife.]

The book I recommend does a very thorough job at it, if you're at all interested.

You know... I see posts like this, and I think to myself... 'For somebody expressing such a certainty in their piety, they sure are demonstrating an awful lot of pride.

An awful lot.

[Jolet]

THINGS!

Oh, I just noticed I didn't address your comment about subjectivity and logic.

My reply is thus: All knowledge is subjective, limited by the extents of our awareness. To claim that logic must have some form of objective basis is incorrect because it cannot be correct. The only basis required for logic to begin its work is that which is agreed-upon. Your idea about what the afterlife might be requires me to accept certain premises on faith, as you do. This is something I do not intend to do, and is also illogical by its own nature. My idea requires you to do... absolutely nothing.

Think I'll just stick with occam's razor on this one.

Which is your choice, and I'm not going to jump down your throat for doing it. If and when we get there, one of us will be right, and one will not. Sometimes that's what it boils down to.

However, I take issue with subjective knowledge. The knowledge that one plus one equals two is not subjective, it is in fact objective. That cannot be subjective. However, to a degree you're also right. We as humans form subjective perceptions of an objective reality. In a way, that collage of subjective perception is what we define as "knowledge", which then can crystalize into an (mostly) accurate perception of the world. Semantics, but accurate.

Faith is inherently illogical. If you don't like it, that's fine. You do your thing with your pop tarts and I'll do my religion thing over here. We'll both be happy for the moment with that. Agreed?

[Arach-Naga Combine]

I don't know who those people are, why you bring them up, or why you think this is personal. You're debating in a public forum, and I have made it clear my position opposes your own. I don't know why you are surprised that I reject the axioms underpinning your argument - I made that pretty clear early on.

Faith is inherently irrational, and abandoning it allows positions to be rationally held more often. Other reasons for believing are indeed inferior, that's why i've been using reason rather than assumption and faith as others here are wont to do.

You don't have to kick up a stink when I call you out on something. I don't care if you mention it, just stop doing it and move on. Fallacies don't get anything done.

I am being civil. I'm frustrated that you assume so much about my positions, then turn around and proclaim that I have assumed too much about you - and of course, never answer any of my challenges. If you feel combatted, well, welcome to the internet.

And it's atheist.

Zoice and Risotta are other users on the forums, hold a "belief" system very similar to yours. Only difference is that you're an out-of-the-closet atheist and they aren't.

Yet.

That's also why I called you an agnostic. Not going to bother apologizing for that, it's apparent that most things I say fall on deaf ears.

Secondly, why are you trying to apply your own faith system and then use that to declare a conclusion as truth? That'd be no different than me hopping up on my desk, pointing at you and shrieking, "HERETIC!" at the top of my lungs. It's unproductive. You knew that this was going to be a debate of faith coming in, why are you surprised you're encountering it? Furthermore, reason doesn't require evidence, it requires logic. Why are you looking for evidence to back up assertions? Is it because the reasoning makes sense and you're looking for something to disprove it? In which case, you're approaching it from an inductive standpoint, which probably the wrong way to go about religion. I've yet to see a philosopher inductively reason the existence or nonexistence of God, and there's likely a reason for that.

Your challenges consisted of, if I am not mistaken, "Where is your proof?" And "How is that objectively defined?" To which I answered, "There is and can be no proof" and "There is no objective definition". Any further questions?

I have no faith system. I have a belief system, if you want to call it that. But again, our views on the topic are opposed, and I challenged yours. You're a hypocrite if you think i'm not allowed to do that. You're naive if you don't think i'm going to challenge faith as an irrational basis for belief when it was very clear to anyone paying attention that I rejected all the mentioned theistic claims.

I want evidence INSTEAD of assertions. I want you to change them from assertions to arguments, or groups of evidences. I don't need to disprove, because you've tried to demonstrate nothing yet, all has been mere assumption.

And if there cannot ever be proof, we know that the subject in question cannot exist. If you define a thing beyond observation, you have defined it beyond existence. I'm not disproving a thing, you are placing it beyond possible existance.

Yep. Can you give me any reason at all to believe that any afterlife exists at all, but make no appeals whatsoever to faith or any supernatural entity?

[Mega City 5]

Aquinas et al are apologetics. The metaphysics is the thing entirely disconnected from reality.

Have you studied any metaphysics? Again, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

You're making a lot of assertions here. How about you just try to demonstrate already? You're wasting a lot of words presuming that I am unable to evaluate it.

Ok. Here is the Thomistic proof (though, I reiterate: you won't understand it; all of this presupposes a lot of philosophical legwork):

Terminology:

ens = existent = being = the concretely existing thing. The opposite of being is nothing.
esse = to be = the act of actually existing outside of nothing.
Essentia = essence = what it is. The essence of Rover is "dog." The constituent parts of Rover's essence are "dog, canine, animal."
Predicable accident: that which is "added"to an essence, but nonetheless is not an essential part of it. Socrates' snubnose is not essential to Socrates
per se = essentially

1. Every finite being (ens) is a real composition of essence (essentia) and to be (esse).
2. The to be (esse) of each being (ens) is related to the essence (essentia) of that thing as a predicable accident (to be (esse) falls outside of the essence of any given thing).
3. Every composition of predicable accident and subject requires an efficient cause to effect the union.
4. Assume that every such composite had another composite to explain the union of to be (esse) and essence (essentia).
5. If 4 is true, then the to be (esse) of the entire series remains unaccounted for, even though it is such a composite of to be (esse) and essence (essentia).
6. Therefore, 4 is false. There must be a first cause of to be (esse) of the entire series which itself is not a composite of to be (esse) and essence (essentia).
7. Such a first cause of to be would be to be alone (esse tantum) and subsistent to be (esse subsistens)

This first efficient cause of to be, who is subsistent, infinite and supreme being (esse) itself is God.

It is in this sense that we should understand Exodus 3:14 when God says to Moses "I am who am (ego sum qui sum)," i.e., "I am the God whose very essence (essentia) is to be (esse)."

I expound the argument at greater length in a metaphysics lecture of mine

Let us return, then, to what we have learned: to be (esse) is a predicable accident for every finite being (ens). It entirely falls outside of its essence. It cannot be caused by the principles of its essence. It’s not a genus. It’s not a species. It’s not a specific difference. It’s not even a property. It is an accident in the predicable sense: it appears as something which is added, as it were, to the essence…an addition, however, which is prior to that to which it is added, and is related to it as actuating it in its entirety. Where did that esse come from? In order for a predicable accident to be united with an essence, there must be an efficient cause which brought about that union. A steak is not per se hot. If it is inquired how it came to be hot, and therefore cooked, the fact that it is a steak is insufficient explanation. Steaks need not be hot, but this steak is hot. Why is it hot? Because somebody grilled it.

Why then, does this thing, which has an esse which its own essence cannot explain, actually have esse? Where did it come from? It came, perhaps the atheist will say, from its natural or voluntary causes. The esse of the child came from the parents; the child exists because of the parents as efficient causes…but this is no explanation! It would be as though someone, asking why this part of the air is illuminated, were told that the light came to it from other parts of the air which themselves were illuminated. “But,” one rightfully should answer, “none of those parts of the air need be illuminated. I’ve seen all of those parts of the air grow dark. Why,” one will ask, “is any part of the air illumined?” It must be answered that the air is illuminated by the sun.

Therefore let us question the atheist once more: “But the parents themselves, aren’t they finite beings for whom esse is an accident? Doesn’t esse entirely fall outside of their essences?” He must admit it. “In fact, even if we take all of the finite beings that there are, and take them all collectively, and we were to make an account of all of the esse which belongs per se to any of them, wouldn’t we have to record a whopping ‘zero’ on the balance sheet?” Indeed, this too must be admitted. Even though there is an entire universe full of created beings, there’s not even the slightest bit of esse which can be accounted for by any (or all, for that matter) of their essences. None of them, nor even all of them collectively, can account for their own esse. There must be an efficient cause of esse, for lo and behold, there it is: things exist! It must come from somewhere. There has to be an explanation for it. There must be an efficient cause for it. Esse is an accident which, as a matter of fact, actually is united, here and now, to existentially neutral essences. There must be an efficient cause which brought about this union.

There is, then, an efficient cause of esse which created things and conserves things in their esse. This efficient cause of esse, however, cannot be an essence-existence composite. If it were, existence, once again, would be an accident for it, and it itself would require a cause. The first efficient cause of esse, then, that which alone brought it about that existentially neutral essences actually should be endowed with existence, that first efficient cause, I say, is not an essence-existence composite, but a simple nature which is esse.

"Now, whatever belongs to a thing is either caused by the principles of its nature, as the ability to laugh in man, or comes to it from some extrinsic principle, as light in the air from the influence of the sun. But it cannot be that the existence of a thing is caused by the form or quiddity of that thing ─ I say caused as by an efficient cause ─ because then something would be its own cause, and would bring itself into existence, which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that every such thing, the existence of which is other than its nature, have its existence from some other thing. And because every thing which exists by virtue of another is led back, as to its first cause, to that which exists by virtue of itself, it is necessary that there be some thing which is the cause of the existence of all things because it is existence alone. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress among causes, since every thing which is not existence alone has a cause of its existence, as has been said. It is clear, therefore, that an intelligence is form and existence, and that it has existence from the First Being, which is existence alone. And this is the First Cause, which is God" (St. Thomas Aquinas, De Ente et Essentia).

It is because God is subsistent esse itself (not, indeed, the esse which is predicated of creatures, for that esse is a created effect and imperfect likeness of the subsisting esse which God is), it is because of this, I say, that He can be the first efficient cause of all beings: because He is esse, He can create, that is, can call into being from utter nothingness, finite essences which otherwise would lack it. As St. Augustine says, it is only because God is that we are. Because He is esse itself, He can create finite beings which have esse…just like the sun, because of its light, can illumine the air, which, in and of itself, is dark.

[Southerly Gentleman]

Oh, I just noticed I didn't address your comment about subjectivity and logic.

My reply is thus: All knowledge is subjective, limited by the extents of our awareness. To claim that logic must have some form of objective basis is incorrect because it cannot be correct. The only basis required for logic to begin its work is that which is agreed-upon. Your idea about what the afterlife might be requires me to accept certain premises on faith, as you do. This is something I do not intend to do, and is also illogical by its own nature. My idea requires you to do... absolutely nothing.

Think I'll just stick with occam's razor on this one.

Which is your choice, and I'm not going to jump down your throat for doing it. If and when we get there, one of us will be right, and one will not. Sometimes that's what it boils down to.

However, I take issue with subjective knowledge. The knowledge that one plus one equals two is not subjective, it is in fact objective. That cannot be subjective. However, to a degree you're also right. We as humans form subjective perceptions of an objective reality. In a way, that collage of subjective perception is what we define as "knowledge", which then can crystalize into an (mostly) accurate perception of the world. Semantics, but accurate.

Faith is inherently illogical. If you don't like it, that's fine. You do your thing with your pop tarts and I'll do my religion thing over here. We'll both be happy for the moment with that. Agreed?

1+1=2 is only objective insofar as we carefully define each parameter (i.e. what is 1, what is 2, what is addition). It's not inherently objective.

[Godular]

Oh, I just noticed I didn't address your comment about subjectivity and logic.

My reply is thus: All knowledge is subjective, limited by the extents of our awareness. To claim that logic must have some form of objective basis is incorrect because it cannot be correct. The only basis required for logic to begin its work is that which is agreed-upon. Your idea about what the afterlife might be requires me to accept certain premises on faith, as you do. This is something I do not intend to do, and is also illogical by its own nature. My idea requires you to do... absolutely nothing.

Think I'll just stick with occam's razor on this one.

Which is your choice, and I'm not going to jump down your throat for doing it. If and when we get there, one of us will be right, and one will not. Sometimes that's what it boils down to.

Technically, I'll be right either way. My idea had two possible options and one pop-tart. One of those options accomodated for the notion that mayhap there is something to all those words you said, purportedly even with meaning.

However, I take issue with subjective knowledge. The knowledge that one plus one equals two is not subjective, it is in fact objective. That cannot be subjective. However, to a degree you're also right. We as humans form subjective perceptions of an objective reality. In a way, that collage of subjective perception is what we define as "knowledge", which then can crystalize into an (mostly) accurate perception of the world. Semantics, but accurate.

Two of nothing is equal to one of nothing. Conversely, two of infinity is no different than one infinity. Without an agreement that the rule works, the value of the information is wholly subjective. Our perception is subjective, thus all things resulting from that perception are subjective. We can reduce the degree of that subjectivity by agreeing upon certain principles, some on the basis that something works, so it must be true. This does not make it 'objective', however.

Faith is inherently illogical. If you don't like it, that's fine. You do your thing with your pop tarts and I'll do my religion thing over here. We'll both be happy for the moment with that. Agreed?

Sure thing! Just don't try to claim something professed only by your religion is accepted fact.

That would be dishonest.

[Jolet]

Zoice and Risotta are other users on the forums, hold a "belief" system very similar to yours. Only difference is that you're an out-of-the-closet atheist and they aren't.

Yet.

That's also why I called you an agnostic. Not going to bother apologizing for that, it's apparent that most things I say fall on deaf ears.

Secondly, why are you trying to apply your own faith system and then use that to declare a conclusion as truth? That'd be no different than me hopping up on my desk, pointing at you and shrieking, "HERETIC!" at the top of my lungs. It's unproductive. You knew that this was going to be a debate of faith coming in, why are you surprised you're encountering it? Furthermore, reason doesn't require evidence, it requires logic. Why are you looking for evidence to back up assertions? Is it because the reasoning makes sense and you're looking for something to disprove it? In which case, you're approaching it from an inductive standpoint, which probably the wrong way to go about religion. I've yet to see a philosopher inductively reason the existence or nonexistence of God, and there's likely a reason for that.

Your challenges consisted of, if I am not mistaken, "Where is your proof?" And "How is that objectively defined?" To which I answered, "There is and can be no proof" and "There is no objective definition". Any further questions?

I have no faith system. I have a belief system, if you want to call it that. But again, our views on the topic are opposed, and I challenged yours. You're a hypocrite if you think i'm not allowed to do that. You're naive if you don't think i'm going to challenge faith as an irrational basis for belief when it was very clear to anyone paying attention that I rejected all the mentioned theistic claims.

I want evidence INSTEAD of assertions. I want you to change them from assertions to arguments, or groups of evidences. I don't need to disprove, because you've tried to demonstrate nothing yet, all has been mere assumption.

And if there cannot ever be proof, we know that the subject in question cannot exist. If you define a thing beyond observation, you have defined it beyond existence. I'm not disproving a thing, you are placing it beyond possible existance.

Yep. Can you give me any reason at all to believe that any afterlife exists at all, but make no appeals whatsoever to faith or any supernatural entity?

You're narrow-minded if you think that the only way to have a rational debate is to throw faith out the window. Especially in a setting where we're discussing a faith-based issue, like the existence of Heaven.

And I've already said that evidence does not exist. You might as well try to prove multiversal theory using the wealth of evidence you don't have for it. It's a theory based on mathematics, there's nothing physically indicating it exists. Does that make it suddenly no longer valid? Also, might I point out the name of the thread is the Presumption of Heaven? Believe me, if Heaven was proved to exist it'd make the news. As it is, it hasn't been proven, and it doesn't.

Heaven is as non-falsible as true God is. They're sort of a package deal. Nuff said.

There's significant psychological evidence for reincarnation, at the very least. Let me see if I can pull a few sources...

https://exemplore.com/paranormal/The-Re ... e-Memories

http://reincarnationstudies.com/anne-frank/

There's two, if you're defining reincarnation as an afterlife, per se.

[Godular]

WORDS! Presumably with meaning!

Such a pedantic god of the gaps argument as I have never before seen!

Bleh.

[Freefall11111]

WORDS! Presumably with meaning!

Such a pedantic god of the gaps argument as I have never before seen!

Bleh.

I think I had a stroke trying to read that utter mess.

[Mega City 5]

There's significant psychological evidence for reincarnation

Contra Plato, Pythagoras, etc., reincarnation is a philosophically bad position to hold, and I think that Aristotle rightly trounces it (though he himself failed to arrive at entirely the correct conclusion himself).

The great Aristotelian question to reincarnationists:

"Why is this soul in this body?"

[Godular]

Such a pedantic god of the gaps argument as I have never before seen!

Bleh.

I think I had a stroke trying to read that utter mess.

Just think of it as the feeling of MC5 physically brow-beating you.

[Mega City 5]

I think I had a stroke trying to read that utter mess.

I told you.

It's not that it's a mess.

It's not even that you're stupid or bad at reading.

I was speaking in a highly technical philosophical vocabulary and relying on presuppositions that would take you several weeks to understand.

[Freefall11111]

I think I had a stroke trying to read that utter mess.

I told you.

It's not that it's a mess.

It's not even that you're stupid or bad at reading.

I was speaking in a highly technical philosophical vocabulary and relying on presuppositions that would take you several weeks to understand.

No, you misunderstand my point.

[Godular]

I think I had a stroke trying to read that utter mess.

I told you.

It's not that it's a mess.

It's not even that you're stupid or bad at reading.

I was speaking in a highly technical philosophical vocabulary and relying on presuppositions that would take you several weeks to understand.

Not at all. It was a rambling jumble of verbiage, a random point in which somebody points at a random thing and goes 'HEEEEEEEERE'S Jehovah!'

That's pretty much all Aquinas ever did.

[Quokkastan]

Paradise is one of those things that can only exist conceptually so long as you don't try to think too much about what it would be like.

[Quokkastan]

There's significant psychological evidence for reincarnation

Contra Plato, Pythagoras, etc., reincarnation is a philosophically bad position to hold, and I think that Aristotle rightly trounces it (though he himself failed to arrive at entirely the correct conclusion himself).

The great Aristotelian question to reincarnationists:

"Why is this soul in this body?"

Why not?

(Or "How not?" if we're being properly Greek about it.)

[Arach-Naga Combine]

ens = existent = being = the concretely existing thing
esse = to be = the act of actually existing outside of nothing. The opposite of being is nothing.
Essentia = essence = what it is. The essence of Rover is "dog." The constituent parts of Rover's essence are "dog, canine, animal."
Predicable accident: that which is "added"to an essence, but nonetheless is not an essential part of it. Socrates' snubnose is not essential to Socrates

I appreciate defining your terms. However, I do not appreciate nor will I be taken in by these obfuscations. I can see where this is going: not reality. You've got an abstract argument that assumes god exists, probably an adaptation of descarte's argument. I asked for demonstration, and this is not looking like anything more than a theistic circlejerk.

1. Every finite being (ens) is a real composition of essence (essentia) and to be (esse).

This claim is false. entities are not composed of essentia and being, even by your deliberately confusing definitions of them. Entities are composed of matter and energy in particular patterns.

2. The to be (esse) of each being (ens) is related to the essence (essentia) of that thing as a predicable accident (to be (esse) falls outside of the essence of any given thing).

This premise contains no information, but looks like you've got some sort of formatting error. Maybe i'll see you've edited it during my writing of this post to make some actual sense.

3. Every composition of predicable accident and subject requires an efficient cause to effect the union.

I reject this claim - do me a favor and define subject and efficient cause, because I know it's critical to your abstract nonsense here. I can't evaluate meaningless sentences.

4. Assume that every such composite had another composite to explain the union of to be (esse) and essence (essentia).

This is not a premise. This is a statemet to the evaluator. I'm going to reject it, because it's not demonstrably true and you've crammed it with more invented jargon.

5. If 4 is true, then the to be (esse) of the entire series remains unaccounted for, even though it is such a composite of to be (esse) and essence (essentia).

well, 4 is a bunch of nonsense you've cooked up in continuing your deliberate effort to make this argument as confusing as possible.

6. Therefore, 4 is false. There must be a first cause of to be (esse) of the entire series which itself is not a composite of to be (esse) and essence (essentia).

Well, no. It being stupid bullshit doesn't make it false - it makes it not demonstrably true. You've not demonstrated it to be false. False dichotomy. I don't think much of your many claims to excellent philosophical pedigree.

7. Such a first cause of to be would be to be alone (esse tantum) and subsistent to be (esse subsistens)

no definitions, no content, does not follow from premises which are nonsense anyway. Fail all around.

This first efficient cause of to be, who is subsistent, infinite and supreme being (esse) itself is God.

again, does not follow from the premises in any way, even if they were true. This argument is both invalid and unsound on almost every level.

It is in this sense that we should understand Exodus 3:14 when God says to Moses "I am who am (ego sum qui sum)," i.e., "I am the God whose very essence (essentia) is to be (esse)."

This explains much of why this argument was so awful - you stole it from a tranlated and reverse-translated book written by ignorant savages that believed the earth was flat. Try stealing from someone more modern next time.

Well, that took a lot of my time for no real gain. Quite disappointing that I knew where you were going by your definitions alone, but your version was even weaker and more poorly thought out. Shame. If you want another try, go ahead and TG me. But again, I will not be taken in by apologetics and immaterial definition-moving. I base my beliefs on reality, as in things that EXIST. You've referenced not a single thing that exists in your argument, so it was never going to work anyway.

[Mega City 5]

Arach-Naga

You've simply failed to understand it. I give greater explanation, in less "confusing" language in the lecture excerpt. I recommend looking it over.