January 11, 2023 at 8:23 am #46432
I saw this analogy on Facebook today about life after death. The imagery was they used a picture of twin babies in utero facing each other. And it was written like a parable. One twin asks the other, “ Do you believe in life after delivery?….” End it goes on as a dialogue between the two twins whether or not “life after delivery” exists and whether or not (ahem) “Mother” exists. What do you think about this analogy?January 11, 2023 at 10:52 am #46433
Assuming foetuses had the capacity and means to conduct research, then life outside the womb and the existence of ‘mother’ are both things that could be determined through examination of the material universe around them. The same cannot be said for an afterlife.
The analogy may work as a means of illustrating how some people conceive of their god and life after death, but it doesn’t add any evidence for them.January 11, 2023 at 12:15 pm #46434
Yes, the babies can hear muffled sounds, including voices, and see light and dark from the womb.
People who don’t believe in life after death say there is literally no evidence that would convince them. They also say, it’s impossible, because it doesn’t fit any known scientific paradigm. All in all, the evidence against life after death amounts to a lot of dogmatic shouting.
I think the only reasonable position is to say we don’t know.January 11, 2023 at 5:12 pm #46435
Yes, the babies can hear muffled sounds, including voices, and see light and dark from the womb. People who don’t believe in life after death say there is literally no evidence that would convince them. They also say, it’s impossible, because it doesn’t fit any known scientific paradigm. All in all, the evidence against life after death amounts to a lot of dogmatic shouting. I think the only reasonable position is to say we don’t know.
The default is that dead is dead. It is the claim that there is life after death requires evidence, and there is no case that can be made. Common wishful thinking or “recollections” from a dysfunctional brain are not evidence that we “go on” but it is evidence that once again we are childishly irrational. So many walking around, claiming to know what they do not.January 11, 2023 at 6:08 pm #46436
Robert and Autumn are spot on.
I think the only reasonable position is to say we don’t know. SAYS SIMON.
Utter certainty is not within our scope. On the other hand it is an error in conceptualization to posit matters like god and life after death as fifty/fifty propositions. The you can’t prove it versus the you can not disprove it dichotomy is misleading. When it would fulfill our deepest wishes and allay our greatest fears be extra skeptical. However penetrating one’s ratiocination those sentiments may erode our baseline intellect. There is nothing about life and its cessation to suggest that it continues. It is not a real or reasonable hypothesis.
People who don’t believe in life after death say there is literally no evidence that would convince them. SAYS SIMON.
Who the hell says that? That would be the atheist equivalency of dumbass theism which is all theism.January 11, 2023 at 6:22 pm #46437
How would a fetus, even one possessing a high degree of intelligence, even have enough information to ask a question about life after birth? Indeed, how would a fetus even become aware of the entire concept of being born? Such a notion would be needed for the ruminations to even begin. Where would the needed information come from?
January 11, 2023 at 7:28 pm #46439
- This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Unseen.
People who don’t believe in life after death say there is literally no evidence that would convince them. SAYS SIMON. Who the hell says that? That would be the atheist equivalency of dumbass theism which is all theism.
You’re right, I should have said, no second-hand evidence. Atheists have said that to me.January 11, 2023 at 8:05 pm #46440
One thing to remember about analogies is that no analogy is 100 percent perfect. If an analogy were 100 percent perfect, it would be a tautology.
Also, fetuses, amniotic fluids, umbilical cords and sacks, and mothers are beings that exist within the Natural Universe. Being born is just moving from one place to another within the Natural Universe.
Thus, there is zero comparison between a Natural Mother and a Supernatural God and zero comparison between Natural Life and Supernatural Afterlife. There is evidence for the Natural, but no evidence for the Supernatural.
I hope that addresses the analogy well.January 11, 2023 at 9:09 pm #46441
I’m calling it a fallacy, that you can be so certain about it while not actually knowing. It’s the fallacy of scientism.
It’s a logically different uncertainty from knowing whether or not God exists. The case for God is riddled with logical flaws, as well as being redundant.January 11, 2023 at 10:19 pm #46442
Simon, how are you using the fallacy of scientism? In what sense?
Please make a case for life continuing after death. Any indications or arguments for its continuation? Cuz if what you are asserting is on a par with other unfalsifiable wish fantasies then it is pretty much worthless. Just because we can not know with hermetic certainty that it ain’t so does not remove it from disbelief.January 11, 2023 at 10:26 pm #46443
Ehhhhh Simon, I wouldn’t accept second hand evidence for ANY serious argument let alone an incredible one. Hearsay is simply what other people have said. That is not sufficient evidence for any claim. I don’t give a shit if someone says they saw an afterlife while nearly dead, believe they saw a ghost, reported an experience with bigfoot, or their Brother’s girlfriend’s boss knows a guy who has undeniable evidence that God is real. Where is the evidence? What someone said is not enough. Hearsay is enough to say, accept the argument that indeed a street has been closed off for the day or that a local subway no longer sells meatball sandwiches. It is not enough to accept that someone has committed gross fraud, that a dog talked to them or that some invisible entity in the sky controls all. Why would it? That we somehow magically exist in some fundamentally different way for eternity after brain death? I expect some seriously strong evidence for that. If I were presented with it, I’d accept there is an afterlife. Hearsay will NOT do.January 11, 2023 at 10:36 pm #46444
Twins speculating about “life after birth” is not the same as life after death. For numerous reasons:
Life after birth simply means continuing to live. There is no change except instead of being surrounded by fluid and receiving oxygen, nutrients via a chord you life in the open air, breathe oxygen and eat/drink. That may seem like a relatively cataclismic change for the baby, in reality it is a trivial change in the scheme of just how much things can change in the universe. Life after death entails some magical transformation from corporeal form to some not very well explained “other” form. The mechanisms behind it are, ehhh…”somehow”. Just what that is depends on either a complex set of mostly absurd beliefs your parents had or some religious/spiritual idology you like for whatever reason.
This should be obvious but: babies cannot speculate about things. We can. While we can always go: what if they can, a better analogy is say, those who speculated what planets and stars were. At first it was sheer speculation, over time theories were developed based on evidence and knowledge was gained. The afterlife hasn’t passed the stage of sheer speculation nor does it seem reasonable to think this will change any time soon if ever.
As August said, if beings were trapped in a certain environment, over time and with the right resources, they could be able to make a lot of reasonable assumptions based on their investigation. This goes with knowing a lot about the core of the Earth without ever seeing it, knowledge of the cosmos before gaining tools that properly confirmed it and making reasonable theories and finding ways to test them. We cannot test ANYTHING about an afterlife. Please someone describe ANY way we can currently test if there is an afterlife, let alone what it is and how it works.January 11, 2023 at 10:53 pm #46445
Simon, how are you using the fallacy of scientism? In what sense?
I take it to mean the idea that what science can’t currently explain, logically therefore doesn’t exist.
I’m not coming up with an argument in favour of life after death. I don’t need to, because the degree of uncertainty is so great, that something or nothing could be the case.
There is such a thing as the logic of reality. If a story is logical and checks out with known other details (is both internally and externally consistent) – that’s good evidence in favour of something. It wouldn’t necessarily be proof.January 11, 2023 at 11:18 pm #46446
Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator
The analogy is like the story of Plato’s Cave. The fetuses are the prisoners in the cave who thought that the voices of prison guards were the voices of the shadows being cast onto the cave wall by the fire. This was their reality until one escaped the cave (the womb) and realized that their perception of reality was a delusion up to that point (but still their reality).
The fetuses would only consider the womb (cave) they existed in as their only reality. They would have no concept of any other possible dimension. It would be like one prisoner asking the other if he believed in a world existing outside of the cave when living in the cave, chained to the rock, was all they ever knew.
If the fetuses had some a priori knowledge that they were going to be delivered, they would not have “to believe in life after delivery”. They would know it was to happen. If they did not have this knowledge then they would not have the concept of “life after delivery”. So for me the analogy does not work.January 12, 2023 at 12:14 am #46447
Plato’s cave first came to my mind too. But the a priori is another story.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.