Athiests; a question.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
(A) The first ball has transferred something to the other, (B) yet nothing has been moved."

[/ QUOTE ]

Your professor was screwing with your head. He has to make up his mind. Is the force something, or nothing. in A he's treating the force as different from nothing, referring to it directly as something. In B he's constricting 'something' to those entities having mass, and now claiming the force therefore = nothing.
Was he tenured?

I'm being such a pickass because the meaning of 'exist' underlies the OPs claims and questions. It needs sorting out.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
reincarnation is a possibility, but there is no evidence suggesting it exists.

[/ QUOTE ] Just to make sure we split every thread hair - would a statement like "the possibility exists, not the reincarnation" apply here. IOW, reincarnation stays in a state of non-existance until it shows itself even though the possibility of it's existance exists ( this type of thinking carries over from quantum mechanics a bit). ?? luckyme

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Why do you say that a dead man doesn't exist? </font>

I assume your great-great-great grandfather is a dead man. Does he exist?

I do see what you're trying to do, but I think you failed. When a man dies, he ceases to exist. Therefore, dead men don't exist except in memories, photographs, or by some other mnemonic means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant that my great-great-great grandfather no longer exists. But that's the easy case that we agree on. What about the man who dies in the hospital bed at 8:53pm. At 8:54pm isn't there still a dead man in the hospital bed?

We could say that at 8:53pm he ceases to be alive, but he doesn't cease to exist until some time after that. That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead. So, I'll grant that he ceases to be alive at 8:53pm, but tell me why you think he ceases to exist at 8:53pm.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We could say that at 8:53pm he ceases to be alive, but he doesn't cease to exist until some time after that. That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead. So, I'll grant that he ceases to be alive at 8:53pm, but tell me why you think he ceases to exist at 8:53pm.

[/ QUOTE ]
We need to carefully examine the entities referred to and what we're claiming about them.
George = a entity that thinks, experinces. The Mind that emerges from the brains action.
Georges Body = the physical support system for The Mind.
They are two correlated but different entities. If we cross-transplant Georges Brain and Harry's brain, which bed is George in? Death essentially erases George( the mind) from Georges body. Just as in the transplant situation, the body that was georges is just that, "the body that was georges".. in neither case is it george ..he's gone. In the transplant case, he's now in the bed nextdoor in Harrys old body. In the death situation, he's been erased from his former body.

I am not my boobs, luckyme

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We could say that at 8:53pm he ceases to be alive, but he doesn't cease to exist until some time after that. That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead. So, I'll grant that he ceases to be alive at 8:53pm, but tell me why you think he ceases to exist at 8:53pm.

[/ QUOTE ]
We need to carefully examine the entities referred to and what we're claiming about them.
George = a entity that thinks, experinces. The Mind that emerges from the brains action.
Georges Body = the physical support system for The Mind.
They are two correlated but different entities. If we cross-transplant Georges Brain and Harry's brain, which bed is George in? Death essentially erases George( the mind) from Georges body. Just as in the transplant situation, the body that was georges is just that, "the body that was georges".. in neither case is it george ..he's gone. In the transplant case, he's now in the bed nextdoor in Harrys old body. In the death situation, he's been erased from his former body.

I am not my boobs, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If George is essentially a thing that thinks, then George ceases to exist when he dies. But that's a presumption, and a philosophically contentious one. Take someone who has had severe and irreversible brain damage, and who is in the hospital in a persistent vegetative state. There is a living human being there, yet there is no cognitive or mental activity. So, is this George or not? If not, who is the human being in the hospital bed?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If George is essentially a thing that thinks, then George ceases to exist when he dies. But that's a presumption, and a philosophically contentious one. Take someone who has had severe and irreversible brain damage, and who is in the hospital in a persistent vegetative state. There is a living human being there, yet there is no cognitive or mental activity. So, is this George or not? If not, who is the human being in the hospital bed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've shifted the question to the 'boundary issue' which isn't what you were referring to in prior posts. "when does death occur?"
In prior posts you stated he was dead-
[ QUOTE ]
That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you want to argue whether he is dead. cheesh, shouldn't you settle your 1st claim first? You'll get no lack of takers to discuss the boundary issue with you, I'd suggest a new post just to keep it clean, and leave this one more focused on the OPs inquiry about dead bodies and pre-conception states vs existance.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> There is a living human being there, yet there is no cognitive or mental activity. So, is this George or not? If not, who is the human being in the hospital bed? </font>

Well, now you're getting into what professional philosophers do for a living. Think about these type of situations. Remember the recent Schiavo case? This is what that debate was all about. Was she STILL Mary Schiavo? Or was she a body being kept alive by artificial means?

This is why living wills are so important. Personally, if I ever become brain-dead, then I want to be considered dead. Don't keep my body alive. I am not ME anymore. ME died along with my brain.

So it is my belief that a man who dies at 8:53, does not exist at 8:54. His body is still there and you can still pin his old identifying name "George" if you like, but George is gone. It's a dead body in the bed that was "once" George.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To clarify some comments made about Buddhism and soul.

"The last of the Three Characteristics of Existence [ANATTA]... The Anatta doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real Ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding of which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogther impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddhist teachings stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religion..."

Quoted from Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines by Nyanatolika. third revised and enlarged edition edited by Nyanaponika. Freewin &amp; CO, Ltd 1972, pgs 12-13

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can these two comments be correct. Do Buddhists (sorry I misspelled it before) believe in a soul? Seems like they may not. Then what is reincarnated?

[/ QUOTE ]

They cannot be both correct. Nothing gets re-incarnated. The word re-incarnation was coined by Annie Besant and her followers and is a grossly inapropriate early translation of the original Pali.

In Buddhism there is no concept remotely approximating a soul. There is however a definite lack of understanding manifested at a populist level. But I assure you that the doctrine of ANATTA is pretty much Buddhism 101 regardless of the tradition. It is so, for Theravada (the ways of the elder aka The lesser vehicle, exmplified in Thailand, Sri Lanka and Myanmar or Burma), for Mahayana (Thre greater vehicle as manifested in China, Japan and Korea amongst other - this includes Zen) and for Vajrayana as observed by the various schools of thought to be found in Tibet, Nepal, etc. All sects within these three great movements recognise each other as Buddhists, based on the three doctrines of Dukkha, [suffering], Anicca {change/impermanence) and Anatta (no-self). There are a few smaller modern sects that do not (those usually have encompassed some western beliefs in soul, or a deification of the Buddha etc... in their doctrine) and they are not considered as Buddhist by any of the other three main streams.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
We could say that at 8:53pm he ceases to be alive, but he doesn't cease to exist until some time after that. That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead. So, I'll grant that he ceases to be alive at 8:53pm, but tell me why you think he ceases to exist at 8:53pm.

[/ QUOTE ]

George's body is composed of matter, right? When does that matter cease to exist? When you think about it that way, it seems that George has always and will always exist, no?

George's mind is a construct, an abstract notion. In that sense, did George ever actually exist?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Buddists believe in reincarnation, which would by necessity require the existence of a soul, and are atheists also.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then this statement was false - [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]