Afterlife

Can anyone find the logical flaw, if any, in this statement ?

The mind being the sole master, if one believes a statement to be true, and can never be proven wrong under any circumstances, then for that person the statement is true. Thus, being convinced of the existence of an afterlife grants immortality, and for that to be true the actual existence of an afterlife is irrelevant.

The mind being the sole master, if one believes a statement to be true, and can never be proven wrong under any circumstances, then for that person the statement is true. Thus, being convinced of the existence of an afterlife grants immortality, and for that to be true the actual existence of an afterlife is irrelevant.

There is no fault in the statement per se, but the definition of "truth" is the crux of the matter.
The statement merely shows that both the theory that there is an afterlife and the theory that there is none have to be considered as equally "true". The question then turns on whether there is an objective reality on that question or not. Just because a statement is true does not mean it is in accordance with objective reality.

Can anyone find the logical flaw, if any, in this statement ?

The mind being the sole master, if one believes a statement to be true, and can never be proven wrong under any circumstances, then for that person the statement is true. Thus, being convinced of the existence of an afterlife grants immortality, and for that to be true the actual existence of an afterlife is irrelevant.

There is no afterlife, only eternal life. You have it whether you know it or not. We are one.

[Scott]

I don't think it is illogical. But the premise is false. The suggestion that there is no such thing as a false conviction seems absurd to me.

Gregorygregg1 Wrote:

There is no afterlife, only eternal life. You have it whether you know it or not. We are one.

That is a statement a lot of people would disagree with, for instance the Hindu and Buddhist
which is a lot of people, who believe in an afterlife.
However I believe I should keep an open mind, so I am quite open to someone showing me the evidence that would settle the issue once and for all.
However if you are going to use the Bible to prove your point, please be aware that there is no mention of soul or eternal life in the Bible until after the captivity in Babylon, where this had a long history already. This concept came from the Zoroastrian belief.

However this is not the issue under discussion in this thread, the question is whether it is possible to make a statement philosophically regarding this issue that will hold true.

Gregorygregg1 Wrote:

There is no afterlife, only eternal life. You have it whether you know it or not. We are one.

That is a statement a lot of people would disagree with, for instance the Hindu and Buddhist

Actually it is the Buddhist philosophy that we are one, and that enlightenment is the realization of that oneness. When illusion is cast aside, there is no difference between you and me. We are the same, we are life.

Gregorygregg1 you wrote:

Actually it is the Buddhist philosophy that we are one, and that enlightenment is the realization of that oneness. When illusion is cast aside, there is no difference between you and me. We are the same, we are life.

When i just Googled this, it made it very clear that Buddhism is at best vague on eternal life.
But it is clear on reincarnation, which is different than eternal life as this is seen as stepping stones to nirvana, which is not realized after death but before.
I have not seen any awareness of the existence that I consider as me, continuing on when my physical me expires, in Buddhism.
Eternal life does imply this awareness, and it was this fact that I believe is the distinction between the 2 states mentioned.

The OP statement is logical but is of no value for being full of presuppositions which the logic doesn't question.

The mind being the sole master? No one has proven that a mind-independent objective reality doesn't exist.

A belief that can never be proven wrong under any circumstances? Sure, but now the statement just became completely hypothetical. Even a self-reinforcing delusion can be blown apart by a chance encounter. The problem with any "ignorance is bliss" argument is that you have to remain both ignorant and unaware of your ignorance.

Gregorygregg1 you wrote:

Actually it is the Buddhist philosophy that we are one, and that enlightenment is the realization of that oneness. When illusion is cast aside, there is no difference between you and me. We are the same, we are life.

When i just Googled this, it made it very clear that Buddhism is at best vague on eternal life.
But it is clear on reincarnation, which is different than eternal life as this is seen as stepping stones to nirvana, which is not realized after death but before.
I have not seen any awareness of the existence that I consider as me, continuing on when my physical me expires, in Buddhism.
Eternal life does imply this awareness, and it was this fact that I believe is the distinction between the 2 states mentioned.

Life is composed of two things: Awareness and matter. I speak here of Life as one entity, which is logically provable. Awareness is incorporial, and not subject to entropy. Unfortunately matter is the stuff of the universe and is in the grip of entropy and while awareness may use it, it must be returned to the flow. Reincarnation is the constant reuse of the material of the universe by awareness, which is evolving toward consciousness. Each time a child is born, it must begin with unconscious earth and grow toward consciousness again. This is happening ever more rapidly, because life now knows how to do this. Consciousness is the next step in the evolution of life.

Gregorygregg1 you wrote:

Life is composed of two things: Awareness and matter. I speak here of Life as one entity, which is logically provable. Awareness is incorporeal, and not subject to entropy. Unfortunately matter is the stuff of the universe and is in the grip of entropy and while awareness may use it, it must be returned to the flow. Reincarnation is the constant reuse of the material of the universe by awareness, which is evolving toward consciousness. Each time a child is born, it must begin with unconscious earth and grow toward consciousness again. This is happening ever more rapidly, because life now knows how to do this. Consciousness is the next step in the evolution of life.

Interesting post which made think, and so I let it percolate in the grey matter for a while.
First I have a suggestion that perhaps something like this should be prefaced by "I believe".
Obviously I have no problem with the "matter" thing, but the "awareness" raises questions. Matter or energy we share with everything, inanimate and animate and this mix of matter that is the "I" will be dispersed and my molecules could travel anywhere.
However this "awareness" has no substance and can not be measured by any known test if I understand this correctly and when the "I" matter stops being, the awareness goes into the grand awareness pool, because there is no confinement of it.
So what controls which awareness goes where?
Do the millions of microbes within my being have awareness, because they are life, and if what you have stated regarding life all having matter and awareness, maybe I should not take antibiotics any more.
Myself I believe that my awareness is like "RAM" in a computer, which is gone when the power is shut of, the difference being my ram is gone when the oxygen supply runs out.
I agree with Buddhism regarding the losing of self or ego as much as possible and that this will result in a greater harmony, but I am not aware of any betterment of humanity in those places where this belief has been practised for the last 2500 years.
So call me a skeptic.

GregoryGregg1 wrote:

Awareness is incorporial, and not subject to entropy.

'awareness' exemplifies a noun which constantly risks reification. Awareness is probably not substance, either spiritual or material, but is figure of speech.Things may or may not be aware but aware is not a thing,it is a property of some things.

If indeed there is mental or spiritual substance, the old problem with Cartesianism remains: how does mental substance link causally with material substance?

Belinda wrote:

awareness' exemplifies a noun which constantly risks reification. Awareness is probably not substance, either spiritual or material, but is figure of speech.Things may or may not be aware but aware is not a thing,it is a property of some things.

This "awareness" or "soul" that seems to be so important to many for it to continue to exist after our physical being stops functioning, is this a result of our egoic self giving us more importance as lifeforms then other living entities.
Perhaps the Buddha understood, that concern over "afterlife" would diminish as we slowly diminish the "self"?
As I am on that path I find my concern on this issue has just about disappeared.

From what I am learning as I go along,Wooden Shoe, I think this is so, that attachment to life after death is just another redundant attachment.I gather that Buddhism is very this-woldly, unlike Christianity which is other-worldly.

Belinda, you wrote:

I gather that Buddhism is very this-woldly,

Yes Belinda, I am bewildered by some of the posts regarding the teaching of the Buddha, in that they make it so esoteric and mystical that i am inclined to ask them what world they are living in.
To me the instructions are easy, it's the doing that is more difficult. So the person wanting the easy way looks for an external source to find the "cure" for its life, etc.
The Buddhist way requires us to honestly look inside ourselves, which for most does not show an attractive picture. This is the first step on the path.
The second step is to see what is required of ourselves to get from where we are to where we want to get.The third step is the execution of those requirements.
The fourth is the arrival and existence in that state of balance, or nirvana that puts us in harmony with the rest of existence.
I see the "reincarnations" as nothing more then an encouragement to strive on when we fail and are inclined to give up. The Buddha never tried to explain nirvana, because the person who got to that point would know it, and it is different for every person.
This is buddhism for me, with nothingness at the end, and my matter returning back to the universe.

'awareness' exemplifies a noun which constantly risks reification. Awareness is probably not substance, either spiritual or material, but is figure of speech.Things may or may not be aware but aware is not a thing,it is a property of some things.

Awareness is sensitivity to the environment. It is a property of all life. It is the difference between life and the inanimate universe, although there is some question in my mind as to whether even inanimate substance has some level of awareness. Life is the substance of the universe with some level of awareness. All Life is a single entity. Evidence points to a singular origin of all life...see John Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. I am convinced that all life is one, and that man is the evolving consciousness of life. The "Soul" has no existance, life reincarnates as man. we are the evolution of awareness toward consciousness.