Immortality and Resurrection

I'm curious as to what the main argument is against immortality of the soul and also against the resurrection of the body at the end of days. Also, what kind of defense would proponents of immortality or resurrection give against the arguments against resurrection and immortality?

Thanks!

[Scott]

Incidentally, it's kind of confusing and intellectually disorganized to attempt to gather the arguments and evidence against an ontologically positive claim without first having gathering the arguments or evidence for it. For one, this is because without arguments or evidence for the ontologically positive claim (e.g. 'leprechauns exist', 'invisible unicorns live on Pluto', 'there is a being named Bobby watching earth right now with an alien telescope on the planet Gliese 581 c), the default position would be at least weak disbelief. At least, that's what I argued this in my post Default positions and the increased burden of proof.

Beyond mere weak disbelief, what makes the idea of an afterlife and particularly one that eternally preserves the body so incredibly unbelievable is marked by the series of questions such a speculation raises, shown by my topic: Individuality and the Body in a Supposed Afterlife.

Moreover, all the many attempts to get scientific evidence of the afterlife or any magically paranormal power that could magically put a body and brain back together after being incinerated which have either failed or been debunked ultimately are evidence to the contrary (source). For instance, every time a person claiming to have an out-of-body-experience failed one hospital's 'LED marquee' test, that is yet further evidence such experieinces don't exist at all (source). This is parallel to they way every time someone tries to disprove gravity by raising a ball up and letting go of it in the hopes it disproves gravity by floating but it doesn't provides ever more evidence supporting the inductive conclusion that gravity exist just like people do not come back from the dead.

I could argue with a certain conviction that the soul has a value and it is not beyond understanding but to ask is the body worthy of resurrecting? Is there some kind of atomic record stored in heaven or hell that can be called upon to reconstruct the actual body? Could I ask, is it beyond our comprehension to store possible an infinite amount of information simply to judge the individual and then destroy them for not following gods laws. The logistics are incalculable the logic is simply weird.

So the idea against resurrection is that we wouldn't be able to recreate the same body, which has decomposed or been destroyed in some other means (cremation, science, organ donation, etc.). Also, since "matter cannot be created or destroyed," atoms must be recycled, so at least some of the atoms in a living person's body will inevitably later be used in a new body. This means that all the bodies that have ever existed can't possibly be recreated at the same time with their original atoms, because then parts of bodies would be shared.

Is that the idea against resurrection?

As for the other post, I'm not sure what the MAIN argument against immortality of the soul is. Is it the problem of personal identity? I don't really understand what that problem is.

Thanks!

-- Updated March 4th, 2012, 4:11 pm to add the following --

Also, how would one go about arguing against the body/atoms argument?

So the idea against resurrection is that we wouldn't be able to recreate the same body, which has decomposed or been destroyed in some other means (cremation, science, organ donation, etc.). Also, since "matter cannot be created or destroyed," atoms must be recycled, so at least some of the atoms in a living person's body will inevitably later be used in a new body. This means that all the bodies that have ever existed can't possibly be recreated at the same time with their original atoms, because then parts of bodies would be shared.

Is that the idea against resurrection?

As for the other post, I'm not sure what the MAIN argument against immortality of the soul is. Is it the problem of personal identity? I don't really understand what that problem is.

Thanks!

-- Updated March 4th, 2012, 4:11 pm to add the following --

Also, how would one go about arguing against the body/atoms argument?

So what purpose would it serve to resurrect every human that has ever existed? If you believe in this moppet that would find it necessary to do this impossible task you must understand it's not the means but the reasons that are so bemusing for me.

If we do not understand the existential and evolutionary context of an afterlife in other dimension\universe, then merely speculating about heavenly existence with a glorified body and an eternal soul has no much meaning. It is not about whether the concept of afterlife is true or not; the key is all about what is the role of men in the game of the greater cosmic evolution trajectory.

But whoever do possess the insight into the 'big picture'? I think only the dead has such a clear or deep perception of the ambivalent situation, but why don't the death come back to inform us, such as descending as a manifested angel landed on the front yard of Hollywood? This evidence may reveal the veil is real and the separation is permanent.

The concept of afterlife has many its internal ambivalence and illogicality. For those who want to believe, there is hope. For those who disbelieve, there is relief; and that is all the tricks about.

Ok, you are winking at me across the screen.
For it offered you a vital piece of the puzzle and yet the rest is still missing. What the 'big picture' really look like depending on whether this piece of puzzle the crux of the matter...
Ok the Gods are winking in the murky sky too.