Disbelief in the Creator is just Belief in the Death.

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

S:
Belief in the eternal living creator means that the human life is originated from the original life and therefore not limited by the physical existence. This means that the human life is original but the physical death is a just a transitional phase towards spiritual existence before the final physical resurrection for the day of judgment and reckoning. Therefore, can sincerely believe in the future existence of self and of the universe. i.e., can live the real human life.
Disbelief in the creator of the universe means that the human life is originated from the temporal material existence and therefore just confined to its physical existence. This means that the human life is not original and therefore physical death is the real death i.e., once dead, dead for ever. Since there is no guaranteed period for the physical existence of the human life therefore, cannot sincerely believe in the future existence of self and of the universe i.e., cannot live the real human life.

Saeed

Out of curiosity, what's the point of your argument here? It's not really clear; I've come up with three possibilities:

- you're begging the question by assuming that your beliefs are correct in order to argue that rejecting them is wrong.

- you're appealing to the consequences of a belief by arguing that what you see as an unpleasant implication of a belief has any bearing on whether the belief is actually true.

- you're not actually here to argue any points or convince people of your position. Instead, you're just trying to taunt people here by pointing out that if you're right and they're wrong, they're screwed.

Two of these possibilities are based on logical fallacies and one is useless and kinda dickish. Did you have something else in mind in starting this thread?

Originally Posted by Penguin

Out of curiosity, what's the point of your argument here? It's not really clear; I've come up with three possibilities:

- you're begging the question by assuming that your beliefs are correct in order to argue that rejecting them is wrong.

- you're appealing to the consequences of a belief by arguing that what you see as an unpleasant implication of a belief has any bearing on whether the belief is actually true.

- you're not actually here to argue any points or convince people of your position. Instead, you're just trying to taunt people here by pointing out that if you're right and they're wrong, they're screwed.

Two of these possibilities are based on logical fallacies and one is useless and kinda dickish. Did you have something else in mind in starting this thread?

S:
My point is that belief in future existence is the evidence for belief in the creator of the universe, because, no one is qualified to vouch for the future existence of the universe and of the human life other than the creator:


S1:
Do you believe in the future existence of yourself and of the universe, and for what extent of time?

S2:
What is the evidence for future existence of yourself and of the universe, and for what extent of time?

Saeed

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

S:
My point is that belief in future existence is the evidence for belief in the creator of the universe, because, no one is qualified to vouch for the future existence of the universe and of the human life other than the creator:

Okay... so it's begging the question, apparently.

AFAICT, your claim basically amounts to this: it's impossible to hypothesize that trends that we observe in past events and in the present will continue into the future unless God exists.

Is that a fair re-wording of your argument? Because if it is, it's so illogical and nonsensical that I don't know where to start in responding to it.

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

S1:
Do you believe in the future existence of yourself and of the universe, and for what extent of time?

S2:
What is the evidence for future existence of yourself and of the universe, and for what extent of time?

Saeed

How about you answer these questions. It seems to me that your argument is that God is somehow the only thing that will let you answer them in a valid way... okay, well let's see just how valid it is.

Originally Posted by Penguin

Okay... so it's begging the question, apparently.

AFAICT, your claim basically amounts to this: it's impossible to hypothesize that trends that we observe in past events and in the present will continue into the future unless God exists.

Is that a fair re-wording of your argument? Because if it is, it's so illogical and nonsensical that I don't know where to start in responding to it.

S1:
Not true. I don't think that the past and present can provide necessary basis for belief in the future existence of self and of the universe. Belief in the creator means that existence of the universe and the living organisms is the consequence of great knowledge, intentional planning and calculated work for certain purpose. Therefore belief in the creator provides credible basis for belief in the future existence.

Originally Posted by Penguin

How about you answer these questions. It seems to me that your argument is that God is somehow the only thing that will let you answer them in a valid way... okay, well let's see just how valid it is.

S2:
Because of absence of any other possible alternative to belief in the creator of the universe for belief in the future existence. Your failure to answer the questions is an evidence for my argument:

S1:
Do you believe in the future existence of yourself and of the universe, and for what extent of time?

S2:
What is the evidence for future existence of yourself and of the universe, and for what extent of time?

Saeed

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

S1:
Not true. I don't think that the past and present can provide necessary basis for belief in the future existence of self and of the universe.

Really? I find that hard to believe, because we all necessarily use this assumption. For instance, when I go to work, I take my usual route because the fact that my office has been in the same place for years and was there yesterday implies that it's unlikely that it was picked up and moved in the middle of the night.

Do you not make these sorts of assumptions? Do you start every day with no preconceptions or assumptions based on your memories?

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

Belief in the creator means that existence of the universe and the living organisms is the consequence of great knowledge, intentional planning and calculated work for certain purpose. Therefore belief in the creator provides credible basis for belief in the future existence.

No, actually, it doesn't imply any of that. Your belief only implies that you think "that existence of the universe and the living organisms is the consequence of great knowledge, intentional planning and calculated work for certain purpose." Whether this is actually true is a whole other matter. Your beliefs do not determine reality.

And they don't give you any certainty in this matter, either. So you believe that God exists and has some divine plan... well, how do you know that it doesn't serve his divine plan to utterly eradicate you tomorrow, body and soul?

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

Because of absence of any other possible alternative to belief in the creator of the universe for belief in the future existence.

This doesn't answer the question.

Can you answer your own questions? If your belief in God doesn't provide you with an answer, then why would my disbelief in God be an issue here?

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

Your failure to answer the questions is an evidence for my argument:

Your interpretation of my refusal to answer as evidence of anything is evidence of your lack of command of basic logic. You should strongly consider the possibility that your OP was fundamentally flawed, and that you haven't recognized this fact so far is because you don't have the tools to do it, not because it's actually valid.

Originally Posted by Blondin

This is bullshit. Scientific theories about future events are based on observations of past events and an assumption that the laws of physics remain constant through space and time. Theories about the lifespan and demise of our solar system are based on observations and comparisons of other star systems. We learn by observing and experimenting and deducing. That is what allows us to extrapolate predictions about the future. It's an ongoing and continually self-correcting process. It is not an infallible process but it's been vastly more successful than any of the "other ways of knowing" including revelation.

S1:
Are "the laws of physics" eternal?

S2:
Who or what is the source of "the laws of physics"?

Originally Posted by Blondin

I believe in the principle of mediocrity. There is no reason to believe that my existence, lifespan, abilities, etc vary greatly from those of billions of peers and antecedents.

S3:
Did all of " billions of peers and antecedents" live the same length of life time and what was their unified lifespan?

Saeed

Saeed,

Again - are you going to answer your questions yourself?

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

S1:
Do you believe in the future existence of yourself and of the universe, and for what extent of time?

S2:
What is the evidence for future existence of yourself and of the universe, and for what extent of time?

Saeed

Originally Posted by saeedalyousuf

S1:
Are "the laws of physics" eternal?

S2:
Who or what is the source of "the laws of physics"?

I think you're operating under the assumption that "God did it" is the default answer. It's not. If you want to put forward an argument for the existence of God, go for it... but attempting to refute non-divine explanations doesn't do anything for your case.