> The concept is self-contradictory, and thus not possible.
Ok, let me frame it this way then. We're talking about the possibility of (a different kind of) life after physical death. My assertion is that there is no way to prove its existence or its non-existence. Therefor, any assertion about its nature or lack there of is uniformly based on faith.
> Pascal's Wager can be used to justify any belief whatsoever.
Not sure I follow you on this one, but it's not central to the discussion here.
Thought about it more and I think I understand your reasoning now. But I included Pascal's wager not to justify any particular belief (although I can totally see why you came to that conclusion as Pascal does come to a concrete conclusion in terms of a particular belief).
I included Pascal's wager not for his conclusion but because it supports my assertion that one can not know what happens after physical death. Therefore, any conclusion about that is based on faith alone.
My take on death is since there is no way to be certain what happens after death, all possibilities are, well, possible. Death can be extremely good, extremely bad, neutral or anywhere in between.
Yes, I'm talking about life after death here. I think it's relevant to the OP's comment because what happens after death (good, bad, nothing) logically effects the valuation of death.
Since it is inherently very difficult if not impossible to scientifically evaluate what the probabilities are in terms of life after death, it's pretty much a crap shoot and what we choose to believe about it is based on faith (in nothing, God, etc). Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Ok, let me frame it this way then. We're talking about the possibility of (a different kind of) life after physical death. My assertion is that there is no way to prove its existence or its non-existence. Therefor, any assertion about its nature or lack there of is uniformly based on faith.
> Pascal's Wager can be used to justify any belief whatsoever.
Not sure I follow you on this one, but it's not central to the discussion here.
Thought about it more and I think I understand your reasoning now. But I included Pascal's wager not to justify any particular belief (although I can totally see why you came to that conclusion as Pascal does come to a concrete conclusion in terms of a particular belief).
I included Pascal's wager not for his conclusion but because it supports my assertion that one can not know what happens after physical death. Therefore, any conclusion about that is based on faith alone.
EDIT: Addition to last point.