Arguments for Life after Death By Brian Sweeney

Argument from Authority

This argument states that the vast majority of all people who have ever lived, in all nations, cultures, races, and religions, have believed in life after death. Most of the people who deny it are confined to one or two centuries. If all these people are wrong, then you have to be a snob, for only you and your very small circle of unbelievers are right while the rest of the human race, including the best and wisest people who have ever lived, have all been wrong about this crucial question.

Argument for Desire

The desire to conquer death is in all of us. We all find death scandalous. The desire for immortality is natural and universal . Every single one of our other desires that are natural and universal correspond to real things that can satisfy them. We cannot avoid death. If there is no immortality, why do we naturally desire it?

Argument from The Soul Not Having Parts

The soul is the source of life to the body. When the body loses its life, it does not lose any atoms, but it loses something. Something in us is not composed of atoms. When we die, we fall apart into body-without-a-soul and soul-without-a-body. When we die everything starts to fall apart but the soul cannot split therefore it remains whole and goes to the afterlife.

Argument from Reason and Free Will

Human thinking is rational understanding, and human choosing is free and morally responsible. Human thinking is not just sensation and imagination, and human willing is not just feeling and instinct. Put reason and free choice together and you get morality. Morality presupposes these two things: understanding right and wrong, and freely choosing between right and wrong.

Argument from God

Human thinking is rational understanding, and human choosing is free and morally responsible. Human thinking is not just sensation and imagination, and human willing is not just feeling and instinct. Put reason and free choice together and you get morality. Morality presupposes these two things: understanding right and wrong, and freely choosing between right and wrong.

Argument from the Intrinsic Value of the Person

If the deepest moral values, the intrinsic value of persons, has no ground in reality, if this idea that persons are intrinsically valuable and ought to be loved as ends rather than used as means, if this idea is only our subjective feeling or desire, then there is no objectively real obligation to love people or to treat them as ends and as unique and irreplaceable.

Made with Adobe Slate

Make your words and images move.

Get Slate

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a Copyright Violation, please follow Section 17 in the Terms of Use.