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

There are many flaws, ambiguous terms, and unproven presumptions in that statement. Let’s look at the logic first:


  1. The mind is the sole master
  2. If someone believes something to be true they can’t be proven wrong
  3. If someone believes something to be true it is true for them


  1. If someone believes in an afterlife there is an afterlife for them.

Truly, premise one and two are irrelevant to the conclusion because they can be true or false and the conclusion would still follow if only premise three is true. When we look at premise three and the conclusion we can see that they are essentially the same. Premise three states: If someone believes X is true, then X is true for them. and the conclusion states: If someone believes in an afterlife then there is an afterlife for them. This is circular reasoning, and thus not a valid form of logical argumentation.

There are many other problems as I mentioned above (ambiguous terms and unproven presumptions) but seeing as you just asked if this was logically sound I will end this post having answered your question.

If someone believes something to be true and that it can’t possibly be wrong then they perceive it as truth, but that doesnt mean it is truth .

I’ve encountered this idea before and do not agree with it on the basis of truth, I believe it to be true in a manner of perception though. What we perceive to be the truth and as we are not omniscientifical(?) beings we can very rarely be certain if what we believe to be the truth is truth and that is the reason i believe most thought and logic to have a foundation in faith.

I’ve encountered the other idea as well, I am not quite as certain on this one though. The Idea that if you believe theres an afterlife there is one and if you dont then there is not conflicts with my idea that there are absolute truths. I believe there is an afterlife whether you believe in it or not, what exactly that entails though i am not sure. Though I do believe ones spiritual outlook is a kind of self reflection as well and reveals what kind of mindset they have about themselves and the world/existance in general (or their perception of it as the case may be).

It all depends on what the relationship between what one believes and what is actually true is. And I suspect that, in the end, logic may have nothing to do with it.

What someone believes to be true is true for them; if they firmly believe something and hold on to that belief until they die, they’ll then discover whether or not there’s an afterlife. But by then, they won’t be able to say whether or not there is one. :wink:

-If you believe something to be true all your life, and believing it makes it true, what happens when you die? If you are dead, that means that you are not alive, which leads to the question: Can you be dead and still believe? Believing implies action, and if you can act - then how are you DEAD? Why am asking this? In order for the afterlife to exist, based on the said premises, one would have to continue believing even after death (or else it would no longer be true) - which leads to: You must not die if you wish to have an afterlife. Which is true, but doesn’t help you much if you are dead…

This equates ‘truth’ with ‘faith’ as far as I can tell.