If death follows life, then life must follow death

Is the following reasoning fallacious?

If death follows life, then life must follow death. Just like we know about death and the fact that we can’t avoid it while we live or exist, in the same way, we’ll know about life and the fact that we can’t avoid it, while we are dead. I know this is some sort of deduction or induction but is there a fallacy of assumption here? I’m curious. Is it not logical what I say? What do you think?

Just because everyone has died doesn’t meant we will die

Completely fallacious.

You are saying: A follows B, therefore B follows A.

Not at all logical.

Why do you think it is logical?

It makes sense to say that:
If life then there must be death (even though this premise can be denied)
If death then there must be life (this one seems pretty straightforward)

But BeenaJain has injected the issue of temporality into logic. You should always be warry when anyone does this. A logical phrase is true at all times and under all conditions. If a “logical phrase” uses temporality to make it true, then chances are, it isn’t logical.

I know there is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium or in other words, there is no contrary evidence but there is no positive evidence in favour of it either. Yet, I know there is a fallacy where all the premises are true and the conclusion is also true but the conclusion does not follow from those premises. So, can’t I just assume that the conclusion that re-birth exists is true even though it does not necessarily follow logically? :smiley:

You can assume anything you want. But it doesn’t make a lick of sense, nor make it true.

Lol I say that all the time :laughing:

Heh!Heh!Heh! I was just kidding. The seed is sown though, whether the plant sprouts and all truth is revealed, who knows and who cares. I just like brainstorming so much. Some people will think that I never achieved my objective because I didn’t achieve anything, but if all I needed to achieve is to sow the seed, then in my eyes I achieved what I set out to do, didn’t I? :wink: Now the plant can come up by itself, perhaps I don’t even need to do anything! :laughing:

Is the following reasoning fallacious?

Yes, what you proposed supposes an infinite loop but infinite is still just a theory in reality.

Look at it this way. If a plant dies then it’s cells are absorbed by other plants to be used as nourishment and then the new plant makes new cells thus death comes from life. So it makes sense so far

But where did the first life come from? If the universe really did start with the “big bang” then there was nothing before it. Because of this it shows that death did not start the first life. What is assumed to be an infinite cycle has been proven to be finite in at least one direction and so while life brings death and death brings life may be true in some cases it is not an absolute truth

yeah it’s fallacious, try to prove B—>A from the premise A—>B. You will end up being a very frustrated person. Essentially, you can’t confuse “only if” with “if and only if.”

Besides there is little you can do logically with one premise, mere transformations.

I know.

Interestingly enough, Plato tried to use this reasoning in the Critias
to prove the existence of the soul. His argument was that everything was generated by an opposite, so that one opposite generated another.

I don’t know what kind of argument you’re using (hopefully not (p->q) → (q->p))?

In any case, I can’t see any reason why life would come from death. At least I’ve never seen it happen (except if you count maggots). It seems that life only comes from life.

The problem with the generation of opposites is that nothing cannot produce something; only something can become nothing.

Well it’s circular. :unamused:

Scientifically we all know this is fact. When something dies, it decays, and contributes to new life. If B didn’t follow A, life would have to make some serious adaptations to not depend on death so heavilly.

By that type of reasoning a cow is reincarnated in m’ belly when I eat it. Yes, things die, and they feed other life, but I fail to see how that really ties into the unsubstantiated premise that our deaths inevitably lead to us ourselves “living again.”


I just like brainstorming so much.

I just like brainstorming so much.

I just like brainstorming so much.

I just like brainstorming so much.

I just like brainstorming so much.

I just like brainstorming so much.



Because BeenaJain didn’t fully get his/her point across. Your analogy of A and B may seem good at first but A and B are only variables and don’t come close to the actual complexity of life and death.

We all know that life and death are opposites just like night and day or male and female, etc. We can also conclude that without one thing, there cannot be its opposite. For example, without death there cannot be life and vice-versa or without badguys there is no need for police.

Now, why would we need an opposite to exist to EVERYTHING? Maybe for natural balance? Overall, universal balance makes sense. What would happen if something like the cosmos wasn’t balanced? Life BALANCES death just like police balance badguys. Try to state that with A and B.

Ok, so life and death are balanced. So what? Well like all balances if you put too much weight on one side the other side will show you that there is not balance present. This is the same for life and death. You put too much weight on your life side and the death side shows you that there is not balance present, so you die. You then put too much weight on your death side and the life side shows you that balance is not present, so you are born. The human body is good evidence for this. When you are born your body already has started to decay. It has already started its gradual process back to death to create balance. In otherwords, decay itself is that pull from the death side, that indication that balance is not present.

You go from one extreme to another, going through every shade of grey on the way to each of them. You can break this cycle of ill-balance by accepting death and embracing it like you would life. You must be alive and dead at the same time, creating balance. I think it was Socrates who said that someone who knows practices death on a regular basis. A way to practice death could also be known as meditation. I will bet that nobody who has posted on this topic, so far, meditates or has any clue what it is all about. This would cause your one-sided beliefs of decaying bodies feeding everything else. Your theory lacks substance because you have no idea about death. You are sure of life because you are experiencing it and then you think it just drops off without even giving death a chance to explain itself to you. I use to also think like this, I know where you are. I understand and I have compassion for you because I know you are on your own path and that it is up to you to find what you are searching for, nobody else.

[quickly twiddles with the logic buttons on his etch-o-sketch]

Assumming just for the purposes of arguement:

big-bang/big-crunch theory is true.
As are the current theories of universal history.
And that in a large enough array, anything that isn’t impossible is inevitable…

Life = a state of non-death
Death = a state of non-life

A long time ago there was no life.
Therefore the base state was death.

Now there is life.
Therefore life followed death.

Everything that is alive eventually dies.
Therefore life follows death and death follows life.

You will die.
The universe will get to a certain size and collapse.
This collapse will trigger a new big-bang.
Life will arise from death.
In a large enough array, anything that isn’t impossible is inevitable.
The new universe will be a large enough array.
Therefore - someone looking exactly like the you that died, will make the exact same choices you made, will have your exact same memories.
You will die, you will live again.

Logic…? Or just pure poppycock - the choice is yours… :smiley:

My God Murdoc, your response, specially the night and day analogy with life and death, it’s soooooooooooooooo good and original. I would never have thought of it, never!

Yes really I love to brainstorm! But since you don’t brainstorm, perhaps because you don’t have a brain so you wouldn’t know about my brainstorming nor understand it, would you? That is why perhaps you removed my name from my quote too, to make yourself look good, like you usually do. When Einstein said, ‘Brilliant minds will encounter vehement opposition by mediocre minds,’ one of those mediocre minds seems to be you. So sad!!! And what is sadder is the fact that people like you with empty minds will always come everywhere to taunt others but not bring anything to the discussion. You don’t even understand the first law of discussion - If you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute, don’t taunt and don’t criticise. It is not wrong to have an empty mind but it’s not ok to taunt others without basis, one day you will eat your own words and pay for the wrong you do and how you provoke. “Empty vesssels make a lot of noise,” I heard it, but in you I see a clear example. All said and done, I feel that you’re probably a ram who just enjoys an argument or a fight because he has nothing better to do, so even though all this frustrates me, you’re having a good time. If this was my forum, I would kick people like you out in no time at all. :imp: :imp: :imp:

Just arguing symantics here, but death is not the opposite of life. Death is not a state of non-life. Death, by definition, look it up, is the termination of life… Death is a property only living things can aquire. Once they aquire it, they are no longer living, but a requirment to be called dead, something needs to have been living. They are not opposites. The opposite of life, im not sure, could be inanimate, or who cares, lets just call it the opposite of life, or as tabula Rasa said, a state of non-life. But that is not death. I cannot call a rock dead, I mean I could, and everybody would get the point, but that would be messing with the definition. I can call a dead body dead… because at some point it was alive, but a rock never lived, so it cant be dead. So the property of death can be said to substanitiate life, but life can never come from death alone, because death is state only life can aquire. So Tabula Rusa, you cannot, by definition, say that the big bang time, when there was no life, is death. Thats just non-life, but not death.