And yet you claim that nothing exists beyond death without evidence. You provide no evidence and assume that a lack of evidence on other theories is evidence of your theory. This is the same methodology theologists used as “evidence” for the heavens. By assuming a default position exists, you’re allowing a lack of evidence on any other position of the argument to support your own position.
My point is that nothingness as a state of being (or lack thereof) beyond death is its own theory that also has no evidence. This is the same for all theories of what’s beyond death and therefore all theories are equally valid, or invalid if you prefer.
From my perspective in programming terms, you’re seeing a variable without a value and assuming no value means 0 whereas I’m saying 0 is also a value which is different from “no value was defined”.
And yet you claim that nothing exists beyond death without evidence. You provide no evidence and assume that a lack of evidence on other theories is evidence of your theory. This is the same methodology theologists used as “evidence” for the heavens. By assuming a default position exists, you’re allowing a lack of evidence on any other position of the argument to support your own position.
My point is that nothingness as a state of being (or lack thereof) beyond death is its own theory that also has no evidence. This is the same for all theories of what’s beyond death and therefore all theories are equally valid, or invalid if you prefer.
From my perspective in programming terms, you’re seeing a variable without a value and assuming no value means 0 whereas I’m saying 0 is also a value which is different from “no value was defined”.