Are life and death mutually exclusive?

Answer 1

Yes, anything born can and will die eventually

Answer 2

I would answer this question with : No. If we take life and death in a form for all of us understood just to a certain point, and taking the whole definition of life and death just about the same as of Love or hate, then I can give plenty examples when they are not exclusive. I am not saying that you can be biologically dead and alive at the same time (which can be argued as well), but think how many times you've seen yourself dying in a dream, for instance, how many times in your life you didn't feel alive from pain (was it death?)? If we don't get to look at this terms just from the biological point of view, life and death are parts of one, and instead of being exclusive, they are rather additional to each other. There is no one without another. When you sit by the bed of a dying person - you see both: you see all these years full of energy and actions, you see his smiles and laughs and people who made him/her happy, you see his achievements and falls, you see life in every bit of that person; and you see death in the colour of the skin, in the slow motions, in the far corner of his eye... They are both present. I can argue with you that as much happiness in any unhappiness, as much hate in any love, as much light in any darkness, there is always as much life in death and death in life.

Answer 3

Good thought provoking question... my Star!!

We can not be sure that death and life are mutually exclusive or not. My reasoning is as follows......

Life is defined not only as what we do through our body but also includes what we do through our mind such as thoughts and imagination, intents etc. Death certainly puts an end to body activities, but none of us knows whether our mind too stops thinking, imagining, intending etc. on death or not.

Answer 4

If technology have been quite technology and if theology have been desirable, there could be no issues in any respect. the worry comes whilst human beings on the two aspects infer issues that are actually not probably in evidence. case in point, there are a minimum of 6 diverse interpretations of the introduction tale in Genesis that are held via distinctive Christians. There are a minimum of that many variations of evolution. Darwin himself does not know the present theories because of the fact they lack medical evidence. Micro-evolution is demonstrable. Macro-evolution isn't. And, even Darwin admitted some thing that evolutionists as we communicate refuse to confess. This did not ensue via twist of fate. The agent of replace remains unknown. jointly as theology does not declare such an evidentiary prevalent, the clever theologian does look at new discoveries to make certain if perhaps a number of his thinking would desire to be defective. Logarithmic radiometric dating of rocks could tend to steer one to have faith that the earth grew to become into not created in six 24-hour sessions of time. yet, that's not inevitably so. technology that doesn't attempt to describe already everyday conclusions is undesirable technology and continuously has been. We of course not settle for the everyday end that the solar orbits the earth. not complicated the everyday conclusions is how technology makes its superb errors. purely because of the fact we've a hypothesis or a concept does not make it so. The attempt for a medical regulation is particularly confusing to fulfill (and with stable reason). medical "info" usually are not. the place technology and theology conflict is the place each and each tries to describe that for which no actual evidence exists. The leaps of excellent judgment in technology are inexcusable. The stress of leaps in theology is likewise inexcusable. yet, equating this part of clashing is to not say that they don't look to be jointly unique. It only states that there is extra to appreciate. And, in spite of everything, that's what actual technology is all approximately. technology is from the Latin observe "scio" which skill "i understand". regrettably, too many "scientists" confuse that with "it style of feels" or "i think of".

Answer 5

I think so, you cannot be both alive and dead because they are in their truest senses antonyms. Metaphorically, why not? Someone can be emotionally dead dead but still alive. I think we will be able to achieve immortality within the next 200 years as we develop more advanced gene manipulation techniques, so it will be possible to have one without the other [at least on a scale relative to our understanding today].

Answer 6

Yes - something can not be alive AND dead.
No - a man can be partly dead due to the loss of part of his body and still be considered alive. A brain can be in a coma unnable to respond to any stimulous whatsoever but still be considered alive.

Answer 7

Of course, you're either alive or dead. You can't be just a bit dead. So they are mutually exclusive.

Answer 8

Without question - anything born to this life will in all cases cease to exist regardless of span or thought.

Answer 9

In scientific language, yes.

Answer 10

GOOD question!!!

Errrrrmmmm....wellllll.......yes but no but yes but no but............dunno.......I have got a head ache now!!!!