-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Faith in permanent death
- Thread starter 839311
- Start date
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
It is very much a paradox because I need not end there, I can take still further, say you are dead for another much larger finite time, a googolplexian years which is the #1 followed by a googolplex zeros and open your eyes to look around. Again death still fails give any perception of time and will again seem like no more than the blink of an eye. How far can I push the limits? I could push the limits so far it so far there is nothing in existing vocabulary to put a name to such a huge number, but would still seem like the blink of an eye. I could even push it to infinity theoretically.
What works best for me is the anthropic principle in its weaker form, because the block universe in that far future already exists - as far as the dark era beyond the black hole dominated era >10^100 years where it consists nothing but radiation as the last black hole evaporated. There is no one there to look up at the heavens and wonder in awe about the big questions of how they got there, because no one can possibly exist in any of the spacetime coordinates. There is no quark dominated matter to create life as there are no quarks. This 13.7 billion year post big bang just provides spacetime coordinates which makes observation possible in a Cosmological Goldilocks zone. Time does not flow nor is liniar but rather exists in spacio-temporal blocks or block time and we only have the illusion that it flows.
Another alternative, given a sufficiently great length of time some rather interesting phenomena will sooner or later kick in, and that is the Poincare Recurrence theorem. The time required for systems to be returned back to their initial state. The time required may be unimaginable for us, but could easily be accommodated by a theoretical time frame of a googolplexian years. If the Poincare Recurrence is the real deal, which I suspect it is, then there would be nothing in nature that is permanent - not even death.
Last edited:
otokage007
Well-Known Member
I don't get you.
If I am to return to that, so be it. What's wrong with that?
:sarcastic
Is that an addon or an argument against what I have said?
Are you ready to contemplate a bit? I am not arguining to prove a point. But if any one contemplates and sees the anomaly in the so called science of intelligence emerging from chemical stimuli, then it will be a reward.
With a consciousness that is given, we make a representational supposition that there is 'material' and then superimpose that material on the given consciousness itself.
Like I said, this isn't something I condone enforcing, nor do I have any misguided hope that it would ever happen voluntarily, as that would be a little too 1984ish for my taste, but I feel that the talk about it and societal opinions on an afterlife end up causing some degree of stress.
And when I say that those with faith deal with the stress too, that comes from my experience. I seem to be ther reverse of you. I went from living a life of "faith" and I dealt with a lot more stress over wether there is an afterlife or not back then than I do now.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that CHRISTIANITY is repulsive. Many Christians may be repulsive due to a bastardization of the religion, but the religion itself has many good parts. The problem is that it is an easy to bastardize religion and there are many aspects to it that are just plain wrong.
Like I was saying, I had a much less positive outlook prior to my change in faith. So the main point that I'm trying to make is that it can go both ways. I believe that religion and the belief in an afterlife can do good and be good for many people, but there are many people out there that it does harm for just as it did for me.
As is the common answer, I don't believe in an afterlife because I've seen no evidence leading me to believe there is one. I see no reason for believing in an afterlife other than to sastisfy some uncomfortableness inside of me. This is good enough for some people.
I find it better off because I'm no longer conflicted internally by the lack of evidence. When I "believed" I didn't truly believe and this caused me great stress. I was being told that to have faith was good and that those who believe without seeing are greater than those who know. I found all this to be rubbish and struggled for a long time with the idea of an afterlife and a God in general. I found great peace in accepting no afterlife and no God, and a lot more beauty in the world.
I acknowledge that I cannot know with any certainty unless there's a way to go to the afterlife and then come back, or some form of evidence that this world was altered by an afterlife. The problem is there isn't any evidence of this. To steal a cliche, I also concede that there's no way of knowing that there's no flying spaghetti monster floating around in space out there. This doesn't mean that I have equal cause to believe there is one as to believe there isn't. However, that last line was meant more as a joke than a concession
-Benhamine
Last edited:
Well we have no real reason to think that non-material would be part of our brain at all and consciousness is merely coming from the brain. A couple of things required for consiousness is memory and perception and these things are indeed material. The stuff is in the brain cell and if the brain cell dies your memories die along with it. Also the perception we have of what is outside of us is a reaction to chemical stimuli in our brains and the feelings and sensations we have are material as well. Do you really wonder why we wouldn't suppose some non-material stuff is helping us with consciousness? How one would go about find this non-material portion? I feel like you might be bringing in your own bias on this but I'm willing to contemplate a bit.
... establishes my point that this "you" is not objective. More like made up, imagined. Or perceived, if you will.
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. Consciousness can return to that and appear like it is 'not present' given the parameters, but if not using perception, Consciousness could see Consciousness in 'there.'
Refutation. Lower consciousness may (I would constantly does) seek alteration, while Consciousness can (I would actually does) attract medicines (magic) to do the altering in way that is sufficient for actual intent called forth. May be one of danger, masked as escape, but not realized as danger until the experience is, how you say, honored.
You trying to say we can imagine things into existence? We are very limited in choosing our destiny even if we are able to alter it..
Pretend, if you will, for say 1 minute and up to 30 minutes that there is non-material means of seeing within your consciousness. Me, I think the negative here is one way of explaining it, but if willing to go with pretense, willing to seek, then I suggest going with positive conception of 'spiritual' or simply Consciousness with upper C. At a certain level (that I experience often), if you are (or I am) just going to talk about what contemplation / meditation is going to be like, then the experience, and ultimately profound awareness, cannot be realized. A game we play with ourselves. Delay masking as 'honest desire to scrutinize.'
Atanu may have another way to enter into contemplation, as may others here who have tried it, and I suggest going with works.
For me, a caveat or stipulation for the pretense is I strongly suggest you do not pretend you are 'in there' alone. You can, if you do, you'll be fine. But if giving it a good effort (15 plus minutes), I think pretense that allows for "there is more than little me in here contemplating" can be significant, life changing, perception shifting. There is more to say on this point, but I just assume leave it here for now.
I'm also compelled to comment to one of the other questions raised above, and is perhaps something to contemplate on, but need not be, and could be on another tangent apart from willingness to contemplate. To me, Reason and other thoughts in that vein are clearly non-material. I'd like to see scientist type contemplate on 'what is science' and really get at heart of how is this non-material 'thing' (called science) seen to work? Not how do we intellectually make it work. That is another topic for another thread. I'm saying something to contemplate, something that is clearly non material and can help in understanding that is being discussed at this point of the thread. If you need to intellectually retort what that question is asking, then so be it, but I'll likely not have discussion here. I say contemplate and 'be with it' for more than 8 seconds of consideration before allowing mind to wander onto 'more important, practical considerations.' Preferably go with minutes of contemplation.
No, you couldn't. There is a big difference in this matter between a finite amount of time, in which your idea is valid, and an infinite amount of time, in which it is invalid. This is because infinity has no end. So if you say that you are going to be dead for an infinite amount of time, then you are going to be dead forever. Thats why I said it doesn't make any sense.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
There are an infinitely many numbers before and after 15, but there it is. If my "lifespan" lasts between 15 and 16 on an unbounded number line, then I don't exist for an infinite time, before living, and then remaining dead for an infinite time.
But if I live every year which is a multiple of 3, and then sleep/die/whathaveyou, I'm also dead for an infinite amount of time. However, I live for an infinite time as well.
Fair enough.
I don't believe in an afterlife either. Getting people to believe in an afterlife isnt my goal in this thread. My goal is to get people to be more open minded about the possibility, and certainly not to dismiss them altogether as some people have.
The fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed leaves the possibility open. Options 3 and 4 in the OP deal with this. The problem, ofcourse, is that we simply don't know what reality is like. We have some knowledge, but it is incomplete. What is beyond this universe? Do we live in a multiverse, as many physicists think and as I think? Do we live in a closed system? Exactly what type of reality we are living in would have profound implications for us. But, again, because we don't know this limits us in many ways, including in the matter of permanent death.
To steal a cliche, I also concede that there's no way of knowing that there's no flying spaghetti monster floating around in space out there. This doesn't mean that I have equal cause to believe there is one as to believe there isn't. However, that last line was meant more as a joke than a concession
There is a big difference between specific claims, like those of Christianity and those of the Flying Spaghetti monster, and between whether or not we will ever live again. The fact of our existence is already proof that it is indeed possible for us to exist, and is thus evidence that we may exist again. So, yes, there is indeed evidence for the possibility that we may live again at some future point beyond our deaths in these bodies.
Last edited:
:yes: thats right. This is what the discussion was about.
lol, yes, your right, but your just changing the context of the discussion. There was no mention of reincarnation, as is advocated by what you wrote here.
I'm not sure how current life implies any evidence of another life, but I will state that it's possible in the sense that I can't disprove it. I don't hope that there is another life though any more than I hope that there isn't. At the beginning of this thread you stated you pitied those who don't believe in an afterlife. I've just been trying to argue it's not necessarily bad on this side of the fence, and I don't feel worthy of your pity.
-Benhamine
Because anything that is possible to exist maintains its possibility. Thus, as long as we know that something is possible to exist, like me and you, then this counts as evidence that it may exist in the future. That doesn't necessarily mean it will, and this is where our insufficient understanding of the nature of reality kicks in - are we living in an open system or a closed system? What is the complete nature of reality? Who knows? But only if we had a complete understanding of the nature of reality would we really be able to say. But even then, how could we be sure we aren't missing something? We could always say that there might be more to reality than that which we are aware of. For all we would know, the part that we might have been missing would be a crucial part, and it might turn out that it was another layer of reality that we had no knowledge of but that in one catastrophic instant collides with our reality and warps the laws of physics in such a way that all life would instantly cease to exist. Ahhh, mystery...
Alright, but this isn't saying much. We could use the same line of reasoning for the flying spaghetti monster, but lets be honest, this doesn't really get us anywhere.
If life is a good thing, then why not hope that there is going to be more of it?
Well, in your case, as you've laid it out, it does seem that you are in a better spot than you were before. I just think you could use a healthy does of hope without the need to have faith.
Well as long as you believe in permanent death I pity you, but not too much lol
otokage007
Well-Known Member
I don't know if it is because of the way you speak, or because I'm not english, or maybe because you are too criptic for me to understand. But I definetly don't get a s*** of what you say
Anyway thanks for answering.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
how then can you ask a subjective "you" to accept anything you say?
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
I am pointing out there are no theoretical limits to finite numbers. Every time the English language invents a new one such as a googolplexian you can always add the number one to make it bigger (n+1). No one will live for a googolplexian years and no one would be dead for a googolplexian years because at the very least Poincare recurrence would kick in long before that time is up. The number is that big, far bigger than every possible physical combination of the universe.
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
BTW, there are infinitely large integers. Have fun.
Sorry, founfd the question beyond my power of resisting to intrude.
Beneath the subjective you there must be the subject? Though you cannot scratch the face seen on the mirror to relieve itch on your face, but you can scratch the real face to relieve the itch.
Just saying.