- #61
merak
- 51
- 0
Loren Booda said:
I'd be more recognized!
What Do Different Beliefs Say About Life After Death?
- Thread starter cangus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Death
Click For Summary
The discussion explores various beliefs about what happens after death, ranging from religious views of an afterlife in heaven or hell to the belief in nothingness. Some participants argue that consciousness ceases entirely, with the body returning to nature, while others suggest a more complex understanding involving higher dimensions and the illusion of time. There is a consensus that life should be valued over concerns about death, emphasizing the importance of living fully in the present. The conversation highlights the diversity of perspectives on existence and the afterlife, with some advocating for a focus on personal growth and understanding. Ultimately, the thread reflects a deep contemplation of mortality and the meaning of life.
I'd be more recognized!
- #62
Erazman
- 65
- 0
To people who ask "what's the meaning of life? Whats the point of all this?"
Imagine there is an afterlife. What wouldn't stop you from asking the same question once you're in it. I can just imagine all the "new ghosts" standing around the water cooler.. "You know, man... i still don't know"... "yeah, what's the point of all this?"
Theres only ONE way to fully understand the purpose of everything as one big picture. Someone would need to be able to see infinately throughout all the universes all at once. To answer the question "why", you'd need to peer through the very mechanism of the universes, like opening up a clock. The only difference is, this clock is an infantely big object. You can't open it. Nobody can, because it has no defining edge. It's forever. Therefore you cannot possibly understand it, no matter hard far you look, there's always more. "Infinate"... think about it..No matter what you discover, whether you think its a meaning, a truth... your mind simply cannot comprehend all the conflicting possibilities of that meaning. The conflicting possibilities is infinate in itself.
So to conclude, if this makes any sense, to ask the question "what is the meaning of life?" is like asking to see infinite. Seeing infinite is the only way you'll understand "everything". You can't. Even if your "god", there has to be more beyond his comprehension. Infinity is Infinity. Therefore, even if GOD appeared before me and told me the meaning of life, i'd call him a liar. He doesn't know. Infinite is something no human, spirit, or entity can possibly comprehend.
TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THERE HAS TO BE AN EDGE, LIMIT, OR QUANTITY.
SINCE THE UNIVERSE IS INFINATE, THEN LIFE IS INFINATE.
THEREFORE, WE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT.
^^ bull****. i didnt mean to type the universe is infinate. I really meant to say whatever is BEYOND the universe is infinate. and if it is, no one will ever be able to comprehend what's beyond the beyond the beyond the beyond etc...
Imagine there is an afterlife. What wouldn't stop you from asking the same question once you're in it. I can just imagine all the "new ghosts" standing around the water cooler.. "You know, man... i still don't know"... "yeah, what's the point of all this?"
Theres only ONE way to fully understand the purpose of everything as one big picture. Someone would need to be able to see infinately throughout all the universes all at once. To answer the question "why", you'd need to peer through the very mechanism of the universes, like opening up a clock. The only difference is, this clock is an infantely big object. You can't open it. Nobody can, because it has no defining edge. It's forever. Therefore you cannot possibly understand it, no matter hard far you look, there's always more. "Infinate"... think about it..No matter what you discover, whether you think its a meaning, a truth... your mind simply cannot comprehend all the conflicting possibilities of that meaning. The conflicting possibilities is infinate in itself.
So to conclude, if this makes any sense, to ask the question "what is the meaning of life?" is like asking to see infinite. Seeing infinite is the only way you'll understand "everything". You can't. Even if your "god", there has to be more beyond his comprehension. Infinity is Infinity. Therefore, even if GOD appeared before me and told me the meaning of life, i'd call him a liar. He doesn't know. Infinite is something no human, spirit, or entity can possibly comprehend.
TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THERE HAS TO BE AN EDGE, LIMIT, OR QUANTITY.
SINCE THE UNIVERSE IS INFINATE, THEN LIFE IS INFINATE.
THEREFORE, WE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT.
^^ bull****. i didnt mean to type the universe is infinate. I really meant to say whatever is BEYOND the universe is infinate. and if it is, no one will ever be able to comprehend what's beyond the beyond the beyond the beyond etc...
Last edited:
- #63
bola
- 71
- 0
Erazman: How can you say the universe is infinite?
I do not believe there's an infinite amount of sub atomic particles in the world.
And if there is not, then the universe has an edge.
Whether we will be capable of reaching this edge in any forseeable future is another question though.
But I do believe if humans follow the path they are on now, they will eventually discover everything. It may take thousands of years, but we'll get there.
Id also like to add that this may not solve any meaning. It may solve why the universe is here, but not why we're here.
Conscious beings may never have a purpose, in an universe where nothing else seems to be.
I do not believe there's an infinite amount of sub atomic particles in the world.
And if there is not, then the universe has an edge.
Whether we will be capable of reaching this edge in any forseeable future is another question though.
But I do believe if humans follow the path they are on now, they will eventually discover everything. It may take thousands of years, but we'll get there.
Id also like to add that this may not solve any meaning. It may solve why the universe is here, but not why we're here.
Conscious beings may never have a purpose, in an universe where nothing else seems to be.
- #64
olde drunk
- 528
- 0
if there is an edge, what's beyond the edge? why aren't there an infinite number of particles?? if the physical universe is expanding, isn't it creating more particles?bola said:
let's understand that the universe is not just the physical world that we experience. above and beyond our bodies we are some form of energy (consciousness?).
BOLA: i am sorry, i didn't see your prior questions till today.
i tried to work backward from an eternal, infinite universe, to understand my role. if, it is eternal, then why aren't we? (not our bodies, but our spirit, consciousness, whatever).
once i accepted infinty, it was easy to understand that time doesn't exist, beyond the physical. without time, you can see the mutiplicity of the total universe.
as we act, cause and effect ripples through many layers of reality. i think, i act, my chemicals, hormones, etc get in gear for activity. people that i talk to agree or disagree to co-operate. people that see my actions, respond. then, unknown strangers come to the fore and assist. this led me to believe that we do communicate on a psychic level.
somehow, realizing that we are timeless, led to accepting reincarnation. even the famous jc said, unless you be born again. what did he really mean??
the rest is easy. without time, with freewill and reincarnation it becomes logical that i choose the manner of my birth. i agree with my parents on the spiritual level to be born and share a physical experience with them.
looking backward at your life from this perspective, illuminates so many reasons of why this or that happened.
i works for me, is all i can say. life is more than sci-fi or traditional religion.
love&peace,
olde drunk
- #65
kcballer21
- 9
- 0
Life after death is a concept that does great to get an intelligent civilization to the point where they can conclude that there is probably no such thing as life after death. 
What I mean is that from an evolutionary standpoint one can easily see the advantages of believing in a life after death (religion), it is a great coping mechanism, especially when that animal is intelligent enough to realize it can take its own life in order to alleviate the pain of say, losing a loved one (or any other unhappiness). But if that loved one is in a better place then there is consolation. Any concept we have of an afterlife may be because of an urge that evolved to ensure survival, much like the urge to eat or procreate.
Then there is the scenario when one knows that death for them is near. That fear alone is enough to convert the strongest skeptic. I remember reading an article written by Ann Druyan, the widow of Carl Sagan. She said that while Sagan was lying on his death bed he remained certain that there is no afterlife, I believe the quote was, "he did not seek refuge in delusions."
What I mean is that from an evolutionary standpoint one can easily see the advantages of believing in a life after death (religion), it is a great coping mechanism, especially when that animal is intelligent enough to realize it can take its own life in order to alleviate the pain of say, losing a loved one (or any other unhappiness). But if that loved one is in a better place then there is consolation. Any concept we have of an afterlife may be because of an urge that evolved to ensure survival, much like the urge to eat or procreate.
Then there is the scenario when one knows that death for them is near. That fear alone is enough to convert the strongest skeptic. I remember reading an article written by Ann Druyan, the widow of Carl Sagan. She said that while Sagan was lying on his death bed he remained certain that there is no afterlife, I believe the quote was, "he did not seek refuge in delusions."
- #66
Erazman
- 65
- 0
bola said:
not once did i say the universe is infinite. i said the clock your trying to open is infinate. this metaphorical clock represents not just this universe, but "everything" else that is out there and beyond this universe. I quote the word everything because even "everything" represents a limited quantity.
I am not talking about an infinite universe. I am talking about infinite space. Space is something that exists infinately. I don't believe there's any kind of "wall". Even if there is, there has to be something beyond that wall. This may be seen as an intuitive speculation, but there's a lot of common sense to it.
Like i said, no entity, being, or even spirit would be able to comprehend something that is infinite. Therefore the question "why" cannot be answered. "Meaning" is an impossible answer to find. This is only if your trying to look at the "big picture" of things. (Again, i quote "big picture", because even a big picture has defining edges). We will never know what is infinately out there. Even if you give humans a trillion generations, it's impossible to store in any kind of database of everything that exists. ("everything" represents a quantity). So the question "why all of this?" becomes IMPOSSIBLE to know, no matter how advanced in technology we will become.
We can use the term "meaning" in a different context to make it work. I find "meaning" in the people who i love, but this is only in my own little world. If they die, or if i die, there's billions of people who are not affected, and continue to laugh, enjoy, love and hate. If your talking about "why are we here", you'd need to see infinate. You'd need to see the mechanism of infinate space. We only discovered the world was round until we traveled around it. Try traveling through infinate space at a "virtually" infinate speed and you'll get confused if you try to make something out of it, because there's always more. There will always be MORE conflicting possibilties to what you thought meaning was.
I'm not giving an answer, I am presenting the concept of an impossible answer. If anyone truly understands what I am saying, then they will understand another conclusion: The only "meaning" you should be concerned about is what goes on in your limited realm. According to the Hubble space telescope, the limits of my "realm" right now is 13 billion light years away. What's beyond that i'll never know. Maybe some day we'll go beyond that, and find a few more universes. But then what's beyond that? How strange does it get? What new MEANING to things will we find?
Like the old phrase goes: more answers only lead to more questions. This is so true. I believe it's infinately true.
- #67
bola
- 71
- 0
olde drunk said:
I don't know.. I think that our consciousness is purely chemical and biological.
And that it is dependant on our bodies, like our hearts, our lungs, it needs all these things to function. Once the heart dies, oxygen no longer reaches the brain, and the consciousness dies. (the fact that we sleep is testimony of this).
And also I wouldn't want to be conscious for eternity, that seems worse than dying.
The only way i see us "living forever", is because the energy that makes up the matter of my body will never die, it will only change form, and that's the key word here, change form.
And also, I think the universe has a constant level of energy, if we set energy = 120003845743, then it will always be 120003845743.
Meaning the energy will only change form, it will not grow larger or create more particles.
I conclude with this because where would it get more energy from?
Seems to me energy can't be created, it can only come from something else.
And erazman, I see what you're saying.
But i wouldn't say that space is infinite, on the contrary it seems like space is not. But however, if we say that everything that exists, in any form, is 'something', and all that does not exist in any form or on any level is 'nothing', must there be an infinite amount of something?
Or can there be a something that has a wall, and on the other side there is nothing. When people picture nothing, they usually picture a pitch black space of some kind, this is the wrong image, nothing = nothing, not a black space. So if there is a wall, how can nothing be outside it?
:P
- #68
dschouten
- 94
- 0
On the contrary, we can prove that 'smart particles' do not exist within any current conceptual framework of physics. If you would like to continue along this vein, you must first disprove QM, since it is in direct contradiction with your 'smart particles'.merak said:
Noone is condemning that the mere thought of smart particles bubbled through your mind. However, before it made its way to your fingertips resting on the keyboard it should have been arrested by your faculties of reason. Any fool can dream. Useful dreams are based on knowledge and wisdom.
- #69
dschouten
- 94
- 0
After dying has passed...
Its quite obvious to me. When we die, we rot, whereupon the tooth fairy takes our teeth and fashions them into little kittens so that our energy stays in the universe forever in a more playful form (these kttens are the kind that don't grow into cats).
Its quite obvious to me. When we die, we rot, whereupon the tooth fairy takes our teeth and fashions them into little kittens so that our energy stays in the universe forever in a more playful form (these kttens are the kind that don't grow into cats).
- #70
merak
- 51
- 0
dschouten said:
its also obvious that the kittens are both alive and dead at the same time and that tooth fairy is the one behind all paradoxs.
- #71
Overdose
- 195
- 0
Based on my experiences of altered states, and ghosts, yes I am pretty sure there is life after death. The idea of an 'end' is just limited 3 dimensional thinking, in the 4th and higher dimensions i don't see any reason why the mind should not still be preasent after we die. I think when we die our perception mearly shifts from a 3rd dimensional perspective to a 4th/5th dimensional perspective.
Also the idea that people who believe is life after death are just scared of death is weak, most days the idea of complete oblivion seems ten times more attractive than an eternity of existence. How ever what i would like is really neither here nor there...
Also the idea that people who believe is life after death are just scared of death is weak, most days the idea of complete oblivion seems ten times more attractive than an eternity of existence. How ever what i would like is really neither here nor there...
- #72
WolfSong
- 5
- 0
Wow, so many interesting theories :). I'd like to start off by saying hello - I'm new to this board *waves*. I'm going to have to tread very carefully here, as this discussion can all too easily fall into the realms of pure religion...I'm hoping a theological discussion of some of the points raised is OK? Should be, seeing as I don't personally have any set religious beliefs :).
First off...is there life after death. Well, ignoring the fact that you'd have to define the term "life" (physical life, consciousness?) yeah, I do think there is life after death. I was open minded until I read a book called "The Scole Experiment". It was a scientific experiment conducted in the UK a few years back into the possibility of life after death and the results have been duplicated by other people using the same techniques all over the world. So yeah, I do believe in the possibility of life after death. I refuse to believe that consciousness, in it's entireity (until I'm proved otherwise) is merely an expression of chemical reactions in our brain.
Erazman said something along the lines of "no spirit would be able to comprehend something that is infinite"...that's a dangerous assumption to make. If you take Descares thought that "I think therefore I am", you can rightfully say that *you* cannot comprehend infinity, but it would be wrong to say that everyone else cannot because it is impossible for you to know whether they can or cannot. You can say that you *assume* that other people cannot comprehend infinity for various reasons based on empirical data, but you cannot guarantee it.
This becomes more apparent when you argue that spirits cannot comprehend infinity. Firstly you are implying here that spirits exist, which suggests another level of existence in itself, then you go onto assume that they cannot comprehend infinity. Where did you get this idea? For all you know it could be a false premise.
You've also said "TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THERE HAS TO BE AN EDGE, LIMIT, OR QUANTITY.
SINCE THE UNIVERSE IS INFINATE, THEN LIFE IS INFINATE.
THEREFORE, WE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT."
First off, as far as I'm aware (and my physics is a little rusty here, so i could be wrong), the universe is not infinite - it merely loops back upon itself so it appears that way - that's why if we traveled far enough we'd end up right back where we started.
So, once again your foundational premise could be incorrect, and you could argue from David Hume's "is-ought gap.
a)The universe is infinite
b) Therefore life ought to be infinite
Where's the link? You're making an assumption.
As for people not understanding, I could dangerously tip-toe my way around the area of religious experience...the way people innately understand a feeling of wholeness, even if it is inexplicable in literary terms. I think the problem is scientists have been taught to think laterally and this teaching falls apart when you have to attempt to comprehend Quantum and Mechanical Physics.
Also, a lot of people see Religion and Science as polar opposites...just like science and parapsychology (don't get me started), but you'd actually get kore fulfilling answers if you combined relevant ideas from both.
And I'm sorry, I'm picking on Erazman a lot...mot intentionally, i might add :)
Bola - you said "I think that after death we cease to be conscious. Our brain and body decomposes, and by definition, the essence of us goes away".
What evidence do you have to support this (curious). Yes we experience physical decomposition, but that does not guarantee that we cease to exist, does it? But then define existence? It gets difficult...you could say that plants exist, and you'd be correct. They exist and then they cease to exist - fine. But as far as we know, plants are not conscious in the same way we are...I'm not suggesting there's physical life after death, merely that consciousness survives physical death and decomposition. I did do a related essay a while back entitled "We are merely physical beings. Discuss". Admittedly it was A-Level Religious Studies coursework, but the conclusion I came to was that ther was some level of existence post-mortem.
Again, dabbling in the religious side of things, you could manipulate Anslem's Ontological Argument - God exists, even if only in the mind because we can concieve of him. Therefore perhaps people survive, if not spiritually just as memories and then truly die when they are forgotten...existence as a memory is a type of existence just not a conscious one.
And this post has gotten ridiculously long, I apologise. Hope at least some of the stuff I've said is of use in this discussion :)
Amber
First off...is there life after death. Well, ignoring the fact that you'd have to define the term "life" (physical life, consciousness?) yeah, I do think there is life after death. I was open minded until I read a book called "The Scole Experiment". It was a scientific experiment conducted in the UK a few years back into the possibility of life after death and the results have been duplicated by other people using the same techniques all over the world. So yeah, I do believe in the possibility of life after death. I refuse to believe that consciousness, in it's entireity (until I'm proved otherwise) is merely an expression of chemical reactions in our brain.
Erazman said something along the lines of "no spirit would be able to comprehend something that is infinite"...that's a dangerous assumption to make. If you take Descares thought that "I think therefore I am", you can rightfully say that *you* cannot comprehend infinity, but it would be wrong to say that everyone else cannot because it is impossible for you to know whether they can or cannot. You can say that you *assume* that other people cannot comprehend infinity for various reasons based on empirical data, but you cannot guarantee it.
This becomes more apparent when you argue that spirits cannot comprehend infinity. Firstly you are implying here that spirits exist, which suggests another level of existence in itself, then you go onto assume that they cannot comprehend infinity. Where did you get this idea? For all you know it could be a false premise.
You've also said "TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THERE HAS TO BE AN EDGE, LIMIT, OR QUANTITY.
SINCE THE UNIVERSE IS INFINATE, THEN LIFE IS INFINATE.
THEREFORE, WE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT."
First off, as far as I'm aware (and my physics is a little rusty here, so i could be wrong), the universe is not infinite - it merely loops back upon itself so it appears that way - that's why if we traveled far enough we'd end up right back where we started.
So, once again your foundational premise could be incorrect, and you could argue from David Hume's "is-ought gap.
a)The universe is infinite
b) Therefore life ought to be infinite
Where's the link? You're making an assumption.
As for people not understanding, I could dangerously tip-toe my way around the area of religious experience...the way people innately understand a feeling of wholeness, even if it is inexplicable in literary terms. I think the problem is scientists have been taught to think laterally and this teaching falls apart when you have to attempt to comprehend Quantum and Mechanical Physics.
Also, a lot of people see Religion and Science as polar opposites...just like science and parapsychology (don't get me started), but you'd actually get kore fulfilling answers if you combined relevant ideas from both.
And I'm sorry, I'm picking on Erazman a lot...mot intentionally, i might add :)
Bola - you said "I think that after death we cease to be conscious. Our brain and body decomposes, and by definition, the essence of us goes away".
What evidence do you have to support this (curious). Yes we experience physical decomposition, but that does not guarantee that we cease to exist, does it? But then define existence? It gets difficult...you could say that plants exist, and you'd be correct. They exist and then they cease to exist - fine. But as far as we know, plants are not conscious in the same way we are...I'm not suggesting there's physical life after death, merely that consciousness survives physical death and decomposition. I did do a related essay a while back entitled "We are merely physical beings. Discuss". Admittedly it was A-Level Religious Studies coursework, but the conclusion I came to was that ther was some level of existence post-mortem.
Again, dabbling in the religious side of things, you could manipulate Anslem's Ontological Argument - God exists, even if only in the mind because we can concieve of him. Therefore perhaps people survive, if not spiritually just as memories and then truly die when they are forgotten...existence as a memory is a type of existence just not a conscious one.
And this post has gotten ridiculously long, I apologise. Hope at least some of the stuff I've said is of use in this discussion :)
Amber
- #73
merak
- 51
- 0
welcome wolfsong! what is the scole experiment ? could not find anything on the net... if consciousness exists after death, where... does it exists or where do 'you' think it exists... ** [ UP DATE ] **I found a link to the article.when I got to the part, where one of them went into a trance,I quit reading..For me the experiment broke down at that point.
Last edited:
- #74
olde drunk
- 528
- 0
I believe that i am restating a prior post, but it continues to satisfy my logical mind.
at last count, this physical world (our galaxy) is a least 4 billion years old (possibly 8). how can our consciousness (awareness of being) only last 70 years? the ratio is absurd. it just doesn't make sense that we are here for a blink and gone.
everything that we observe has a continuous rebirth - even stars - why not souls??
love&peace,
olde drunk
at last count, this physical world (our galaxy) is a least 4 billion years old (possibly 8). how can our consciousness (awareness of being) only last 70 years? the ratio is absurd. it just doesn't make sense that we are here for a blink and gone.
everything that we observe has a continuous rebirth - even stars - why not souls??
love&peace,
olde drunk
- #75
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 4,662
- 372
i could ask what is before life (mine yours)? we can say that there's a similarity between before existing and after death both have uncertainty and both cannot empirically be tested.cangus said:
for trying to measure what you are going to be you need to know which sperm from your father's 10^(who knows) sperms going to struct the particular egg of your mum, too much uncertainty that we human cannot test.
and for death there's simply death which we don't nothing of (we know the reason for death but we don't know what comes next if there is next).
- #76
Loren Booda
- 3,108
- 4
Does certainty with our conception help us over our uncertainty with death?
- #77
Erazman
- 65
- 0
I don't have kids, but i know that if i had one, i'd care for him/her so much that it wouldn't matter if my death meant the absolute destruction of my consciousness. Caring for the child so much, i'd be content with the feeling knowing that my child would continue existing, living and feeling even though I am gone.
at the same time though, i think consciousness is indeed part of the brain. But TRUE consciousness (the absolute feeling of BEING), is something bigger that can't be part of the brain. I have this intuitive feeling that there IS NOT a definate number of TRUE consciousness's in the world right now. Perhaps the "true consciousness" I am referring to is just 1. Perhaps this true consciousness is the ultimate self awareness of the universe itself that inflicts its self-awareness into life. Injects itself into its own evolution-created vessel. The more i think of this, the more right it feels. It would also explain how often man has felt "one with the universe".
at the same time though, i think consciousness is indeed part of the brain. But TRUE consciousness (the absolute feeling of BEING), is something bigger that can't be part of the brain. I have this intuitive feeling that there IS NOT a definate number of TRUE consciousness's in the world right now. Perhaps the "true consciousness" I am referring to is just 1. Perhaps this true consciousness is the ultimate self awareness of the universe itself that inflicts its self-awareness into life. Injects itself into its own evolution-created vessel. The more i think of this, the more right it feels. It would also explain how often man has felt "one with the universe".
- #78
Gökhan
- 4
- 0
Well destruction of consciousness is a nice phrase, but how can that happen, since we don't know if the consciousness we talk about is really matter-related (dependend on a living human body)?
But how can matter in any constellation or state simulate complex consciousness?
Consciousness is totally transcendent and superior to matter. It seems to me that Matter is just the necessary embodiment of consciousness, so that consciousness gets the necessary means of articulation and interaction. Matter makes existing consciousness visible and perceivable for humans, by social interaction for example.
But how can matter in any constellation or state simulate complex consciousness?
Consciousness is totally transcendent and superior to matter. It seems to me that Matter is just the necessary embodiment of consciousness, so that consciousness gets the necessary means of articulation and interaction. Matter makes existing consciousness visible and perceivable for humans, by social interaction for example.
- #79
Rader
- 765
- 0
It has often deeply been pondered by my "I", what happens to my self, its intellect, its knowledge. Will anyone or anything be known to me, or "I" to them, when "I" am not "I" anymore? Where does the knowing of my "I", which is its knowledge, go? Will the "I" of the me be recognizable when it no longer physcially exists and returns to whence it came?
- #80
WolfSong
- 5
- 0
Gökhan said:
Go take a look at Plato...he had some very interesting ideas along the lines of mind-body duality...or ust take a look at dualism, etc...that may help you out a bit. If you want I'll dig out some more philosophers/ideas :)
And whoever posted about the Scole Experiment...merak. How can you form an opinion if you didn't actually finish the article? ;). Not sure which article you got hold of...I'd recommend trying to track down the book. It has photographic evidence as well as testimonies from many scientists with varying areas of primary interest. In my opinion the experiment was conducted thoroughly and scientifically and the results should be considered valid. But then I'm a philosopher, not a scientist and even empiricism has it's flaws :)
Amber
- #81
Gökhan
- 4
- 0
WolfSong said:
thank you WolfSong, I will try to have a look at them as to maybe get another perspective on it.
But you could have delivered some of these very important ideas too, if you have allready understood them...;-)
So we could discuss them right now, without leaving ideas to the great names of philosophy, which is often quiet a comfort of argumentation...;-)
- #82
Erazman
- 65
- 0
i really didnt mean to say the universe is infinate on the previous page. that's really not what i meant. i was typing faster than i was thinking. someone smack me over the head. i edited the post.
- #83
VantagePoint72
- 820
- 34
Well, the ideas put forth in special relativity seem to imply that there is no past and future, it's always there, events that we perceive to happen are eternally frozen in spacetime. This is the core of the prohibition of simultaneous events in all reference frames...unless the past and future are always there, it would be impossible for events simultaneous in one reference frame to not be simultaneous in another, as an event observed by one person and in the past can still yet have to pass for another person, being their future. So, if time doesn't "flow" like experience suggests (and if you've read any works by Brian Greene, yes these are ideas put forth by him) then what we call the present can only be defined by our consciousness. It's our consciousness that moves through the fabric of spacetime, passing from event to another. So it seems that our consciousness is beyond the laws of physics and isn't quite bound with our bodies in the way some people suggest. For the record, I'm a Christian and believe that heaven or hell awaits our spirits after death. For me, our consciousness is because of our soul (and I know many of you will disagree, I'm not looking to start an argument, just stating what I believe.) In any case, as long as our consciousness is confined to the boundaries of spacetime and the Universe as we know it, knowing what comes after death can only be a matter of faith (and I use the word generally, not referring to any specific belief or lack thereof.) Time, the very thing the issue is based upon, will tell.
- #84
dave19903652
- 17
- 0
My thoughts on death are very mixed but in quick I think 3 things happen to you when you die and I might as well put it on a karma scale
Really good ---- heaven
reincarnation ---- human
----- animal
------plant
Really bad------- hell
When you reach heaven it can be permanent but it's your choice you can choose to reenter to help the world. When someone reaches enlightement like the Buddha then they will become an angel etc., a higher order of being.
Really good ---- heaven
reincarnation ---- human
----- animal
------plant
Really bad------- hell
When you reach heaven it can be permanent but it's your choice you can choose to reenter to help the world. When someone reaches enlightement like the Buddha then they will become an angel etc., a higher order of being.
- #85
merak
- 51
- 0
dave19903652 said:
wow! I could have been a "Hemp" plant... in a past life . some or many seeker's could have "inhaled me" to reach enlightment..thats so cool.
Last edited:
- #86
dave19903652
- 17
- 0
merak said:wow! I could have been a "Hemp" plant... in a past life . some or many seeker's could have "inhaled me" to reach enlightment..thats so cool.
You can't reach enlightement by taking drugs. It is after all one of the main rules in buddhism not to cloud your mind by drugs or alcohol. When you take drugs you halucinate not meditate.
- #87
Overdose
- 195
- 0
dave19903652 said:
if buddah said that then it must be true.