Afterlife hypothesis

^^ enlightend as you are? Heh heh, if you think your enlightend than you have, no idea, there is much more to the nature of reality, the entropic level of which this anything exist is beyond such simple comprehension, there is no value of such action. Wiht the oppisite view the entropy it would take for existance would be virutally zero.

If you believe in science, and not faith then you should not believe in afterlife, reincarnation, or any other idea of the sort. But if you are of faith then you should say anything you like.
People of science: if you you believe in a magical wonderland, where everything is how you want it, your in control, then don’t make fun or patronize the people here who believe in god. its just hypocritical :meh: just saying

Reaper, you didn’t understand me; and to be honest, I didn’t understand half of what you said. :lol: I’m not saying I’m enlightened. Hell, in terms of spiritual beliefs I’m more of a scared person than an enlightened one: I’m an atheist. What I’m saying is: compelling evidence in the existence of {god, heaven, souls, afterlife} is irrelevant to both philosophical and scientific discussions (because they are evidence, not proof; and also because they are usually secondhand accounts, not simple, controlled–environment experiment results), and should be, from a pragmatic point of view, irrelevant on your formation of an epistemological or metaphysical point of view. In simple terms: saying “god exists, it’s proved” is illogic and, most of the time, rude to the people you’re talking to and, most surprisingly, to god themselves, should they exist.

Sultan, I don’t think there’s such a clear trade–off between science and religion, to the point of splitting people between “people of science” and “people of faith.” Faith and science themselves should not be mixed with each other in the sense that one can’t use a scientific argument to prove a transcendental point, nor use a transcendental argument to prove a scientific point; but people can pretty much choose if they’ll be scientific or religious (or both, as long as they can, without mixing the streams of reasoning, find arguments in both modes that reach the same conclusion) for every single topic they come across.

Plus, science itself, after all, can only create knowledge about that which can be verified. Since the existence of {god, heaven, afterlife} can’t be verified—that is, since it can’t be proved true or false—science is useless in this topic. So even if a complete “man of science” decided to join this discussion, they would have to do what everyone else is doing and debate in terms that are strictly philosophical or religious. When one says “there’s no such thing as a heaven because there’s no proof of its existence,” what that person is doing is affirming their religion. They are, by no means, being scientific in what they say. When someone says “there is such a thing as a heaven, because the people who’ve had NDEs and came back managed to describe it,” they are also being religious. In both cases, since the epistemology of thesis and justification are different, the arguments are fallacious. In simple terms: if you make an assertion based in certain views (say, religious), and then justify based in other views (scientific, for instance, or empiric), your argument is always either contradictory or invalid.

So what I’m saying about this discussion is the following: we’re talking about a metaphysical topic here, so science is useless in this topic. Using science here will, at best, bring far–fetched looking conclusions. Most of the time, it’ll look silly and contradictory. So keep science off the discussion, and please don’t try to force metaphysical world views into other users—it’s not polite, not logically rigorous, and it’s against the forum’s guidelines.

ehh, im not even ganna waste my time. But I will say one thing. Evidence is there not from NDEs can you not see? Science does apply here

How?

Not even going to waste your time? Let me tell you, Bruno is one of the most intelligent, interesting human beings I’ve ever met, and if anyone is wasting his time, I sure don’t think it’s you.(edited for grammatical reasons, original in bruno’s quote)

Sorry. Just got a bit attached.

The statement made saying that those who believe in science cannot believe in things like an afterlife or celestial deities is absurd. What parts of science do not mesh with God? Evolution? You mean that process, that holy and sacred cycle that was set into place by the lord God, Brahman, who is love?!? Just because it cannot be proven does not mean that a man of science should disregard it. In what other ways do you see science opposed to religion? 'Cause I’ve always seen them as an inter meshing free flowing fractal, so I’m not sure how everyone else sees the whole thing.
And as for the notion of being a character in a person’s afterlife, my mind has gone through too much, I am too complex, I have seen to much complexity in this here head of mine to ever entertain that something like that is true.

/me just laughed out so loud grandma came to see if he was alright :rofl:

/me :hugs: Dan, thanks for that :smile:

But it might be that you are indeed a representation within something higher; I don’t think it’s all that absurd that we’re but an implicit movement in something beyond… Bringing the discussion out of its original scope, but so as to try and make it valid, I’d argue it’s not at all impossible that, like a fractal’s arm, we’re a rich, full of complexity thing which is at the same time part of something else, far more complex and beyond understanding than we alone are.

Oh, of course! I just meant I am not part of someone else’s mind. Something more beautiful and complex, something less understandable, I surely am a part of.

Good. :yes: Now, see, you agree with the abstract one, so lets dive into it.

Agree with me that the thing–beyond we’re talking about, that which encompasses us, might be represented in many ways? After all, that’s what religion comes down to: it might not necessarily be true as in “exact,” “precise,” but when you have a faith in something, you expect it at least represents the truth; like a map represents a terrain too large for your absolute memorization, a religion represents a harmony (or disharmony) too massive for your comprehension and understanding. Yes?

In that sense, we could add to the fractal model in that we can argue: if I have a personality, and I am a part of it, and it’s more complex than I am, then at least in a sense it has to have a personality. Now bring in the hypothesis of higher designs or karma or fate into the fractal representation of the beyond, and we have it that this personality beyond, that which encompasses us, has some control over us, not exactly something you can speak of as “control” without being improper, but hell, this is representation, ain’t it?

So there you have it. A higher personality of whom you are but a movement towards some higher, ineffable harmony; or put in a different set of words with almost equivalent value: someone to whom you are the equivalent of a dream. And there you go: representation! A religion, based in a bunch of logical, solid metaphysical conjectures, represented by the image of a “deity” or a “demon,” or perhaps an “angel” or—why not?—a “person” dreaming your life.

The implications of it? Well. Start with: you’re not completely free, after all. Being part of a dream, the closest you get to freedom is lucidity (the image of lucidity here a representation of nirvana, perhaps?), but you can never access the real, for the real is only available for that who is dreaming of you, and the closest you get to the real, the closest you get to waking your god up and thus vanishing from their mind. There’s another implication: the world is not rational, and you can get from it by using all your rhetoric in order to persuade your deity to favour you. What else? Ah well, there’s the nice one which I always like: the meaning of your life is out of yourself, beyond yourself, and is potentially insane. That is, you’re better off living as if your life had no meaning, or find yourself meaning into yourself because the one beyond you just “isn’t enough.” That clashes with your lack of freedom, because in a sense it gives you freedom. Perhaps not Liberty to see the real and do what you could, as there’s a mind dreaming of you constantly, but still freedom to give yourself sense as you please and hunt down your motivations and treasures on your own—as far as I’m concerned, that’s all freedom one could wish for in our worldly lives, right?

These are some of the implications of our representation of the real as a person dreaming of you. If you agree with them, or fancy them, you might consider adopting that representation for your religion, invest some faith into it and see how you profit from it. If you don’t, then well, go build another metaphysical model and derive a representation for it, I myself am done with abstract philosophy for today. :tongue: :wink:

I was thinking about this logic when I was up in the apple orchards over the weekend. It’s a very nice place to think and just generally feel free and happy. Now the problem I have with this logic here Bruno, is that you are assuming that God has the same level of human traits as man. God did create man in His image, Him being perfect though, we were made imperfect. In a way, we could all be considered tiny gods, through the idea that we were created in God’s image. However, it is only an image. Like a painter painting the autumn leaves blowing in the wind, it is only a recreation of the original, not a perfect copy. Because we’re created in his image, though, in theory we can assume that God would have similar traits as us, only amplified. He is God after all, all powerful, a benevolent superpower. Sort of like the United States of Heaven. Anyways, if God does have these same traits as man, but are boosted because he is God after all, his love would be complete, his patience incredible, his tolerance for pain perfect. It would not be the same as a difficult relationship. God would be compassionate with man, because he would understand why we have our doubts as to whether he exists or not. Man is imperfect after all, he would understand. Imagine Buddha X 100 in terms of compassion, hahaha. He is perfect after all.

Bruno, I just think you’re thinking too small ball. God is all powerful. He is perfect. He would not feel bad for you doubting His existence; he has the ultimate Cognitive Behavioral Theory handbook in His library, and so He would never doubt you having good reason to doubt Him in the first place.

Whew, that was difficult getting my thoughts on the page, hehe. Glad I did though. I can’t decide whether I should lift weights or run…Hmmm, if only I were perfect, I would know which to do, hehehe :tongue:

I love these type of discussions :happy:

Jon… Why does “being perfect” equal “being aseptic”? As far as I’m concerned, God could be both perfect and have a daft sense of humour. Or perfect and capable of feeling insulted. Or perfect and sadistic. Hell, he could be anything—after all, he’s perfect! Unless your God is a motionless bubble or something.

Really, I don’t see what stream of logics makes it so that you can be sure his personality (or lack thereof) must be like this or that. And not knowing how he thinks and feels, if I were to worship him, myself I’d not question his existence or treat him like I treat my investments. But that’s just me.

I’m not going to dive into my religious beliefs(I’m not completely sure what they are either), but I would like to add one thing.

Lets pretend that I’m god(a stretch to be sure, but humor me), I would personally be more impressed with the creations that questioned my existence than the ones that blindly worshiped(I’m not pointing fingers here) my existence. As I see it, the individuals that would attempt to appease me by worship and whatnot have no actual evidence that I want to be worshiped at all.

So why do people congregate in structures dedicated to deities? Because we feel as humans that the greatest praise we can show to this god is to treat them like some kind of king. Worship him, take time out of our lives to consider ways to better serve him, make sacrifices. A human king would find these behaviors appealing, it shows that his subjects will put their feelings aside to appease him, that they respect his position and fear his wrath. They sacrifice their time and possessions in hopes that this form of suffering will show the king that they are undeserving of additional punishment at his hands. They hope that by their behaviors and absolute loyalty that they will find their way into his good graces, his kingdom as it were.

I say unto you, does god really want to be treated in the same manner as a human king? Are his wants and needs so human in nature that a mere mortal is capable of understanding them and fulfilling them? I say no.

Coming back to the notion that I’m god, I would be more interested in the human that said “hey god, I don’t think you are there.” This shows me that the human is displaying traits and ways of thinking that are singular in nature compared to the masses of blind religious fanatics, who think they know what is best for god. I would smile upon this individual, he is one apart from the herd, not worthy of slaughter. He would be truly capable of understanding my ways and how I run the show.

I just thought I would throw my opinion in there. :content:

Don’t get me wrong, Ryan, I completely agree with you. I stand corrected about what I said. :smile: What I mean is: I see no sense in worshipping a deity because “there’s scientifical evidence” and therefore “we better worship them because otherwise we go to hell.” I don’t see that kind of utilitarism turning out to be fruitful in any sense.

As for looking for evidence of god’s existence… Hey, I don’t know about you, but myself I see no point in that. What’s one looking forward to by doing so? Getting knowledge at the expense of faith? I don’t know. I don’t think there’s any sense in trying to approach the sacred scientifically. (Kind of hypocritical of mine to say that, I should point out, as myself I get in touch with the sacred, I experience transcendence through literature, and here I am, a student of critique, the science of literature.) I don’t know.

I think we can conjecture and even infer about deity to a certain extent… After all, one makes choices (you choose, for instance, for god rather than no god; and then you go one step further and choose a god of love, as opposed to a god of war or an undetermined god etc.), and after you’ve made a couple of choices, you can reach a couple of conclusions. So to speak, you’re “molding god” which by no means is to insult them, should they exist, but rather signifies you’re expressing your representation of truth, your beliefs. So sure, we can reach conclusions about god to a certain extent. But to try and understand them, to know them rationally, scientifically?

No… I don’t feel it’s right to try and know god, rationally. In my opinion, proving god’s existence would be killing god altogether.

I might be under the influence of Nietzschean thinking here. He was the one to expose, logically, how what we have done in our strive to reach truth was to actually limit the world and ourselves. It was Nietzsche who said: philosophy killed itself, science killed itself, and humankind killed god.

This is in what sense I say that, whenever a person comes to me and says “but you should convert, don’t you see the evidence all around of His existence?,” I’ll feel proud of myself and my godless literature before I lean any inch closer towards choosing god.

I agree bruno, worshiping god out of fear of going to hell is purely motivated by the prospect of eternal damnation, not faith. Naturally one wouldn’t find such a lifestyle fulfilling, they are just living in fear.

As for looking for existence of god, even though I am all for scientific evidence, no proof exists that conclusively verifies god’s presence(or lack thereof), so any search would be ultimately fruitless. Still though, I have an inquisitive mind, you can’t blame me for trying to make some sense out of the situation can you? :tongue:

Also, I never said that I did believe in god, nor that I consider him to be precisely as I described. In fact, I would call myself an atheist if I didn’t consider it such a closed-minded point of view. Like I said before, I’m scientifically minded, and when it comes to science something isn’t considered factual(a law, as it were) unless through concrete evidence and/or verifiable, repeatable, experimentations prove that it is so(since there’s no proof one way or the other in this case, I cannot firmly establish my position on either side of the argument). Being neither a believer, nor an atheist, I fall into the agnostic group.–Having said this, you will see that my view of god’s behavior in the previous post is how I would prefer god to be in the event that he/she/it was real.

As far as the ‘proving god is killing god’ thing, I am trying to discover your reasons why you believe that is(I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just like to look at your reasons, it helps me more clearly grasp your beliefs). Is it because you believe that having a god that humans understand prevents him from being omnipotent? That understanding his ways would reveal his motives(which might be selfish and/or unbecoming of an all-powerful entity)? Or maybe you are alluding to your previous argument that a known god will garner followers purely because they know he exists and not as an act of faith in a higher power? Then again you might look at deities as the mythological figures, who upon giving humans the ‘fire’ gave humans a more god-like understanding of the world(lessening their position of complete superiority)…

Oh. It’s something like the “if we understand god then they’re not omnipotent after all” thing, but somewhat different if I got what you tried to imply with that. Knowledge is restriction—not always in a good sense. The whole Nietzschean theory of nihilism originated from a personal abyss he faced when he found himself in the middle of a clash; a clash between academic knowledge and his visceral, orthodox beliefs. His crisis drove him to develop a series of ideas by which he found evidence that there is contradiction at the base of any epistemological system (“world view”). The implications of this were that human knowledge was never to be known true for sure, and that furthermore the more advanced and complex a place of human thought became, the more it limited the possibilities of the True Real, as if the naive, childlike eyes philosophers and scientists must have when looking at the world become more and more artificial, everyday tougher to maintain. So human knowledge, says Nietzsche, is not freedom, but exactly its contrary: it is, in short, blatant restriction. I don’t know about the implications Fried draws from his basic idea—they’re mostly rhetorical after all. But when applied to god and the divine, that stream of thought is perfectly fine: knowing god, in any sense, is not knowing the True God, but only pretending to know—and in that sense, claiming to know god is in fact to kill god. Do I make any sense here?

this is the after-life

“…there is no such thing as death and life is only a dream in which the imagination is of ourselves”

birth is death
death leads to birth

the stratification is based upon either karma, or your own fee will of who you want to be

course who really knows? only YOU can know, and figure it out

It seems like the dominant theme in Nietzschean philosophy is that ignorance is bliss. It seems like a perfectly reasonable argument in the juxtaposition of religion vs. science, but beyond that I find the whole thing to be a little outdated. I mean how could he be sure that the way humans perceive things aren’t how the actually are? To say for sure that there is no ‘true real’ is making a statement that contradicts the very argument it seeks to make…He says that this is how things are, and humans will never know for sure that what they believe to be fact is, in fact, true. Well that statement alone taken from the same point of view can’t possibly be the right way to look at things since we don’t know for sure that our world view is wrong.

If we were to take this philosophy to heart and live our lives by it, we would never accomplish anything. This whole nihilism attitude isn’t compatible with forward-thinking individuals, we must take what we know to be true(as far as we can perceive it) and apply it. I’m pretty sure that Nietzsche wouldn’t jump off a cliff because he believed that our interpretation of gravity is a lie on some level, and it’s forces won’t make him plummet to his demise. I don’t see how this idea can be so all-encompassing, knowledge is power as far as I’m concerned, and learning more about how things work allows one to better understand the world(not limit it). Once we understand something, we can eliminate things that we know not to be true. In this sense we aren’t limiting our understanding of how things work, we are widening our understanding of how they don’t work and gaining a fuller understanding of their true operation.

I can see where this how argument doesn’t fall apart though, and that is when dealing with something that will never be known for sure. Such is the case of god and the supernatural. It’s always open to interpretation by the individual. It can never be tested, answers cannot be confirmed to be either wrong or right so you can truly never move ahead in your understanding. If you do believe that you have figured something out about god, you will be killing the true god by seeing him however you think he is(which is what I think you were getting at). Still though, what if god didn’t exist, and he really was whatever you wanted him to be in your life. It sounds like Nietzsche was very convinced that god was real(and that a great many other things he believed were absolutely true), I think perhaps he would have formed a greater argument if he didn’t have any preconceptions about either god or science to begin with(because from the sound of it, he seems a bit too biased for me to take him very seriously). :eh:

That’s about the commonest mistake about Nietzsche’s Nihilism—thinking it is a negative stream of thought. Nihilism as a school of thought, as a tradition, has become mostly pessimistic and negative over the years, yes, arriving to the very conclusion you suggest.

But Nietzsche himself was an optimist, believe it or not. He thought of his findings as humankind’s letter of manumission; after him, people would drop their dogmatic ways of living and would start fresh on a quest for all possible truths—rather than the arrogant, restrictive “choose a theory the simplest and yet most functional while altogether fittest with our ideologies and stick to it” mantra of the western world, he proposed we dug into every single theory worth digging into, every single plausible theory, each and every one that hadn’t been falsified yet.

Oh, indeed it is outdated. Nihilism was superseded in its most fundamental points by Yank Pragmati(ci)sm, especially by Peirce and James and Dewey. The “New Nihilism,” so to speak, of some Post Modern theorists was also eventually refuted and absorbed by the New Pragmatism, especially that of Richard Rorty. So yes, in a sense, Nihilism is outdated: every attempt to bring it to life is confronted by a school of thought that absorbs its crucial propositions and is yet broader than nihilism itself can be.

He at no point said that. All he said is that contradiction arises from the assumption of known truth. So you can talk about what you perceive, and you can try to explain the world, but you can’t say—or at least you can’t prove—that what you say is how what you see behaves, and that what you see and predict is the truth. It might be that this is indeed the case. But you can’t prove it, that’s all.

He doesn’t say there’s no true real, he only says (and proves on strictly logical grounds) that whether or not there is a true real, we cannot assert about it for sure—we can’t “reach” it, if you will.

I see what you’re trying to say. :smile: The way you put it is irrelevant to his theory, as he doesn’t say what you claim him to say, but I understand what you mean, and you’re indeed just a step away from the basic ideas of Critical rationalism, which together with Yank Pragmati(ci)sm, supersedes the Nihilistic school.

Not necessarily. You’re drawing implications not only from what I exposed of Nietzsche’s thought, but also from former value–judgments of yours. It is possible to crystallize the Nihilistic philosophy into a positive, affirmative doctrine of constant discovery and permanently free, responsible action. That’s how I dealt with some demons of my past life for quite a while, before I converted to Peirce and Rorty’s Pragmati(ci)sm.

You’re being too Platonic here. Who says we need dogmas to live?

Yes, but that’s not what Nihilism implies.

And where’s the contradiction here? Knowledge is power because knowing deeper is knowing the flaws and the “howevers.” Dull knowledge, and by that I mean high school knowledge as oppose to university knowledge (if you have left high school already, you’ll know what difference I’m talking about)—dull knowledge is no power, but rather only restriction.

Further knowledge, as the world is set up today, after the advent of nihilism, is positive knowledge of all flaws. Further knowledge is freedom and power in todays world because it consists in a new form of knowledge, a nihilistic form of it, which denies creatively; and furthermore, in–depth knowledge is power also in that it allows you to restrict even more the liberty of those who possess nothing but dull knowledge.

Now you’ve stepped into something! :smile: That’s Critical rationalism! This is the theory that supersedes Nihilism, and is generally considered a better framework of thought today; but as good as it looks today, it wasn’t even plausible in Nietzsche’s time. Here I can’t really argue against you (especially because I agree with you), all I can do is point out that back in Nietzsche’s time, people thought academic knowledge was absolute knowledge and that Fried, in spite of this and many other drawbacks, was the first to point out it ain’t necessarily so.

Ah yes, once again you’re right. :smile: Nietzsche may have been refuted for all scientific matter, but Nihilism still holds untouched when it comes to Philosophy as far as your argumentation went.

In Philosophy, it was superseded not by Critical rationalism, but by the (already mentioned) Pragmatic doctrine—which pointed out that if what’s “rationally acceptable” as truth can change dramatically over time and no conclusion can be drawn about truth itself in strictly philosophical grounds, then our criteria for what philosophical thought to chose over another should no longer be “what’s more or less plausible” (since that leads to nothing) but rather “whose implications lead to what.” This leads to a massive discussion which completely escapes this topic, so lets stop it here, yes? :smile:

Indeed, that’s what I was getting at! :yes:

Now you’re starting to sound like Nietzsche. That’s the exact same positive nihilistic behaviour he proposed himself: dropping all preconceptions, questioning all claimed knowledge, and seeing where our thoughts, naive as those of a child, would lead us to.

Well, thank you bruno for entertaining my questions to satisfy my curiosity :content: . I’ve dabbled very little in philosophy aside from the mainstream Greek philosophers(it sounds like this subject is one of your strengths though), so this was good.

Ahh right, this topic is about the afterlife isn’t it? Let’s get back on topic now, shall we(I have a real problem with derailing these kinds of conversations, huh)?

Hehehe, what more can be said about death? All of our ideas and thoughts are nothing more than guesses, really. The rest is just plain conjecture. The only real evidence we have of it is perhaps near-death experiences, or maybe even dreams (for instance, seeing a loved one, to say goodbye to. Who knows if that is actually them?) All I know is I am looking forward to my death, perhaps too much so, to find out what happens afterwards.

Hahaha, I am reminded of something from Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where it says, “And the gods decided to make the Universe and start life, which was widely considered to be a bad decision.” Or something to that extent. But I don’t think that we should spend life thinking too much about death. We can look forward to it all we want, but we should focus on this planet around us. All I know is that we were put on this Earth for a reason. Who knows what it is? hehehe, I gotta tell you, I’m a little pissed at whoever did this to us, but in another way, I’m glad. All this suffering, I think it sort of makes life worthwhile in a way. Without suffering, happiness would mean nothing. Just like life, without death, would be pointless.

Now I’m rambling. Can you tell I haven’t had my nightly bath yet? hehehe. :content: