Death is such a waste of time .....

Hamsterchops wrote: »

HEAVEN

Not much talk of heaven on this thread, but I guess I'll be residing there for many millennia after my physical body has died on earth. Hopefully St Peter will meet & greet at the gates & show me around, it will be nice to meet old friends & family who have passed before....

Imagine spending eternity in one place, even a paradise of sorts, stuck with the same people - thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years, not for me thanks

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Imagine spending eternity in one place, even a paradise of sorts, stuck with the same people - thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years, not for me thanks

Christopher Hitchens had an analogy to this that he came out with during the short period where he knew he was dying.

He said as an atheist being told you are soon going to die is like being at the best party ever, being tapped on the shoulder, and being told you have to leave. But that the party will go on without you.

But he contrasted that to the unsubstantiated nonsense of Christianity which he felt was like being tapped on the shoulder, and being told you can NEVER leave.

What is more..... in threatening and ominous tones.... being told that while you are there the host positively INSISTS you continue to have a good time and you be eternally grateful to him specifically for it while you are at it too. Or else.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

My own view is there are things science cannot explain

I would say given current scientific knowledge it is very likely that there are things science cannot ever explain. The philosophical weight one puts on that is difficult to be certain of however. A large part of the world has no mechanical/reductionist explanation and parts of the world are interconnected to an extent that seems logically impossible (and also has no explanation).

like your intuitions, your dreams, your loves and your goals

I would say that ultimately depends on whether our minds are part of/use the indescribable layer of reality. If so, then you'd be right. However it's still an open issue.

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, it's a false analogy.

In a post-Universe existence as suggested by Monotheism, there is no "time" or temporal existence, so you cannot experience time in the manner in which we experience it now.

(...and this is an atheist speaking)

To be honest I am no seeing the difference. Can you cite the scripture to which you refer? I think the analogy was based on the Christian idea of an eternal after life. Whether that means an eternity of time which you experience all of it..... or it means an ethereal plane without time which you are always part of it..... I am not sure I see how the analogy fails either way? It being based on the "never leave" aspect of both.

Deleted User wrote: »

If science cannot explain a difficult problem, then sure as hell nothing else can.

Perhaps, but that does not mean there is not an explanation.

Science is a tool we use to uncover natural explanations for things. Perhaps there are things the the tool will not.... even can not... uncover..... but that does not mean there is NOT a natural explanation available. It just means science can not be used to uncover it.

The move Wanderer is making is to suggest that if science has not or even CAN not uncover a naturalistic explanation for something.... then such an explanation DOES NOT exist. Hence a spiritual or supernatural one must be true.

And that is the fallacious move he is relying on. Pretending that if science can not uncover some variable X.... then X can not be. Which..... both ironically and comically.... means he puts more "faith" in science than actual scientists

The Tetrarch wrote: »

One thing that makes me want to die is multiquoters.

And for me it is people with short attention spans.

But if it makes you feel any better one of my NY Rs has been to do it less. It is a useful rhetorical tool.... but one I have learned more and more is ineffective the more I use it.

Now i just have to figure out HOW to do that

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To be honest I am no seeing the difference. Can you cite the scripture to which you refer? I think the analogy was based on the Christian idea of an eternal after life. Whether that means an eternity of time which you experience all of it..... or it means an ethereal plane without time which you are always part of it..... I am not sure I see how the analogy fails either way? It being based on the "never leave" aspect of both.



Perhaps, but that does not mean there is not an explanation.

Science is a tool we use to uncover natural explanations for things. Perhaps there are things the the tool will not.... even can not... uncover..... but that does not mean there is NOT a natural explanation available. It just means science can not be used to uncover it.

The move Wanderer is making is to suggest that if science has not or even CAN not uncover a naturalistic explanation for something.... then such an explanation DOES NOT exist. Hence a spiritual or supernatural one must be true.

And that is the fallacious move he is relying on. Pretending that if science can not uncover some variable X.... then X can not be. Which..... both ironically and comically.... means he puts more "faith" in science than actual scientists

If you looked at my post again, I state that deep intuition and "gut" feelings and our strong emotions like love, joy, empathy and our behaviours like setting life goals, connecting with others etc cannot be explained by science as they reside somewhere else, your true or soul self, that part of you that's been around forever. Its impossible to perceive a situation where science can suddenly explain the purpose of your intuition (unusual feelings that you met someone before, instant connection, hairs on the back of your neck upon meeting someone new) or take love- love for a mother to their daughter, love for your family, overwhelming love for your late relatives or friends.

The brain is a complex organ where the desire for food, sleep, sex and warmth can be very well explained by our inner cables and chemicals and neurons, which science can understand and is continuing to understand. But there is still no "purpose" for feeling love, for feeling a hunch about something or someone or for feeling joy, or indeed for maturing emotionally. People who claim there is nothing before or after this death seem to ignore the fact that these emotions which indeed make life worth living are right under their noses and they never question them, choosing instead to be happy with their being no proof of God because these feelings cannot be explained but still benefitting from experiencing them, day in day out!

I have had personal experience of deep spiritual connection. Guardian beings of light or angels are always there, you just have to reach out. And im far from a crystal-wearing hippy living barefoot in some eco forest, meditating daily and greeting everyone with a Namaste and a blessing. I live and work in the real, cruel big bad world and have seen and experienced many many things which made me question the very nature of our existence and whats the purpose of it all.

Ultimately I concluded that we are here for a reason and to learn/heal something within us which may take this life or another few lifetimes before we can evolve as spiritual beings into the spiritual world. If it were as easy as providing proof then the game is up, you have to have faith in it. And as for the Big Bang, your answer was confusing. My point was simply made- if time and this universe began with the Big Bang, then what existed before this. What was happening the moment before that alleged Bang, who or what created the gases in question? Science cant answer that one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps, but that does not mean there is not an explanation.

Science is a tool we use to uncover natural explanations for things. Perhaps there are things the the tool will not.... even can not... uncover..... but that does not mean there is NOT a natural explanation available. It just means science can not be used to uncover it.

It depends on what you mean by "natural". Sometimes in philosophy the term is used synonymously with what science can investigate and explain.

So it depends on what you would mean by a non-scientific but still natural explanation. You mention being unable to uncover some variable X. In the cases I'm talking about we can prove there is no such variable, eliminating the option where it is present but we can't detect it.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

My point was simply made- if time and this universe began with the Big Bang,

They didn't. The Big Bang theory of cosmology doesn't say the universe began in the Big Bang. It just says the current large scale features of the universe can be explained as a consequence of the matter we currently see having once been in a much smaller volume and at high temperature.

What proceeded or even surrounded that hot ball of matter is unknown.

MMXX wrote: »

The universe, before the latest big bang - was empty. In a... ...good few billion years, when it dies out and expands into nothingness - it will be empty again. Then after many more billions of years of emptiness - another big bang will eventually occur. And this will continue and repeat for trillions, and trillions of years, if not forever.

I don't know how, or why – but that's what happens*.

*In my opinion.

Interesting video that shows this in a way