Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

What do you believe happens when we die

1…6791112…26

Comments

  • #242
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    That's the definition the RCC favour of course, because they like to imply that anyone not joining in their woo is a selfish evil greedy person.

    Same as they twist the word "secularism" into meaning "antitheism".

    Are people being purposefully obtuse?

    When I said materialism I was talking about the philosophical meaning - I thought this would be obvious considering the conversation we are having


  • #243
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,088 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    pauldla wrote: »
    Louis C.K.: Lots of things happen after you die, it's just none of them involve you.

    So fear of death is basically FOMO taken to the nth degree?


  • #244
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Are people being purposefully obtuse?

    When I said materialism I was talking about the philosophical meaning - I thought this would be obvious considering the conversation we are having

    I gathered that was your meaning, but I was replying to Cabaal.

    I don't think your conclusion that materialism implies no free will can be justified, the brain is an extremely complex and somewhat chaotic system.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #245
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I gathered that was your meaning, but I was replying to Cabaal.

    I don't think your conclusion that materialism implies no free will can be justified, the brain is an extremely complex and somewhat chaotic system.
    One of the disadvantages a Catholic (or any other religious person) has when talking about these things with an atheist is that you don't know what the atheist actually believes or stands for (in terms of philosophy) but they know pretty much 100% what you stand for and believe. A second disadvantage is that, while singing off a similar hymn sheet, most atheists believe different things. Many, in my experience, haven't actually thought about things and the world much beyond "nah, I don't buy that" when confronted with religious beliefs. Which is fair enough.

    I should say that saying or pointing out that a person does not spend ages contemplating things like this is not a criticism - they are probably off doing something more practical or useful :pac:

    A third disadvantage is that some atheists basically think of you as a fool, and treat you with mockery or contempt. But I think this discussion has been useful - but your assertion that the RCC believes or teaches that anyone who is not a catholic is a selfish evil person just is not true.

    Anyway, on to materialism.

    I do think that materialism does more than imply no free will, it outright states this, and many adherents to this philosophical outlook argue this point(quick example: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/)

    Personally, I do not think that materialism offers a satisfactory explanation, and I think you have touched on one of the reasons why, when it comes to thought processes etc. I take from what you wrote that you think that there is something more at play than physical factors - or at least, things are so "complex and chaotic" that they are not explained by a materialist outlook.

    But the issue here is that Materialism is really an all or nothing philosophy, because if it doesn't apply to everything then it cannot stand. You can't be a materialist "to a point".

    To me, this "higher plane" stuff is the realm of the soul and ultimately God.

    Of course, any "debunking" of materialism - or a least deciding that the materialist outlook does not satisfactorily explain things for you - does not necessarily immediately lead to or "prove" the existence of God, but it certainly does invite someone to offer another explanation or theory.


  • #246
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John Hutton wrote: »
    One of the disadvantages a Catholic (or any other religious person) has when talking about these things with an atheist is that you don't know what the atheist actually believes or stands for (in terms of philosophy) but they know pretty much 100% what you stand for and believe.

    I don't think that's true at all, there is a massive variation of belief and practice among people who label themselves "catholic".
    A second disadvantage is that, while singing off a similar hymn sheet, most atheists believe different things.

    Well, anyone who doesn't believe in a theistic god is an atheist. They can and do have all sorts of varying opinions about everything else.

    So labels aren't all that useful for either.

    - but your assertion that the RCC believes or teaches that anyone who is not a catholic is a selfish evil person just is not true.

    I have heard Irish clergy and bishops use that definition of materialism many a time, and contrast it with the supposed enlightenment and selflessness of the RC faith. It's insulting to be honest.

    I take from what you wrote that you think that there is something more at play than physical factors - or at least, things are so "complex and chaotic" that they are not explained by a materialist outlook.

    Nope. People think that a dependence only on laws of physics implies a mechanistic, deterministic universe, but that is not the case - quantum mechanics is random. Radioactive decay is random. A certain amount of our brain activity appears to be random, too.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • #247
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I don't think that's true at all, there is a massive variation of belief and practice among people who label themselves "catholic".


    The Catholic church though have a published catechism and a large body of Canon law. Most Catholics believe broadly the same things - for the purposes of discussion it is not unreasonable, in a forum like this, to presume a Catholic believes what the Church teaches, or certainly a lot of it.

    Well, anyone who doesn't believe in a theistic god is an atheist. They can and do have all sorts of varying opinions about everything else.

    So labels aren't all that useful for either.


    The only thing I can reasonably assume about an atheist is what you have said here, that's quite a difference. I could make an assumption that they are also materialists, but I'd be on much shakier ground.


    I have heard Irish clergy and bishops use that definition of materialism many a time, and contrast it with the supposed enlightenment and selflessness of the RC faith. It's insulting to be honest.
    This is mere anecdote. I have heard them say the opposite, many times. [See, this gets us nowhere).



    And in any case, it does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses or teaches that people who aren't Catholics are evil etc. Because it doesn't.


    Nope. People think that a dependence only on laws of physics implies a mechanistic, deterministic universe, but that is not the case - quantum mechanics is random. Radioactive decay is random. A certain amount of our brain activity appears to be random, too.
    Hypothetically (and this not beyond possibility!) if through scientific advances we were able to discern patterns and these things were not random, would you then not believe in free will?


    I generally find most materialists, when questioned on these things, tend to discover that it is not actually materialism, but rather dualism, they subscribe to. [But don't worry this is still a kind of heresy in the eyes of the Church :) ]


  • #248
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John Hutton wrote: »
    The Catholic church though have a published catechism and a large body of Canon law. Most Catholics believe broadly the same things - for the purposes of discussion it is not unreasonable, in a forum like this, to presume a Catholic believes what the Church teaches, or certainly a lot of it.

    Yeah we know what they're supposed to believe in... although when questioned on it, many self-described RCs consider many of these things ridiculous or were not even aware of them, e.g. transubstantiation or the assumption. In relation to social issues a lot of self-described catholics reject RC church teaching on contraception, cohabitation, gay marriage, abortion. Many are not too hot on the church attendance aspect of it either.

    The RC bishops commissioned a survey a few years back, 10% of self-described catholics said they did not believe in god - which you would think would be an essential requirement!

    We can be reasonably sure that someone who ticks the catholic box on the census was baptised as an RC, and probably has some cultural attachment to it, but it doesn't tell us much at all about what they think and believe as an adult unless we make a lot of assumptions - which a quick look at contemporary Irish society will demonstrate are unfounded. In reality this is not a 78% catholic society, despite what the census says.

    And in any case, it does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses or teaches that people who aren't Catholics are evil etc. Because it doesn't.

    It doesn't teach that, but when you've heard a priest or bishop conflate belief in a material reality with material greed as often as I have, you start to wonder whether they really should.

    Hypothetically (and this not beyond possibility!) if through scientific advances we were able to discern patterns and these things were not random, would you then not believe in free will?

    Obviously if we could prove that all processes in the brain are entirely deterministic then yes. But this would be extremely difficult and it ignores what I mentioned earlier about chaotic systems. A deterministic system can still be chaotic, so outcomes can still be unpredictable.
    I generally find most materialists, when questioned on these things, tend to discover that it is not actually materialism, but rather dualism, they subscribe to. [But don't worry this is still a kind of heresy in the eyes of the Church :) ]

    I don't believe a mind exists independently of a physical brain, so not a dualist I suppose.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #249
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,906 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    John Hutton wrote: »
    ...
    I generally find most materialists, when questioned on these things, tend to discover that it is not actually materialism, but rather dualism, they subscribe to. [But don't worry this is still a kind of heresy in the eyes of the Church :) ]

    If dualism is the idea that the body is separate from consciousness/soul, then do you mean materialist tend to be monists? Meaning they don't believe in a soul/consciousness that exists separate from the brain?


  • #250
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    When we die, our bodies become the grass. And the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected, in the great circle of life.


  • #251
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    jaxxx wrote: »
    When we die, our bodies become the grass. And the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected, in the great circle of life.

    I don't think Fota allow people to be buried in the wildlife park.
    :p


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    If dualism is the idea that the body is separate from consciousness/soul, then do you mean materialist tend to be monists? Meaning they don't believe in a soul/consciousness that exists separate from the brain?

    You would think so, but actually no. It tends to go along the lines of some of the posts in this thread "energy" "consciousness" etc. possibly enduring in the ether and that.

    But to be fair, most atheists may not have given these things much thought compared to those atheists who frequent forums like this


  • #253
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,906 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    John Hutton wrote: »
    You would think so, but actually no. It tends to go along the lines of some of the posts in this thread "energy" "consciousness" etc. possibly enduring in the ether and that.

    But to be fair, most atheists may not have given these things much thought compared to those atheists who frequent forums like this

    Fair enough. 79% of people who responded to the poll in this thread are monists - and some of the rest are clearly not atheists as 6% said they go to heaven after we die, so they must be some kind of christian.


  • #254
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I don't think Fota allow people to be buried in the wildlife park.
    :p


    [Jaxxx proceeds to grab the banhammer from Bannasidhe and hit 'em with it!]


    Obvious Lion King quote was obvious! [the original Lion King, not that pure utter garbage CGI 'live action' rubbish.. .. ..]


  • #255
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Fair enough. 79% of people who responded to the poll in this thread are monists - and some of the rest are clearly not atheists as 6% said they go to heaven after we die, so they must be some kind of christian.

    I voted other!

    I believe it could be hell, heaven or purgatory.


  • #256
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Do you not think there is a difference between that and masquerading as a believer to obtain consecrated hosts for the such purposes?

    Did he, though?
    I'm sorry, lying to obtain what believers consider Jesus for the purposes of destroying it

    You know where things you eat end up, don't you?
    Is that more respectful?
    If any religion were giving out free sacred statues to believers and someone lied and pretended to be a believer to get loads of them to smash up I think most people would think they were being pricks. This is far worse to Catholics.

    If somebody is gullible enough to give out free stuff to all and sundry to promote their religion, that's their problem tbh.
    Some people deface those bibles in hotels... when the pope visited here, some people applied for lots of free tickets with no intent of using them. I don't see anything wrong with this, it is freedom of speech same as the promotion of the religion in the first place is freedom of speech.

    Nobody who wants a Gideon bible in a hotel is ever deprived of one (they supply lots of replacements and actually want people to take them home), nobody who wanted to see the pope missed out cause there were loads of people giving away spare tickets in the preceding days and it was 2/3rds empty anyway, I doubt anybody who wants a communion wafer has ever been deprived of one either.
    this is Catholicisms major problem

    IMO one of catholicism's major problems was trying to impose itself across the board in this country, instead of sticking with whatever smaller size of flock was actually interested. As an organisation they became obsessed with temporal power.
    where people went because they felt socially obliged but didn't understand what was going on

    Well when it was in Lain, they had no chance!
    But it's common among religions/cults to keep the actual beliefs at least somewhat mysterious as Nozz pointed out, some like Scientology will even relieve you of large sums of cash to 'reveal' more 'knowledge' to you.
    this is why mass attendance has dropped since the scandals smashed any social obligation.
    It was dropping before that though, and the big decline in vocations started in the early-mid 1970s, can't blame scandals for that because they were still all being hushed up.
    Regardless of their understanding of transubstantiation I think any mass going catholic would object to someone dishonestly obtaining consecrated hosts to burn and otherwise experiment on them.

    They used to object very strenuously to a lot of things, like people being able to buy contraceptives, or watch 18-rated films, or get divorced. Even for people who were not and had never been catholic. So I think I can be forgiven for not giving a fiddler's for what they object to.

    If I've been given something for free, it's now my property to dispose of as I wish. I wouldn't do this myself however as I have no interest in entering a catholic church, never mind obtaining anything from them.

    John Hutton wrote: »
    You would think so, but actually no. It tends to go along the lines of some of the posts in this thread "energy" "consciousness" etc. possibly enduring in the ether and that.

    Is this during extensive research of your own? Because if it's based on the posts here you have no way of knowing someone is an atheist unless they say so.

    John Hutton wrote: »
    And then for good measure bring a bomb with me to blow up the mountain.

    Well, this is getting very silly indeed.

    The only people who like to deface and vandalise mountains in Ireland are christians, sticking their ugly crosses on top as a sign of dominance of their religion over everyone else.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #257
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    jaxxx wrote: »
    When we die, our bodies become the grass. And the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected, in the great circle of life.
    They are burying us too deep for that !


  • #258
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    jaxxx wrote: »
    [Jaxxx proceeds to grab the banhammer from Bannasidhe and hit 'em with it!]


    Obvious Lion King quote was obvious! [the original Lion King, not that pure utter garbage CGI 'live action' rubbish.. .. ..]

    My Bad Bannasidhe

    *morto*

    :o


  • #259
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Anyway I have intruded on this forum long enough so I will probably say goodbye with this post. (So no one need feel obliged to go to the trouble of replying to my posts when I probably won't reply again in turn)


  • #260
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,906 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    John Hutton wrote: »
    I voted other!

    I believe it could be hell, heaven or purgatory.

    Right, but they're Christian concepts. So you're not representing atheists. Or are you an atheist who believes in a hell, heaven or purgatory?


  • #261
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Rather I find the humanist, and probably truly Christian too ironically enough, way to treat individuals is..... as individuals.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHbzSif78qQ


    I couldn't let that opportunity go! :)

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John Hutton wrote: »
    But I guess the hope for those who do commit acts of sacrilege is that death is indeed the end... because if it isn't there is that perfect justice I referred to earlier.

    So you're (a) assuming that the only possibilities after death are either nothing, or that your religion is correct. (b) wishing eternal punishment on someone. Not cool - I think words to that effect were written down in a book a long time ago?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #263
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    So you're (a) assuming that the only possibilities after death are either nothing, or that your religion is correct. (b) wishing eternal punishment on someone. Not cool - I think words to that effect were written down in a book a long time ago?
    I think snipping out that sentence from a longer post and portraying it the way you did is a bit unfair, especially as the next sentence says "As i said multiple times this type of thing is just sad,on multiple levels. With regard to the individual it's like watching someone destroy themselves and self destruct with drugs, you hope and pray they "see the light" at some stage, for their own sake if nothing else."



    I didn't wish hell or anything on anyone. And nor would I. I don't know definitively who would end up in hell only that certain actions would tend to push one in that direction and that's best avoided. In fact, hell might be far emptier than one would think. Bishop Barron (who I very much like but don't always fully agree with) has a take on this. I am not a universalist myself (this is a heresy) but I think, although have no way to know for sure, that there are far more people in heaven - or making their way there via purgatory - than there are in hell.



    So again, my position, far from wishing people were in hell, is wishing and praying that people don't end up there ! This is the Catholic position.



    I do think my religion is correct, I wouldn't believe it otherwise.


    One of the nice things about Catholicism is that forgiveness is guaranteed should it be asked for.


  • #264
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Right, but they're Christian concepts. So you're not representing atheists. Or are you an atheist who believes in a hell, heaven or purgatory?
    It seems I have done one of the things which I fond irritating in others by saying I am probably (I did give myself an out!) done with this thread only to have this be a false goodbye.


    So I should come back to you too. My point, probably unnecessary, was that the only option a Catholic could really pick was "other".


  • #265
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John Hutton wrote: »
    I think snipping out that sentence from a longer post and portraying it the way you did is a bit unfair, especially as the next sentence says "As i said multiple times this type of thing is just sad,on multiple levels. With regard to the individual it's like watching someone destroy themselves and self destruct with drugs, you hope and pray they "see the light" at some stage, for their own sake if nothing else."

    I don't see how the context helps you there, if anything it's even more patronising and arrogant than what went before it.
    I didn't wish hell or anything on anyone. And nor would I.

    We know well what your "perfect justice" was supposed to mean, let's not nitpick on the word 'eternal', purgatory is still a punishment. So your are still hoping they receive some sort of divine retribution after death.

    Judge ye not..?
    I do think my religion is correct, I wouldn't believe it otherwise.

    But you expect us to entertain that as a possibility but are not prepared to entertain any other possibilities yourself.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #266
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I don't see how the context helps you there, if anything it's even more patronising and arrogant than what went before it.
    You basically said that I wished damnation on the poster. I did not.
    We know well what your "perfect justice" was supposed to mean, let's not nitpick on the word 'eternal', purgatory is still a punishment. So your are still hoping they receive some sort of divine retribution after death.

    Judge ye not..?
    I really I don't follow where you are going with this. I just wrote that I do not know if people or a person would end up in hell (i.e. I cannot judge). I also said that I pray and wish that people won't end up there, and that I suspect that there are less people there than one might think.

    As for purgatory, I think I'd be happy enough to stumble over the line into purgatory for a spell.

    Sorry to disappoint you by not screaming about how I want hellfire and eternal punishment for those who don't agree with me or the religion I subscribe to.

    Nevertheless, I maintain my position as outlined earlier in the thread that some may take comfort in their belief that there will be no higher authority to exercise perfect judgement on them after they die. There is a comfort in this nothingness. Some might find it most unwelcome to discover that death is not the end, should that be the case. A definitive end might be welcome to some.
    But you expect us to entertain that as a possibility but are not prepared to entertain any other possibilities yourself.
    I think we can all learn something from talking to each other. I don't expect you to change your mind about such massive issues based on my statements of what I believe and why.

    I have considered many things (I was an agnostic/borderline atheist from my teens until my mid/late twenties) and will continue to do so, but I am not going to pretend that I have come to this thread unsure of what I think or believe. I have long considered these issues.

    I haven't demanded that anyone change their mind or become a Catholic. I think people can fundamentally disagree on something but still talk about it with a degree of respecting each others positions - i.e. not expecting or with the aim of trying to force people to agree with you.


  • #267
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

    But you expect us to entertain that as a possibility but are not prepared to entertain any other possibilities yourself.


    But your position can't be 100% positive whereas a believers can be. It only takes God to exist and demonstrate himself to someone for them to be sure he exists.

    It's irrelevant that they cannot prove it to you - the issue is whether they can be sure.

    And so, since you can't be positive, you must remain open to other possibilities. No?


  • #268
    VeryRapidSkoda
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭VeryRapidSkoda


    A different angle...Are we going with the idea that there is just one of us? What happens if the theory of parallel universes is true and that there are infinite versions of ourselves. Do we meet ourselves in a single heaven? Are there multiple heavens/hells. Is our consciousness like a telephone signal that when one version dies we jump to another version like from mast to mast? Could this be how reincarnation / nde and possibly even deja vu is experienced.

    I believe something happens but I don't know what


  • #269
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    VeryRapidSkoda wrote: »
    A different angle...Are we going with the idea that there is just one of us? What happens if the theory of parallel universes is true and that there are infinite versions of ourselves. Do we meet ourselves in a single heaven? Are there multiple heavens/hells. Is our consciousness like a telephone signal that when one version dies we jump to another version like from mast to mast? Could this be how reincarnation / nde and possibly even deja vu is experienced.

    I believe something happens but I don't know what
    The multiverse theory is really very interesting and is often used by atheists to explain how the physical constants in our universe just happen to be perfectly right for life to exist. The odds for our universe, were it the only one, to randomly arrive at the "perfect" life giving numbers are very very high to the extent that it is very improbable.



    If there are millions of other universes however this is different because there is not just "one shot" to get it right, but millions and you can make the argument that everything just clicked into place in our universe by chance (however improbable). However, the argument would then follow that it is likely, if everything is random, that a lot, if not all, of any other universes would be lifeless as they would arrive at physical constants incompatible with life, either at all, or certainly life as it appears to us in our universe would not be possible. So it could be that the only you, is you and could only exist in this universe.



    Should all universes be identical, i.e. they "randomly" arrived at the same identical physical constants as us that would be amazing because it would suggest, to my mind certainly, design rather than mere random chance.


  • #270
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    John Hutton wrote: »
    The multiverse theory is really very interesting and is often used by atheists to explain how the physical constants in our universe just happen to be perfectly right for life to exist. The odds for our universe, were it the only one, to randomly arrive at the "perfect" life giving numbers are very very high to the extent that it is very improbable.



    If there are millions of other universes however this is different because there is not just "one shot" to get it right, but millions and you can make the argument that everything just clicked into place in our universe by chance (however improbable). However, the argument would then follow that it is likely, if everything is random, that a lot, if not all, of any other universes would be lifeless as they would arrive at physical constants incompatible with life, either at all, or certainly life as it appears to us in our universe would not be possible. So it could be that the only you, is you and could only exist in this universe.



    Should all universes be identical, i.e. they "randomly" arrived at the same identical physical constants as us that would be amazing because it would suggest, to my mind certainly, design rather than mere random chance.
    Sorry I just realised I actually didn't really address anything you wrote, I got excited and carried away :) This is all very interesting again.

    Lets assume that there is a multiverse. This would still be on the "plane of existence" it would just be that we discovered that there are more layers to existence than we thought. It would not answer the fundamental question of how the universe came about (or multiple universes). We would really be in the same position as we are now, but the nature of the other universes (i.e are they random?) could help us to get closer to an answer.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MOD

    There was a very interesting - on topic - discussion happening on the theme of what people believe happens after death which has become sidetracked into a bit of a slagging match on the off topic theme of consecrated hosts and the treatment/acquisition thereof.

    Given so many seem to feel so strongly about "sacrilegious yea or nay" I am looking forward to seeing a possibly heated yet always polite exchange of views in the thread now opened.
    What will end is such a discussion happening in this thread.

    Henceforth such posts in this thread will be zapped.

    Thanking you all for staying on topic.

    Posts on hosts moved to new thread here:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058114261


Advertisement