There is no life after death (and no hell)

[dschouten]

"This is one of the first things, if not THE first thing, I questioned about religion when I was a child. It did not seem right (and still doesn't) that anything done within a mere 70 year lifetime could deserve such a horrible eternal punishment. The distance/closeness fate I mentioned above seems to make more sense." 1st reply to topic is quoted here.

"I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that
would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a
proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime
balances against an infinite punishment" someone quoted here from a different thread, possibly laser eyes.

Fine, don't accept 'it'. Your acceptance (or lack thereof) doesn't change anything one jot or tittle.

Actually, I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. Because yours is a (valid) question. Perhaps you should consult your Bible, specifically the New Testament Gospels for a reasonable response. You can take it from there (I'll leave the conclusions up to you).

My first doubt of the bible was when I was a child. I had the childrens edition of the bible. It was on the topic of Adam and Eve being created and nudism. It said that Adam and Eve were created nude. They weren't ashamed under the circumstances, they covered themselves with leaves though. It did also state that nudity is a sin in almost any case. This was all said in simpler terms, for children to understand.
What is wrong with nudism? I wear clothes, not because I'm ashamed by my body, but because of the cops, clothing provides protection, and clothing is useful when you're cold. I think the whole reason people started wearing clothing was for protection against their environment. They weren't ashamed of their body. I don't exactly understand why people try to cover their bodies up.

This is why watered-down versions of Christianity and its doctrines are so dangerous - any half-baked skeptic can tear them to bits (and I am not inferring that you are a half-baked skeptic).

By the way, Adam and Eve did not cover themselves with leaves until after the point they became ashamed. Prior to being corrupted by sin (that is, ignoring their Creator) they had no cause for shame because they had no knowledge of evil. Without evil, or for sake of a better word (nouns fail me) 'badness', shame doesn't really have any bearing. How can you be ashamed, unless you feel/think/act wrongly? Perhaps it is not nudity that is shameful, but the lusts it provokes?

 

[Gokul43201]

"I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that
would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a
proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime
balances against an infinite punishment"

This may be a little off-topic but according to Hinduism, you do time in Hell depending on the number and enormity of your sins. There's actually many different Gods, and two of them are responsible for keeping accounts of all your deeds.

Not trying to sell anything here...I'm agnostic, or something like that.

 

[olde drunk]

without bible quotes, please

this thread is about life after death and hell.

now, logically, explain why you do or don't believe in an after life (heaven or hell).

for me, when i looked at what an omni- everything would do, i was able to cut through the propaganda of religions. i am not saying that there is no value in the bible or other texts. i am saying, however, that they are no more the word of god than my comments here. we are all children of whaever god we follow and s/he/it is a part of us. someone may have an enlightened idea to pass on, but they are no more holy or special than the rest of us.

bottom line, heaven and hell are childish concepts. they defy logic on so many fronts that to believe in them is irrational. the only reason that i have found for belief in these ideas is - fear. fear that some of what was said might be true.

if you examine the issue without fear, logic, etc will lead you to a better understanding.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[dschouten]

this thread is about life after death and hell.

now, logically, explain why you do or don't believe in an after life (heaven or hell).

for me, when i looked at what an omni- everything would do, i was able to cut through the propaganda of religions.

Kudos to you, old chap, for you are most certainly approaching the level of this omni-everything. You have sidestepped the apologetics of a millinia of intellectuals so swiftly, so nimbly! Almost deity-like (almost).

i am not saying that there is no value in the bible or other texts. i am saying, however, that they are no more the word of god than my comments here. we are all children of whaever god we follow and s/he/it is a part of us. someone may have an enlightened idea to pass on, but they are no more holy or special than the rest of us.

If the Bible is indeed on the same plane as your comments in some obscure forum saved on some obscure web-server in the middle of some place in who-knows-where, then the Bible has no value. So what you are really saying is this: "i am very much saying that there is no value in the bible or other texts..."

bottom line, heaven and hell are childish concepts. they defy logic on so many fronts that to believe in them is irrational. the only reason that i have found for belief in these ideas is - fear. fear that some of what was said might be true.

No "omni-everything" should bend the knee to the logic He (or she/it in your overly politically-correct wording) created. If He created Hell, then He created Hell, and "there ain't much you can do about it". Argue it away. Go ahead. Have fun with that. Doesn't really matter.

I realize that forums such as these are meant to foster discussion on topics like the existence of heaven and hell and I apologize for throwing a wet blanket on the fire of these arguments by saying that the arguments are useless. But perhaps this interjection will spawn a whole new subset of discussions...

 

[Scott Sieger]

"When it comes to belief it is anyones game" all we have is one belief versus another, but at all times it is still just a belief. If one chooses to live a life of fear then believe as you wish. The same applies for those that wish to live without fear and yes you guessed it they also believe as they wish.

Life after death is essentially unknown, now if you want to believe in a certain type of God and his certain types of creations then go for it but please remember it is only a belief.

And as often said belief is not worth Jack sh*t when it comes down to the truth.

Ole drunk has at least identified a potential for delusion and this is admirable, better is it not to say "I don't know and await to find out" than to say "I don't know and then go into a frenzy of speculations designed to placate the fear of not knowing."

 

[olde drunk]

Scott:

thank you. i am not saying that my way, or your way, or anyone's way is the best way.

from what i have observed and seen, everyone's way is the best way for them. if you want to accept the myths of heaven or hell, so be it. as an intelligent adult, i would like to understand why. i can not find a legitimate reason, other than the propaganda of the ages.

when a wise man sez 'unless you believe in me...' it is taken and made into a foundation for a religion. i prefer to believe that he was saying, 'unless you believe in what i say...'. BIG difference.

most wise and learned men do not insist that you accept their teachings on faith. they know that you must listen, think and act in accordance with their guidance. AND, if you're lucky you will see what they have seen or know. truth can not be taught, learned or accepted. truth can only be experienced.

my truths are mine and yours, your's. they may coincide but they will never be the same. we are each seeking value fulfillment in our own unique, individual way. through communication and discussion we, just, might be able to help each other.

i still ask, why or how can you believe in heaven and hell?? yes, i do dismiss the scribes of yore. to me, they were misguided, well intentioned translators and/or transcribers. we do not have the real words of any acient, historical figure. plus, the written word lacks so much, as far as conveyong the full meaning of any quote.

seeing and listening to a politician we can fall into a charismatic trap or understand what he meant. the printed text of that speech, rarely conveys the full message.

oh, to hear jesus, buddha, mohamed, ghandi - live!

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Scott Sieger]

truth can not be taught, learned or accepted. truth can only be experienced.

'Ole Drunk, This I find a pearl of great wisdom. The truth can only be experienced. hmmmmmm...

 

[dave19903652]

I notice that the book of revelations has been forgotten about in this debate which basically is all about heaven and hell and life after death. Read it yourself before making judgement please.

 

[dave19903652]

"oh, to hear jesus, buddha, mohamed, ghandi - live!"

There's a thing called astral projection that you should try if you want a live reception from the masters. But with the attitude you have about them at the moment success rate maybe near to zero.

 

[olde drunk]

I notice that the book of revelations has been forgotten about in this debate which basically is all about heaven and hell and life after death. Read it yourself before making judgement please.

to me, this is but one man's anticipated probable future reality. i do not accept traditional beliefs in heaven, hell, god or salvation.

i expect a better future reality than armageddon. besides, that probable reality may not take place for billions of years. OR, it may have taken place millions of years ago.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Scott Sieger]

It could be argued that the "revelations" refer to a "metaphysical" armageddon and not a "physical" armageddon. In other words, a state of insanity.

 

[dave19903652]

The revelations could not have happened millions of years ago as it was written in future tense after the death of Jesus. It could in fact be in play already only stretched out over a long time. Satan may have been let out now as people have only started to question religion a few hundred years ago. Just a thought.

I suppose it could quite easily be like that. After all the bible quite often speaks in 'code' - in a way only the people of the rime, the pure base christians would understand. Now some people, hard core protestants and jehovah witnesses for example take the bible completely literally.

 

[Guardian01]

There are many 'versions' of "the bible." Which one are you referring to and the 'author.'

 

[Scott Sieger]

"there is no life or Death but merely existence"
Some one once said.

If there is no life or death but mere existence then this opens the door to thinking along the lines of different states of being without a fixed criteria of life or death.

So rather than the question of life and death maybe it should just be a question of existence.

 

[THANOS]

Or perhaps not to question at all? If the existence of god is so questionable then why not realize that the "truths" of religion are just as questionable sense religion is based on god/gods.

 

[olde drunk]

we should question everything! all truth is relative, including our beliefs.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Scott Sieger]

and we should also question why we are questioning.

 

[Evo]

Satan may have been let out now as people have only started to question religion a few hundred years ago. Just a thought.

people have been questioning religion as long as there has been religion. That is why religion keeps changing.

Jesus was born a Jew, remember? He questioned his religion.

 

[THANOS]

I often wonder why people wonder.

 

[Scott Sieger]

Life after death?

"Prove to me you exist living and then we can worry about what happens after we live."

I fiind it somewhat amusing that from what I have seen argued we have trouble proving we exist in the first instance so as far as I can tell if this is not provable then why are we bothering with something even more abstract, that being existence after existense which as yet can not be proved as existence...ouch!...my brain hurts!

 

[JD]

Whether we do or whether we don't
there's someone here to say we won't
But yet we must as chatting are we
unless we are not meant to be

If you are there and I am here
then neither has as much to fear
as one who is not here at all
and he is sitting in the next hall

 

[Jim Beam]

If I ask you to perform an experiment determining whether or not pigs can fly, what what you do? Take some pigs and throw them off a mountain? What if you had to perform the experiment within a closed in room and only a rat, some cheese, and a large maze. Obviously you would learn nothing about pigs from rats and cheese, and the analogy holds true for the existence of God or an afterlife. If such a being exists, then by very definiton he is not bound by space and time, or he wouldn't be God. if something is not bound by space or time, then nothing bound by space and time can have any effect. Formulas, DNA, etc can be used to adequately describe the existence of natural things, but when the laws of physics break down(i.e., heaven) physical laws are no longer adequate enough to explain what will occur. such as 2+2 = 4, and 4 divided by 2 = 2, nothing can be added to equal god, or god would not be god, because if things can add up, then they can be divided. If something can be divided then it is no more than the sum of its parts, and therefore is finite. Bottom line, if God is God, then he is infinite and not bound by space time.

Infinity, obviously derives its defintion from what is infinite to space-time,

 

[Ethanol]

I think ur right Jim God is infinite and we cannot get to know him completely. The question was really about life after death. Now i know most of us will never go to schools if we get to know we won't get a job after that. i mean what is the point doing things with no actual profits. u won't eat if u derive ur energy from sun. So why are we alive? Obviously for something that is not known exactly. this is what prevents us from knowing absolute truth. do u not agree that heaven and hell r reward and punishment for our good and bad deeds, respectively? this is all like law and crimes. when u abide by the laws the profit is a smooth life. if u don't then ur road is bumpy and there is fuzz behind you.

 

[Grace]

As for me, I believe in God. But I am not a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist. God is the term I apply to the physics that operate outside the sphere of our own closed universe...the science of the multiverse...the bubbles, so to speak.

I believe the first few paragraphs of Genesis a highly advanced scientific context, dealing with the creation of the universe. However, the old language and metaphors disguise this very well and seem to render it no more than a fictitious oddity of religion - The Creation.

The rest of the bible, almost in its entirety, I would dismiss as fantasy.

I believe that there was a man named Jesus, and that he did many good things. I don't think he performed any "miracles" per-se, though. That would be unscientific and even unrelated to the nature of the God I believe in.

My God is not a force personified. It is not an old man with a beard. It's not even anything that I can, want, or feel the need to pray to. There is no point in praying to Newton's laws of gravitation; similarly there is no point in praying to God.

Like I said, I apply the term "God" to the physics beyond our closed universe...the region between the multiverse's closed bubbles where "omnipotence, omnipresence" and "timelessness" are all de-facto standards of that region of "space".

So I guess I believe in "The Force". No matter how cliched that sounds. What I believe is in no way (save for a few adjectives describing the "entity") related to the Bible whatsoever.

Believing in God is not about being a good person, doing well to your fellow mankind or having faith in the Bible and all it represents...that's the job of Religion...something I have no time for and also dismiss as a sorry interference in the progress of mankind.

Believing in God believes in the order, the science and the physics of that which determines the actuality of the multiverse and it's dynamics.

My view about the miracles in the bible is harsh...its just the same as Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, etc...It's something for children.

Religion can be a good thing for some people. It can provide comfort to people and give others hope. Others can interpret them differently.

No. I don't believe there is life after death.

 

[Grace]

I noticed that the definition of God is closed…so I will post it here.

This branch of Physics is that to which I apply the name God.

Quite possibly this is the same flavor of God Einstein and Hawking believe in. It's not an entity, not a man, not a religion, not a faith, not a being. It's just the name given to the most powerful branch of physics.

The branch of physics known as "God" meets all the defining criteria. Timeless.

Coupling Timelessness with the entire matrix of extra dimensions renders this science also Omnipresent by definition.

Coupling Timelessness with Omnipresence by definition must yield Omniscience in a mechanical universe (the only petty and ridiculous thing that anyone can count as 'evidence' against the universe being 100% mechanical is that we're arrogantly frightened enough to think we have un provable and probably nonexistent free will)

Noting that this branch of physics now wields the virtues of Timelessness, Omnipresence and Omniscience to it's armory of characteristics and also that since this science governs the motion of the Membranes, and thus the Strings, it means that "God" DIRECTLY AFFECTS our own universe.

Coupling this affective force with the above 3 characteristics yields, by definition Omnipotence.

This is my definition of "God". No man in white robe in the afterlife with angels telling people to build ships and not to have sex. God, as a science by the numbers, is what I subscribe to.

This is where the ultimately devastating (or unifying) irony in the whole argument lays:

Science is God == God is Science.

 

[Grace]

As for me, I believe in God. But not in the way you probably think. God is the term I apply to the physics that operate outside the sphere of our own closed universe...the science of the multiverse...the bubbles, so to speak.

I believe the first few paragraphs of Genesis a highly advanced scientific context, dealing with the creation of the universe. However, the old language and metaphors disguise this very well and seem to render it no more than a fictitious oddity of religion - The Creation.

The rest of the bible, almost in its entirety, I would dismiss as fantasy.

I believe that there was a man named Jesus, and that he did many good things. I don't think he performed any "miracles" per-se, though. That would be unscientific and even unrelated to the nature of the God I believe in.

My God is not a force personified. It is not an old man with a beard. It's not even anything that I can, want, or feel the need to pray to. There is no point in praying to Newton's laws of gravitation; similarly there is no point in praying to God.

Like I said, I apply the term "God" to the physics beyond our closed universe...the region between the multiverse's closed bubbles where "omnipotence, omnipresence" and "timelessness" are all de-facto standards of that region of "space".

So I guess I believe in "The Force". No matter how cliched that sounds. What I believe is in no way (save for a few adjectives describing the "entity") related to the Bible whatsoever.

Believing in God is not about being a good person, doing well to your fellow mankind or having faith in the Bible and all it represents...that's the job of Religion...something I have no time for and also dismiss as a sorry interference in the progress of mankind.

Believing in God believes in the order, the science and the physics of that which determines the actuality of the multiverse and it's dynamics.

I thank you for your time.

 

[radagast]

If I ask you to perform an experiment determining whether or not pigs can fly, what what you do? Take some pigs and throw them off a mountain? What if you had to perform the experiment within a closed in room and only a rat, some cheese, and a large maze. Obviously you would learn nothing about pigs from rats and cheese, and the analogy holds true for the existence of God or an afterlife. If such a being exists, then by very definiton he is not bound by space and time, or he wouldn't be God. if something is not bound by space or time, then nothing bound by space and time can have any effect. Formulas, DNA, etc can be used to adequately describe the existence of natural things, but when the laws of physics break down(i.e., heaven) physical laws are no longer adequate enough to explain what will occur. such as 2+2 = 4, and 4 divided by 2 = 2, nothing can be added to equal god, or god would not be god, because if things can add up, then they can be divided. If something can be divided then it is no more than the sum of its parts, and therefore is finite. Bottom line, if God is God, then he is infinite and not bound by space time.

Infinity, obviously derives its defintion from what is infinite to space-time,

Jim,
You seem to have gone extremely far out of your way to demonstrate your belief that God is infinite, not graspable by the human mind and not testable or disprovable. Given many of the other more well thought out definitions I've heard about him (i.e. the more typical JudeoChristian god), would agree, this isn't a claim I consider unusual.

However, it brings up an interesting question. Just stating what you have brings the question of why anyone would assume he exists, and after that, why any of the many, many other things presented in the bible would also be associated.

If it's based on actions God takes in our universe, that would, by definition be defined as ourside the normal laws of nature and physics, then the pig is indeed inside the room with our rat, cheese, and maze.

If not then the actions taken by such god would have to be hidden from all but one person at a time, i.e. subjective. Since the vast majority of Christian folk I've talked to don't get explicit and detailed communications, such as Joan of Arc did, then how can one attribute the vast details of Christianity and the bible, onto this infinite god? i.e. why would that attribution be a more rational position than such an attributed god, creation, and supernatural system in place (heaven, hell, etc).

We all know that physical causes and processes of many types occur in our universe. We see thousands of examples every day. Examples that are obviously caused by a supernatural entity are not common. While it may be simpler to attribute aspects of creation, et. al. to a supernatural entity rather than some physical process we haven't uncovered yet, we've seen that physical processes exist, we've not seen that a diety exists.

Glenn

 

[gm1234]

It is a fact that there can be no life after death. This is because the soul (if it exists) cannot possibly have a brain. If it has a brain then what about other body parts like heart, lungs etc. And if life actually existed then won't it be a joke to think that little babies who die grown up in hell or heaven. What will they study in heaven? Are there schools in heaven just like earth?? That is impossible.

The question now is the question of origin. What is the origin; not of the universe but of all things including God (if he/she/it exists).

http://www.web_templates.blogspot.com

 

[radagast]

It is a fact that there can be no life after death. This is because the soul (if it exists) cannot possibly have a brain. If it has a brain then what about other body parts like heart, lungs etc. ... That is impossible.

Invalid logic train. You imply that a brain, lungs, heart, etc are necessary for life. I've never seen one tree with any of those, yet many of them I've seen are alive by most definitions.

You can always redefine life to exclude the afterlife, but it's poor debating technique to use it to try to prove the afterlife doesn't exist. The same could be said about applying purpose and needs of the afterlife to try and disprove any afterlife.

While I may not believe in an afterlife, I am a strong believer in proper debate.

 

[yanniru]

My first post here. Last year I wrote a paper for the Quantum Mind2003 conference about non-local consciousness that has some relevance to this discussion. http://www.dhushara.com/pdf/ruquist.pdf

In it I suggest that consciousness may exist in dark matter, especially if a major constituent of dark matter is some very light in mass particle (or particles) like the axion. The paper is a review paper of the published evidence for non-local consciousness and the theories published on the internet that could explain it. Heaven is not mentioned. But the extrapolation is straight forward.

Very light in mass particles, particles that are on the order of one millionth the mass of an electron, form a superfluid at room and even solar surface temperatures. Superfluids and superconductors are known to exist at very low temperatures close to absolute zero. Some semi-conductors are "super" at much higher temperatures, but no where near room temperature. But physical theory predicts any fluid whose particle wave functions sufficiently overlap will be "super". In physics they are called Bose-Einstein condensdates. So a fluid of particles like axions, whose wave functions are global in extent, would have the properties of a superfluid or a superconductor, even at solar surface temperatures. They exist in a state of complete quantum coherence. They do not experience friction. They can move about freely, but interestingly, it turns out that from theory that most axions were created in the Big Bang and they are essentially motionless. That is why they are considered to be the main component of Cold Dark Matter. They are called Cosmic Axions. Solar axions are also constantly produced in the sun and radiate away. It seems that they also contribute to the superfluid. In short, Dark Matter may be a supernatural medium, a amusing coincidence of religious and physics terminology.

Without friction, the medium would correspond to some concepts of heaven as a state of bliss where one neither needs to eat or sleep, although I question the bliss part. My guess is that you can only experience after death what you have already experienced in life. For some that may be like hell. Anyway that is what my religion teaches.

What I suggest in that paper is that your dreams and perhaps even your thinking may exist in the medium of Dark Matter, which BTW pervades the entire galaxy. If so, your consciousness could leave your body both before and perhaps at death. There is evidence that it can happen before death, which I take to be evidence of the supernatural.

So in this case the medium is the message. By the way, what we see is less than 1% of what exists. Dark matter, which we cannot see, is over 99% of the mass universe- room for many rooms. Even so, there now is twice as much (mass-equivatent) Dark Energy than Dark Matter. But at the time of the Big Bang, the amount of Dark Energy was a tiny fraction of the Dark Matter. Also, Dark Energy is needed to make the universe flat in the Euclidean sense, so that plane geometry works. But the price we eventually have to pay is the the universe will blow away, and perhaps even blow up a few billion years from now. Now that's religion...and all based on physics.

 

[Entropy]

All I can tell you people is that there is no support for an after life in the Bible. There is only ressurection.