Eternity...?

[SortOfMormon]

I don't like to think of death because I still don't know for sure where I'll end up. I still believe in God. But I still wonder "What if I'm wrong? What if there is nothing after death. Or what if my beliefs where wrong about God and he damns me to Hell?":eek::eek:

Anyways, I think not existing would be better than burning. But it's still scary to think about because we can not imagine what it would be like. It would not even be a blank screen. It would not be black. It would be NOTHING!!!

And Hell really scares the crap outta me.

[DigitalShadow]

I don't mean to butt in here, but since I think I'm in much the same philosophical boat as Godless, I'll throw my 2 cents in as well.

Now: What would you consider to be proof? There are different types of proof:

I believe things to the extent that they are supported by evidence and give reproducible results.

There are historical proofs, such as first hand accounts and third hand accounts. Generally, these are accepted for historical occurences.

There are similar historical "proofs" for Greek and Roman mythology. As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't particularly stand out from any other mythological account. Some historical accuracy mixed in with supernatural accounts usually only implies that those accounts have been exaggerated over time, not that the supernatural events actually happened.

There is the Scientific Method. The scientific method requires recreating something in a controlled environment. Dove Soap floats. We know this because someone once pushed the Dove bar down in to a tank of water, pulled back, watched it rise and made a checkmark. Then, that person repeated that again and again. Obviously, one cannot recreate the life, birth and death of Jesus Christ in a controlled environment. However, by that token, we can not prove the existence and/or events in any persons life.

There is logical proof: Many concepts of mathematics and modern living can be attributed to recreateable inductive proofs. Pi, for instance, or soft sciences such as archeology, paleontology or psychology.

Mathematics and soft sciences rely on the functionality of theories. Things are tentatively assumed to be true because they produce usable results given a certain situation, but they still remain as theories that can be revised or discarded as they are applied to new situations and new data is revealed.

The way I see it, most religious beliefs are simply theories that demand you bypass any scientific rigor and simply accept them as true, usually promising rewards for believing and/or punishment for disbelief. While I believe that most religions offer a reasonably useful set of moral values, that doesn't make them "true" any more than it makes a fairy tale with a useful message true. Yes there are useful parts, but that does not mean you need to accept the supernatural parts too.

What would you consider proof, Godless? First hand accounts? Logical continuations? A big fire burning in the sky saying 'God exists'?

What would you accept as proof that Cthulhu exists? or even that God doesn't exist? I don't think there's any one definitive piece of evidence could prove or disprove any deity, but in my mind testable claims would certainly help the credibility of religions claiming to be the "truth."

[FunkyTown]

What would you accept as proof that Cthulhu exists? or even that God doesn't exist? I don't think there's any one definitive piece of evidence could prove or disprove any deity, but in my mind testable claims would certainly help the credibility of religions claiming to be the "truth."

Hi Digital,

We're getting a little ahead of ourselves. I'm not trying to prove Christianity is the truth - That's jumping way ahead of the game if you don't know that God exists. Instead, in order to have any type of dialogue on religion, we have to understand what each of us means by this.

You're looking for testable, repeatable evidence of something's existence, correct? What would you accept as proof that God did exist is what I'm asking, so we can get to the basis of your questioning. Obviously, there would have to be some type of proof that you would accept as proof that God exists, or that an afterlife exists. Would anything that is testable, repeatable and confirmable work?

I would also like to point out that the argument that first hand accounts applying to both C'thulhu and the Greek Gods is simply not true. There are Greek Legends that talk of people who met the Gods, but there are no first hand accounts. If you compare that to first hand accounts of people who met Buddha, Confucius or Jesus, you will see that they are very different to accounts of C'thulhu and Zeus.

[Guest Godless]

That is perfect, Godless!

Now: What would you consider to be proof? There are different types of proof:

There are historical proofs, such as first hand accounts and third hand accounts. Generally, these are accepted for historical occurences.

There is the Scientific Method. The scientific method requires recreating something in a controlled environment. Dove Soap floats. We know this because someone once pushed the Dove bar down in to a tank of water, pulled back, watched it rise and made a checkmark. Then, that person repeated that again and again. Obviously, one cannot recreate the life, birth and death of Jesus Christ in a controlled environment. However, by that token, we can not prove the existence and/or events in any persons life.

There is logical proof: Many concepts of mathematics and modern living can be attributed to recreateable inductive proofs. Pi, for instance, or soft sciences such as archeology, paleontology or psychology.

What would you consider proof, Godless? First hand accounts? Logical continuations? A big fire burning in the sky saying 'God exists'?

Historical accounts are rarely valuable without the supporting evidence of archeology and other scientific verification. It is for this reason that many of the people, places, and events of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, have yet to be verified. Old historical accounts tend to be laced with elements of legend and mythology, and sometimes they're deliberately exaggerated like Geoffry of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, which gave rise to the legend of King Arthur due to the fact that it was originally viewed as an accurate historical document.

So science and logic prevail as the most reliable sources of truth about the world we live in. However, neither of these areas deal in absolute truths, so there is always room for error and multiple theories/interpretations. Personally, I believe that one of the most important facts in life is that no absolute truth exists. This can be a difficult idea for theists to accept.

When it comes to the questions of why we're here and how everything came to be, most people don't like to say "I don't know". I see no problem with acknowledging the limitations of human knowledge. These limitations are what drive our scientific discoveries and research. Without such doubt, it's likely that things like Flat Earth theory and geocentrism would still be being debated in the scientific community today. Instead, these theories have been dead for centuries because the great minds of the Enlightenment weren't willing to accept biblical evidence as proof for those false ideas. I firmly believe that there will come a time when Creationism/ID theory will join Flat Earth theory and geocentrism as failed theologically-driven ideas.

[DigitalShadow]

We're getting a little ahead of ourselves. I'm not trying to prove Christianity is the truth - That's jumping way ahead of the game if you don't know that God exists. Instead, in order to have any type of dialogue on religion, we have to understand what each of us means by this.

But outside of a specific religious context, "God" doesn't have much meaning. If you don't define which God and what qualities he/she possesses, it doesn't mean anything to say you believe or don't believe in God.

You're looking for testable, repeatable evidence of something's existence, correct? What would you accept as proof that God did exist is what I'm asking, so we can get to the basis of your questioning. Obviously, there would have to be some type of proof that you would accept as proof that God exists, or that an afterlife exists. Would anything that is testable, repeatable and confirmable work?

My point is that most definitions of God are not provable or disprovable. Past death, we don't really know what happens because due to the nature of death, we can't exactly ask dead people how it went. Most religious claims conveniently only provide "proof" after we have passed this seemingly unknowable barrier which makes them not very useful in my opinion.

If it were scientifically demonstrated that life continues after death and we can reliably communicate with people on "the other side" and people overwhelmingly confirm the story of a particular religion, I would say that it is more than likely true.

I would also like to point out that the argument that first hand accounts applying to both C'thulhu and the Greek Gods is simply not true. There are Greek Legends that talk of people who met the Gods, but there are no first hand accounts. If you compare that to first hand accounts of people who met Buddha, Confucius or Jesus, you will see that they are very different to accounts of C'thulhu and Zeus.

My point was that many stories of mythology reference historical places, events and even people but also have supernatural events, but are dismissed outright as false by most people. If you're counting the Bible or any religious text for that matter as a straight first hand account, it is questionable how much is actually from the original person. Given the "telephone game" effect and the motives for intentional editing, I find it hard to believe that any scriptures more than hundreds of years old remain in tact enough to really count as a first hand account.

Edited July 1, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[DigitalShadow]

Personally, I believe that one of the most important facts in life is that no absolute truth exists.

I agree completely.

[Hemidakota]

I don't like to think of death because I still don't know for sure where I'll end up. I still believe in God. But I still wonder "What if I'm wrong? What if there is nothing after death. Or what if my beliefs where wrong about God and he damns me to Hell?":eek::eek:

Anyways, I think not existing would be better than burning. But it's still scary to think about because we can not imagine what it would be like. It would not even be a blank screen. It would not be black. It would be NOTHING!!!

And Hell really scares the crap outta me.

What if you are not wrong? You can always settled for the local Sun here as for your reward of the Telestial glory.

Though, I wish there was a literal superheated fire in hell...then my soul could be purified.

[FunkyTown]

Shadow? You're quibbling and dodging the question. Okay. I will get past the quibbling and assign definitions:

God: The conscious creator and maker of this universe. We do not need to assign Him aspects, yet, such as good or evil or even anthropomorphic ideals. That comes later. Until a very basic understanding that He exists comes, it's irrelevant. To say that God doesn't have much meaning outside of a specific religious context is like saying 'Outside of a religious context, George Washington doesn't have much meaning.' We are simply discussing facts at the moment and I'm attempting to start a baseline for our discussion.

Secondly, you are stating opinions as facts that simply aren't true. I could point to several non-biblical accounts that have first hand experience with the Apostles and even people who saw the Saviour himself. The supernatural aspect must be shunted aside for the moment, because what you're doing is the equivalent of someone having this conversation:

'I don't believe in roast beef sandwiches.'

'Do you believe in bread?'

'There's no evidence that horseradish exists!'

'I... Asked if you believe in bread.'

'Horseradish is a ridiculous notion on the face of it. Radish that is a horse? NONSENSE!'

'Yyyes, but do you believe in bread?'

Basically, you're dwelling on specific aspects of an item when the very baseline isn't acknowledged. It's irrelevant.

So, having answered your question of definition, I will ask: What proof would you accept of God or an afterlife's existence? Would you accept proofs that, in other areas, Science has deemed sufficient to answer questions?

But outside of a specific religious context, "God" doesn't have much meaning. If you don't define which God and what qualities he/she possesses, it doesn't mean anything to say you believe or don't believe in God.

My point is that most definitions of God are not provable or disprovable. Past death, we don't really know what happens because due to the nature of death, we can't exactly ask dead people how it went. Most religious claims conveniently only provide "proof" after we have passed this seemingly unknowable barrier which makes them not very useful in my opinion.

If it were scientifically demonstrated that life continues after death and we can reliably communicate with people on "the other side" and people overwhelmingly confirm the story of a particular religion, I would say that it is more than likely true.

My point was that many stories of mythology reference historical places, events and even people but also have supernatural events, but are dismissed outright as false by most people. If you're counting the Bible or any religious text for that matter as a straight first hand account, it is questionable how much is actually from the original person. Given the "telephone game" effect and the motives for intentional editing, I find it hard to believe that any scriptures more than hundreds of years old remain in tact enough to really count as a first hand account.

[JohnnyRudick]

Shadow? You're quibbling and dodging the question. Okay. I will get past the quibbling and assign definitions:

God: The conscious creator and maker of this universe. We do not need to assign Him aspects, yet, such as good or evil or even anthropomorphic ideals. That comes later. Until a very basic understanding that He exists comes, it's irrelevant. To say that God doesn't have much meaning outside of a specific religious context is like saying 'Outside of a religious context, George Washington doesn't have much meaning.' We are simply discussing facts at the moment and I'm attempting to start a baseline for our discussion.

Secondly, you are stating opinions as facts that simply aren't true. I could point to several non-biblical accounts that have first hand experience with the Apostles and even people who saw the Saviour himself. The supernatural aspect must be shunted aside for the moment, because what you're doing is the equivalent of someone having this conversation:

'I don't believe in roast beef sandwiches.'

'Do you believe in bread?'

'There's no evidence that horseradish exists!'

'I... Asked if you believe in bread.'

'Horseradish is a ridiculous notion on the face of it. Radish that is a horse? NONSENSE!'

'Yyyes, but do you believe in bread?'

Basically, you're dwelling on specific aspects of an item when the very baseline isn't acknowledged. It's irrelevant.

So, having answered your question of definition, I will ask: What proof would you accept of God or an afterlife's existence? Would you accept proofs that, in other areas, Science has deemed sufficient to answer questions?

As I understand this conversaarion.

"God" is not the bread, but the "Roast Beef Sandwich".

If I can point out the various aspects of the roast beef sandwich

maybe we can get to "God".

What did I miss?

Bro. Rudick

[DigitalShadow]

Shadow? You're quibbling and dodging the question. Okay. I will get past the quibbling and assign definitions:

God: The conscious creator and maker of this universe. We do not need to assign Him aspects, yet, such as good or evil or even anthropomorphic ideals. That comes later. Until a very basic understanding that He exists comes, it's irrelevant. To say that God doesn't have much meaning outside of a specific religious context is like saying 'Outside of a religious context, George Washington doesn't have much meaning.' We are simply discussing facts at the moment and I'm attempting to start a baseline for our discussion.

Secondly, you are stating opinions as facts that simply aren't true. I could point to several non-biblical accounts that have first hand experience with the Apostles and even people who saw the Saviour himself. The supernatural aspect must be shunted aside for the moment, because what you're doing is the equivalent of someone having this conversation:

'I don't believe in roast beef sandwiches.'

'Do you believe in bread?'

'There's no evidence that horseradish exists!'

'I... Asked if you believe in bread.'

'Horseradish is a ridiculous notion on the face of it. Radish that is a horse? NONSENSE!'

'Yyyes, but do you believe in bread?'

Basically, you're dwelling on specific aspects of an item when the very baseline isn't acknowledged. It's irrelevant.

So, having answered your question of definition, I will ask: What proof would you accept of God or an afterlife's existence? Would you accept proofs that, in other areas, Science has deemed sufficient to answer questions?

First of all, I didn't think I was quibbling and I apologize if it came off that way. You found it important to have a mutually agreed upon definition of science before furthering the discussion with Godless and I found it important to have a mutually agreed upon definition of God before furthering our discussion.

If you want to start with God as simply the "conscious" creator of the universe, that is fine with me. I would say that it is possible, but I personally think it is improbable. If you assume there had to be a creator for the universe to come into existence, then who created this creator, and their creator and so on. At some point you have to say that something just always existed, many people choose to believe that something is conscious and anthropomorphize it, but I find it more probable that the universe simply existed and humans like to believe beings similar to them in some way are in charge because it makes them feel better. I also think the answer to how the universe got started is ultimately unknowable from our limited human perspective. Obviously none of us were there at the creation of the universe and it's hard enough to tell exactly what happened on earth 2000 years ago, let alone somewhere far away in the universe billions of years ago.

There is nothing that could "prove" to me exactly how the universe came into existence, scientific or otherwise, the best we can do is give guesses, but I wouldn't say any of those guesses could ever be probable enough in my mind to really say I believe in it.

Reproducible supernatural events could convince me that there is an entity with a lot of power over this planet and they could even claim to be the creator of the universe, but I still find that unlikely since it would be very hard to demonstrate that you are the creator of the universe and having unexplainable power does not automatically instill trust in my mind.

As for an afterlife, again I think it is possible but improbable. Humans want to believe they continue on past this life despite there being no objective evidence for it. If we could reliably and reproducibly communicate with the dead (I'm not talking about "psychic" cold reading crap) that would convince me that there is some kind of afterlife. If dead people generally agree on what it's like, I would probably take their word for it.

That is as straightforward as I can answer, trying very hard not to quibble. I even went back and deleted some stuff that could be considered quibbling. Everything here is my honest opinion with no sarcasm quibbling, or offense intended.

[Moksha]

I find it hard to believe that any scriptures more than hundreds of years old remain in tact enough to really count as a first hand account.

As Biblical scholar Bart Erdman would point out, scriptures written from a first or second hand account years latter are fraught with memory loss and confabulations to fill in the blanks. Frequently there are also embellishments added by later adherents.

[FunkyTown]

As for an afterlife, again I think it is possible but improbable. Humans want to believe they continue on past this life despite there being no objective evidence for it. If we could reliably and reproducibly communicate with the dead (I'm not talking about "psychic" cold reading crap) that would convince me that there is some kind of afterlife. If dead people generally agree on what it's like, I would probably take their word for it.

That is as straightforward as I can answer, trying very hard not to quibble. I even went back and deleted some stuff that could be considered quibbling. Everything here is my honest opinion with no sarcasm quibbling, or offense intended.

That's what I was looking for. Okay - We'll start with the idea that there is no universal truth as set forth in your previous examples:

A man, walking in the desert and wacked out on acid might come to the grand canyon. If this man imagined a bridge crossing it, hallucinated a bridge crossing it and it felt good to him to have a bridge where he was, if he attempted to cross this imaginary bridge then he would still plummet to his death.

The fact that people have died alone in the wilderness seems to suggest that, even if we can not perceive the truth, that there is a universal truth. Would you agree? If not, why not, given that I can provide several examples of people dying unknowingly, though I am fairly certain you could not provide a single example where a persons ignorance saved them from the consequences of physical interactions.

[JohnnyRudick]

As Biblical scholar Bart Erdman would point out, scriptures written from a first or second hand account years latter are fraught with memory loss and confabulations to fill in the blanks. Frequently there are also embellishments added by later adherents.

I find these kind of statement all the time.

These "Scholars" are looking at it from a purely logical and secular perspective.

They are not taking into account the hand of God in preserving what He wants preserved.

In fact, I have found that most biblical scholars have problems with the scriptures as

written anyway from a perspective of believability and probability.

Hardly the type of people I would have faith that they have God's interest at heart.

Bro. Rudick

[DigitalShadow]

That's what I was looking for. Okay - We'll start with the idea that there is no universal truth as set forth in your previous examples:

A man, walking in the desert and wacked out on acid might come to the grand canyon. If this man imagined a bridge crossing it, hallucinated a bridge crossing it and it felt good to him to have a bridge where he was, if he attempted to cross this imaginary bridge then he would still plummet to his death.

The fact that people have died alone in the wilderness seems to suggest that, even if we can not perceive the truth, that there is a universal truth. Would you agree? If not, why not, given that I can provide several examples of people dying unknowingly, though I am fairly certain you could not provide a single example where a persons ignorance saved them from the consequences of physical interactions.

I believe that there is one consistent universal truth, but I do not believe that truth is absolutely knowable from our human perspective. So while there is a universal truth, I believe it is impossible to know absolute truth. Using objective evidence and the scientific method it is possible to be reasonably sure what is going on around you, but nothing can be determined absolutely and everything can change as new evidence comes in.

Edit: When talking about events such as the creation of the universe, it becomes very hard to find objective evidence due to the scale and time frames so given our limited data the level of certainty that can be obtained goes down to the point where I personally find it useless to "believe" in one particular explanation.

Edited July 2, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Guest]

Let me just put my amateur 2 cents in...

The way I see it, there are those of us who will not accept the existence of something until there is absolute proof supporting it. And there are some of us who will take something as true until proven otherwise. Darwin vis-a-vis Paley. These two groups of people will never be able to agree until absolute proof smacks all of them on the head - nothing less than God himself saying, Hey guys... I'm HERE!

Personally, I'm of the latter group. I will take Paley's evidence as proof of God's existence unless somebody dies and comes back to tell me, hah, there's no one there!

Science and Spirituality doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

[JohnnyRudick]

"The Truth" is bound up in the person of Jesus Christ.

You must first come to know Him.

"The truth" cannot even be comprehended as being such with out Him.

"The Truth" entails the spiritual realm and must be spiritually discerned.

The Natural mind only can see what is in the view of the natural eye.

Just a thought.

Bro. Rudick

[Guest tomk]

After reading the posts in "TheyCallMeMom"s thread I decided I wouldn't make this post in her thread but rather separate.

What on earth is appealing about eternity with family members and so forth? Most old people I meet cannot wait until they die, because they've experienced this consciousness for long enough.

Just think about it for a minute. Eternity has no ends and bounds. There is no getting away, there is no indulgent behaviour (because you're in God's kingdom remember, so it's what He says go's), there is no free-will anymore. It's either obey or you're out (Lucifer being cast out of heaven is a relevant example here).

I don't know... to me the idea that my conscious awareness will cease entirely in about another 70 or so years is very appealing. I don't want to spend an eternity in this mind, in this body, consciously aware of this universe, bound to any other part of this existence, ...

Seriously. Stuff that.

I'd rather be dead.

What's so appealing about an eternity of static consciousness?

It's the reason we have children. Eternal live(s). Eternal increase means trillions upon trillions of children. All with distinct needs and personalities. Some of which won't have anything to do with you (sound familiar to you parents out there?). Some which will honor you and obey you (think Jesus Christ, the "Beloved" Son)

Look around you at the wonderful, interesting variety of people! Each one loved of Heavenly Father. Each child infinitely precious! Each child infinitely and intimately known and loved. He knows us and our potential better than we do. In fact, we can't know it all during this life. But Heavenly Father knows it all. That is why only He and His Son can administer the Plan of Salvation to us. One by One.

We are promised a fullness of joy. So much joy that we can't possibly be more happy and satisfied than we are. Somehow it will last for TRILLIONS of years. How, I don't know. But that is what we are promised.

Tom