Great, no "Afterlife"?

[BillyJoe]

gjones,

You have absolutely no experience of your own non-existence on which to base imaginings.

A person coming out of a coma, will know what it means to not exist. Similarly, whenever you awake from sleep without dreaming, you can appreciate what it means to not exist.

On the other hand it's not hard to imagine continuing to live. It's merely the scope of that life -- its going on forever -- that's the problem.

I agree. It's the "going on forever" that is the problem. But, moreover, it is the truely horrifying thought that you might go on forever. Again, I am not referring to what you might do for eternity, but your emotional reaction to the idea that you are going to be "going on forever".

But I still don't know if I am making myself clear. When people are not horrified by this thought, I am not sure whether they are truely not horrified or whether they do not understand what I am trying to convey.

BJ

 

[gjones2]

Well, the joke goes (parody of the Kipling and Wimbledon saying),
"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs -- then obviously you don't fully grasp the situation." I don't think that necessarily has to be the case, though. People differ greatly in their emotional reactions. You're horrified by the thought of living forever, but others -- I'd estimate as many or more, probably far more -- are horrified by the thought of personal annihilation.

I don't agree that being in a coma or sleeping gives one an appreciation of what it means to not exist. First of all you do exist, and secondly what happens is sensed as simply a change in consciousness, a fading away from the previous consciousness and an awakening in the new one -- with absolutely no experience of non-existence in between. This isn't surprising because an "experience" or "imagining" of non-existence would be a contradiction in terms. Imaginor ergo sum.

 

[Interesting Ian]

But I still don't know if I am making myself clear. When people are not horrified by this thought, I am not sure whether they are truely not horrified or whether they do not understand what I am trying to convey.

BJ [/B]

People understand you. If we were talking about an infinite amount of time on Earth I would absolutely agree. But in the afterlife realm we live a timeless existence.

 

[steenkh]

People understand you. If we were talking about an infinite amount of time on Earth I would absolutely agree. But in the afterlife realm we live a timeless existence.

How do you know? Or do you just hope it is so?

 

[Bunk]

Bunk,
(any relation to de-bunk?)
BJ

No relation at all. I have used the handle "Bunk" on a local forum (long defunct) since '96. When I registered on this forum, I considered coming up with a new one because of the prominence of De-Bunk. After a little consideration I decided that a little confusion wouldn't be noticed in the mass confusion.

Prior to the birth of my daughter I was a semi-active poster; now due to time constraints, I'm mostly just a lurker.

 

[BillyJoe]

gjones,

You're horrified by the thought of living forever, but others -- I'd estimate as many or more, probably far more -- are horrified by the thought of personal annihilation.

My preference is to be able to live as long as I wish here on Earth (because, hell, there is no heaven, for God's sake ). At any time, I could choose to die but my life span would not be limited by my body aging and dying or by an external agent.
However, if the choice is between living 70 to 90 years here on Earth and facing the prospect of eternity (yeah, even in Heaven), my choice is to live for 70 to 90 years here on Earth.

I don't agree that being in a coma or sleeping gives one an appreciation of what it means to not exist. First of all you do exist, and secondly what happens is sensed as simply a change in consciousness, a fading away from the previous consciousness and an awakening in the new one -- with absolutely no experience of non-existence in between. This isn't surprising because an "experience" or "imagining" of non-existence would be a contradiction in terms. Imaginor ergo sum.

What are you but your consciousness. In a coma and in sleep your consciousness does not exist. So, in a very real sense, you do not exist. If you never woke from your coma or your sleep, you would be as good as dead.
I agree that you cannot experience non-existence because this would be a contradiction in terms as you say. But you can still appreciate what it means to not exist and appreciating your situation in the state of coma or sleep is still, I think, a pretty good analogy.

BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

If we were talking about an infinite amount of time on Earth I would absolutely agree. But in the afterlife realm we live a timeless existence.

For things to happen, time must pass. So I don't think you mean that. Perhaps you mean that, in the afterlife, you live in the here and now without thought of the past and future? I don't think this is possible though.

 

[gjones2]

What are you but your consciousness. In a coma and in sleep your consciousness does not exist. So, in a very real sense, you do not exist.

As I sit here typing, I do think of myself as the center from which I'm conscious of my environment, but Freud and many others would claim that we're more than just our consciousness. I agree with them at least in suspecting that we're not fully conscious of everything that goes into our current being.

Also -- and this is especially relevant to the topic we're discussing -- it appears that we're not just our current consciousness but our potential consciousness as well. That's a key difference between being asleep and being dead. When we're asleep we have the potential to wake up. We can continue our consciousness in much the same way as before. (If you count sleep as non-existence, then I suppose you'll have to count awakening as resurrection.)

 

[gjones2]

Let me add that, of course, you can make an analogy, which as you say is pretty good. But analogies and metaphors can be used to relate very dissimilar things. It seems to me that of all things (it's not really a thing) non-existence is the most different of all.

 

[BillyJoe]

gjones,

Sorry, I have been unexpectedly off line for three days.

As I sit here typing, I do think of myself as the center from which I'm conscious of my environment, but Freud and many others would claim that we're more than just our consciousness. I agree with them at least in suspecting that we're not fully conscious of everything that goes into our current being.

Well, at least I think you would agree that without consciousness, you would not be able to think. And, to paraphrase, if you can't think then you aren't.

Also -- and this is especially relevant to the topic we're discussing -- it appears that we're not just our current consciousness but our potential consciousness as well. That's a key difference between being asleep and being dead. When we're asleep we have the potential to wake up. We can continue our consciousness in much the same way as before. (If you count sleep as non-existence, then I suppose you'll have to count awakening as resurrection.)

But if you never woke up after you went to sleep, that would be effectively the same as being dead from the time you went to sleep.

Let me add that, of course, you can make an analogy, which as you say is pretty good. But analogies and metaphors can be used to relate very dissimilar things. It seems to me that of all things (it's not really a thing) non-existence is the most different of all.

But I think that being asleep is the same, from the point of view of the person who is asleep, as being dead. Sure, when you are asleep, you can potentially wake up (and usually you do ) whereas, when you are dead, you can not (believers in the afterlife notwithstanding ). But the point is that being asleep is effectively the same, for the individual, as being dead

BJ

 

[Navigator]

I always thought the reason so many people believe in an afterlife is because it's difficult for the mind to imagine nonexistence. It's the opposite of "I think, therefore I am". To imagine the state of nonexistence, you'd have to stop thinking. But you'd still be thinking of not thinking. It's so much easier to imagine vacation resorts in the clouds. You can believe in nonexistence; it's just really tricky to imagine what it's like.

You may be onto something there TragicMonkey.

Then again, there is an experience during sleep where for all intent and purpose consciousness decouples from awareness, producing a state of nothiness,
I guess nothingness is merely the absence of intelligent awareness.
Once Intelligent Awareness enters the state of nothingness, then nothingness becomes something, because IA determines it to be so.mething...



Here is another question.
If Science came up with the formula for eternal life tommorow, how many who have contributed to this thread would change their answer from not wanting continuation of life, to wanting it?

Myabe the deeper question is "Do I as an individual appreciate the tiny bit of life I have been allotted"?

Anyhoo...maybe there are a number of individuals whom like the thought of 'afterlife' (continuation of Conscious Intelligent Awareness as a personality) simply because life as we know it in Human form, is awesome, and there really is no point in assuming that death concludes personal experience?

Also, maybe as 'insignificant and 'meaningless' as this awesome Universe, and Life on Earth is, for many folk, the sum total of a human experience is something which contradicts the supposed nothingness which awaits one and all, upon the death of their mortal body?

I can understand how many do detest the thought of 'afterlife' as Christians represent it...
Or the thought of reincarnation (oh sheesh! Do I HAVE to return!) but I cannot so easily understand why the thought of absolute nothingness appeals to so many as the preferred state they support.

It could be that they DONT support the notion, it is just that Science has not given them any reason to suppose otherwise.

Which of course, is asking a lot of science....anyhoo...Science is hardly in a position to give any particular reason for LIFE in the first instance...as in some kind of reason other than...'it just is'...and meaningless existence I don;t imagine, would be a very healthy way to think about things...

We don;t ask for evidence when it comes to matters of romance...who does?
We do we say, "Oh I love this person and this person loves me, so we will create MEANING from this emotion and we will not have science tell us we are delluded!"

No! We get about the bizz of agree with each other regarding the love, and decide that we will 'put faith' in this Love, and even agree to share our lives together and with meaning.

Okay...then further down the track, sometimes the Love dwindles and the relationship breaks up.
This does not signify that the Love and the time shared was meaningless.
Nor would we expect science to say "That will learn you good for having Faith in Love and attaching meaning and significance to it."

No we would not...If we are truely honest, even in the event of a breakup, we would consider that the experience was indeed a good thing.

However, some would say in their beliefs that 'all is vainity' - your life is meaningless on account of your predictable death'
To attach meaning to it, is folly.

Well 'how to win friends and influence people' is one of sciences weak points.

Ya can't see Love, so why presume it exists?

Death is what exists....so much for Life.



On this premise, Science will not discover how to keep individuals alive forever, because then it would really need to provide reason for being.
Or:
It can provide the eternal life, but the Intelligent Awareness of the individua personality within that body will have to find it's own reasons and meaning and significance.

So - how would you choose, if science was able to give you the option of an eternal life as the body you are.?

 

[BillyJoe]

Navigator,

Then again, there is an experience during sleep where for all intent and purpose consciousness decouples from awareness, producing a state of nothiness,
I guess nothingness is merely the absence of intelligent awareness.
Once Intelligent Awareness enters the state of nothingness, then nothingness becomes something, because IA determines it to be so.mething...

It sounds like you agree with me, then, about sleep and death?

If Science came up with the formula for eternal life tommorow, how many who have contributed to this thread would change their answer from not wanting continuation of life, to wanting it?

I have already mentioned that I would accept this if there was an "opt out" option. However, if it was a choice between eternal life and the limited life span I have now, I would definitely stay with what I have now. My problem is with eternity itself.

.....but I cannot so easily understand why the thought of absolute nothingness appeals to so many as the preferred state they support.

Put "nothingness" up against "eternity". Go to sleep and you have "nothingness". It is easy. But "eternity"? I'm not talking about what you do for eternity, I am talking about eternity itself - going on and on and on without end. Can't you see what a horrifying thought it is to never end and know you will never end?

Science is hardly in a position to give any particular reason for LIFE in the first instance...as in some kind of reason other than...'it just is'...and meaningless existence I don;t imagine, would be a very healthy way to think about things...

It is very healthy, in my opinion.
In the above, when you refer to "meaning", you actually mean "given meaning". Well, how healthy is a "given meaning". On the other hand, in the absence of a "given meaning", you are free to find your own personal meaning. Now that's healthy!

We don;t ask for evidence when it comes to matters of romance...who does?

We all do all the time. When someone loves us not only do we feel it but the evidence is all around us. Kisses, hugs, attention, remembering. And when love goes, the evidence is there also.

Well 'how to win friends and influence people' is one of sciences weak points.

This is the fault, not of science, but of science education.

Ya can't see Love, so why presume it exists?

Well, you can. I disagree.
Love can also be a fantasy, which makes for a hard landing when the evidence becomes incontrovertible that it is not reciprocated.

On this premise, Science will not discover how to keep individuals alive forever, because then it would really need to provide reason for being.

Why would science discovering how to keep us alive forever be dependent upon providing reasons?
(I think you are implying that science cannot provide reasons and, if so, I agree with you.)

It can provide the eternal life, but the Intelligent Awareness of the individual personality within that body will have to find it's own reasons and meaning and significance.

What meaning could hold up forever, for all eternity. It'd be a matter of living for the moment and trying not to think about this eternity thing. A tall order in my opinion.

BillyJoe

 

[Navigator]

It sounds like you agree with me, then, about sleep and death?

Greetings BillyJoe

Well it is hard to say what is really going on in sleep...but it is the nearest approximation to nothingness.
Which then leads to the thought that perhaps the belief in life after death is associated more with the fact that we wake up every day, from nothingness to somethingness.

I think Paul in the Bible states that he 'dies daily'

I have already mentioned that I would accept this if there was an "opt out" option. However, if it was a choice between eternal life and the limited life span I have now, I would definitely stay with what I have now. My problem is with eternity itself.

Yes - I read those posts after I had replied to TragicMonkey...I had been thinking on it that morning - (that is another thing which happens as I wake up - I quickly forget my dreams (or the bulk of them and become aware of an influx of thoughts - which are related to the symbolism in the dreams and the daily reality of my individual life - and this download of information seems to fit with what unfolds in the day.)
If you could elaborate as to why you have a problem with enternity - think on it and share those thoughts, it would be appreciated.

To me it is like the 'other side of the coin' re: the argument that supposes that all those whom believe in a continuation of Life after the fact, are afraid of eternal nothingness...as it were...

Can you associate this problem with the fact that essentially you are existing within an infinite realm, and in this you may have a problem with life?


Put "nothingness" up against "eternity". Go to sleep and you have "nothingness". It is easy. But "eternity"? I'm not talking about what you do for eternity, I am talking about eternity itself - going on and on and on without end. Can't you see what a horrifying thought it is to never end and know you will never end?

I guess for some that would be horrific, yes. I understand what you are stating here, and the only belief system I would find more horrible is reincarnation, which insist that you eternally come back an experience life as another personality in another body, and worse, you are not 'allowed' to retain any/all of the memory of your past life(s).
Well actually, it wouldn't be so bad if you could reatin all memory of all lives.
Then again, maybe an even nore horrific thing would be to have to endlessly loop through experiencing every single lifes experience of ever single human being who ever has, is and will be.

But seriously, having an eternity of being just you, in the body which is yours now...well how horrible can that be?
Remember, you have an eternal playground in which to explore for eternity...all those Galaxies to visit....


It is very healthy, in my opinion.
In the above, when you refer to "meaning", you actually mean "given meaning". Well, how healthy is a "given meaning". On the other hand, in the absence of a "given meaning", you are free to find your own personal meaning. Now that's healthy!

Yes - and I am sure that is what I am saying. Even James won't denounce educating children to believe in Santa - he prefers the safe ground of denouncing religion and paranormal BS.
So the problem is that Children are born babes and seem to be little vessles in which adults can pour in any manner of information for then to believe.
It is very hard (but not impossoble) for individuals to tip out the crap and refill with pure self.
To decided what significance one wishes to place on ones life experience, is no doubt the most self empowering thing an individual can initiate.
However, in the real world we are faced with the daily barrage of science, religion, culture and politics, telling all us individuals "what it means" - and well, we see the mess that has created, but where is the cleaning up agent?

We all do all the time. When someone loves us not only do we feel it but the evidence is all around us. Kisses, hugs, attention, remembering. And when love goes, the evidence is there also.

Exactly! Yet we cannot SEE what Love is except through the actions and the reactions, and even then it is difficult to say "What Love Is".
In fact, apart from unconditional love, love itself is not that well defined and has many conotations put on it, which some agree with and others do not.
Also, when someone asks you "do you love me?' - you may reply "yes I do" - I tend to reply "Do you love yourself?".
This is because I have learned that no matter how much I may love someone, if they really don;t know how to love themselves, they effectively do not know what love is, and need it from others outside themselves.
This is on the surface, a natural and well rehersed/accepted human trait.
However, any who demand love from and external source, will never be 100% happy with that offering, nor trust it. This is simply because they expect love from others which they cannot provide for themselves.
So I ask "Do you love yourself?"...I get a funny look...and then explain further - "If you do not love yourself, then whether I love you or not, becomes irrelevant....If you cannot love yourself, why would you expect anyone else to love you?

Does that make for me a lonely existence without someone to hug and cuddle and share the awe of life with? (etc)
No.
It just sorts out the 'wheat from the chaff'...as the saying goes.
Believe me when I say that I learned this through the school of hard knocks.

This is the fault, not of science, but of science education.

Well okay - there is plenty of material to rammble on for a lifetime as to 'what is at fault' - what are the solutions?

Well, you can. I disagree.
Love can also be a fantasy, which makes for a hard landing when the evidence becomes incontrovertible that it is not reciprocated.

You see? "Not reciprocated" - see above.
Any love outside yourself is romance until proven otherwise (see what romance signifies in dictionary - it is fantasy)
See also glossy mags, makeup products, blah blah blah...
The real incontrivertable evidence is within the self.
Love the Self.
(this is simplistic - for 'what is Love' that you might Love the self? It is not as evident as you might think...not easy to pin down and scientifically prove a reality.)



Why would science discovering how to keep us alive forever be dependent upon providing reasons?
(I think you are implying that science cannot provide reasons and, if so, I agree with you.)

Exactly! And this is why science cannot be expected to have all the answers, and sure not to criticise the answers which others have applied to their personal journey of Life. (the gift of)
To do so is to over extend 'what science is'.
Science is not in the job of providing reasons for being, or even describing 'what love is'...or what God is.

(or isn't)

It is the old proverbial "The Proof is in the pudding" but even then, if someone says "Guru do you love me" and Guru say's "Yes I do, now get your clothes off..." well where is the real source of the problem?
In the guru, for not exampling God in a proper manner?
In the student for wanting love to prove itself externally?
In God for not finding a phonebox, doing the quick chage routine and busting up the party?
In Science for not proving beyond all doubt that God and love do not exist?

Hey! Would I be far from the truth to suggest that God need not be argued about while humans are still confused about Love?


What meaning could hold up forever, for all eternity. It'd be a matter of living for the moment and trying not to think about this eternity thing. A tall order in my opinion.

Well - funny you say that, for this is really how I am entraining myself awareness to live - in the moment.
Also, (in relation to living forever) your meaning has already established itself.
The meaning of your life is eternal, thus eternity is there for you to place your effect upon.
You are doing this already, but may not be aware of this fact.

A tall order indeed, but methinks it not an impossibly one, yes?

I see the confusion is that you are NOT going to live forever in the body you are currently in, and as such, eternity (which is apparent physically) is something of an enigma - runs against the grain of what you think you are. A mortal who will die and be no more - forever.

The enigma is removed, when one accepts the possibility that one is not necessarily going to the big black nothingness of forever, when one eventually dies.
(Please don't confuse belief in 'life after life' as having anything to do with what the various religions say will BE....I believe in the possibility of continued awareness but have no definition as to WHAT that awareness WILL be...only that it is a possibility worthy of concideration.)

Cheers for your reply

 

[BillyJoe]

Navigator,

Well it is hard to say what is really going on in sleep

It's more what seems to be goin on......nothing.

I think Paul in the Bible states that he 'dies daily'

I don't know about the bible as a reference but yeah.

If you could elaborate as to why you have a problem with enternity - think on it and share those thoughts, it would be appreciated.

I have tried above. Several times. But only Ian has said that he understands. And I'm not sure that he does because he didn't elaborate.

To me it is like the 'other side of the coin' re: the argument that supposes that all those whom believe in a continuation of Life after the fact, are afraid of eternal nothingness...as it were...

No, I don't hold a belief in an afterlife/eternity because there is no evidence for it.

Can you associate this problem with the fact that essentially you are existing within an infinite realm, and in this you may have a problem with life?

I do not have a probelm with life. I have a probelm with eternity

I guess for some that would be horrific, yes. I understand what you are stating here, and the only belief system I would find more horrible is reincarnation, which insist that you eternally come back an experience life as another personality in another body, and worse, you are not 'allowed' to retain any/all of the memory of your past life(s).
Well actually, it wouldn't be so bad if you could reatin all memory of all lives.

Reincarnation without memory would be no different than what we experience now. Reincarnation with memory would be no different from eternity.

But seriously, having an eternity of being just you, in the body which is yours now...well how horrible can that be?
Remember, you have an eternal playground in which to explore for eternity...all those Galaxies to visit....

I have already stated that it is not how I would spend eternity but eternity itself.

[your philosophy]

interesting point of view (needing to love yourself before being able to be loved) It also sounds right.

Well okay - there is plenty of material to rammble on for a lifetime as to 'what is at fault' - what are the solutions?

Science needs to be taught properly in our schools and colleges. Science isn't facts, science is process. We only ever hear about "the facts" so that we never appreciate that they are not facts at all but evidence with certain probabilities of being true, supporting tentative theories which are merely "best fits" for the available evidence. We need to know how the scientist stumbles and crawls, slips and climbs on his way towards the attainment of knowledge. This is the interesting bit, not the so called "facts".

[A bit more of your philosophy]

Again, an interesting view.

Exactly! And this is why science cannot be expected to have all the answers

No other aswers are legitimate. Answers with evidence at least has some validity. Answers without evidence?.....well, you may as well believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

...and sure not to criticise the answers which others have applied to their personal journey of Life.

Whatever rocks their boat. But what would you say of someone who believes in invisible pink unicorns?

To do so is to over extend 'what science is'.
Science is not in the job of providing reasons for being, or even describing 'what love is'...or what God is.

Then there is nothing else that can do this for us, because everything else is subjective. What are you proposing?

In Science for not proving beyond all doubt that God and love do not exist?

This is not science. It is not science "to prove beyond doubt". There is only evidence supporting tentative views.

Hey! Would I be far from the truth to suggest that God need not be argued about while humans are still confused about Love?

I suggest we leave God alone until we have some supporting evidence.

Well - funny you say that, for this is really how I am entraining myself awareness to live - in the moment.
Also, (in relation to living forever) your meaning has already established itself.
The meaning of your life is eternal, thus eternity is there for you to place your effect upon.
You are doing this already, but may not be aware of this fact.

No, I don't understand this bit.

I believe in the possibility of continued awareness but have no definition as to WHAT that awareness WILL be...only that it is a possibility worthy of concideration.)

If there is no evidence for this view, how can you make any judgement about possibility? What about that pink unicorn. I do not think anything without anything to support its possibility of being true is worth any cansideration whatsoever. I definitely do not believe in pink unicorns.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[homer]

Of course theres an afterlife . This is it . You were very naughty in your life and so have been sent to hell as a punishment unless you are enjoying it in which case its heaven .
Nothing lasts for ever you'll be glad to hear so when you depart from this afterlife you will cease to exist . Except as a spirit !
Going on forever sounds rough to me, I don't think GOD would be so unfair as to inflict that on us .

 

[cajela]

I voted yes.

In large part this is because the Christian afterlife sounds so utterly appalling that not believing in it really is quite cheering. Hell - eternal torture - no thanks! And if by some weird chance I went to heaven, who would I have to turn into in order to a) enjoy or even accept seeing other people suffering eternal torture and b) cope with eternity??? Eternity - not trillions of years. Once trillions of years are over, you're still right at the beginning. Googolplexes of years and you're still an infinity away from the end. It wouldn't be me any more, if it could cope with those two things, so I might as well really be dead.

I think when I was 21 I would have voted no, I want to experience more and more, for ever, or at least a few million years, but now I'm twice that I can begin to see the attractions of finity.

edited just for typos. Must learn to preview...

 

[BillyJoe]

homer,

Of course theres an afterlife . This is it . You were very naughty in your life and so have been sent to hell as a punishment unless you are enjoying it in which case its heaven .
Nothing lasts for ever you'll be glad to hear so when you depart from this afterlife you will cease to exist . Except as a spirit !
Going on forever sounds rough to me, I don't think GOD would be so unfair as to inflict that on us .

You are definitely not giving this post the seriousness it deserves.
If you are female I will give you a good spanking. If not, I will hand you over to Rolfe.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

.....cope with eternity??? Eternity - not trillions of years. Once trillions of years are over, you're still right at the beginning. Googolplexes of years and you're still an infinity away from the end. It wouldn't be me any more, if it could cope with [that], so I might as well really be dead.

Someone who understands me.

 

[balrog666]

Yep, cuz I'd hate to be in heaven around all the christians, or in hell around the wiccans.

Didn't you get that backwards?

 

[Navigator]

If you could elaborate as to why you have a problem with enternity - think on it and share those thoughts, it would be appreciated.

I have tried above. Several times. But only Ian has said that he understands. And I'm not sure that he does because he didn't elaborate.

So, I am asking...

To me it is like the 'other side of the coin' re: the argument that supposes that all those whom believe in a continuation of Life after the fact, are afraid of eternal nothingness...as it were...

No, I don't hold a belief in an afterlife/eternity because there is no evidence for it.

There is no evidence either way.

Can you associate this problem with the fact that essentially you are existing within an infinite realm, and in this you may have a problem with life?

I do not have a probelm with life. I have a probelm with eternity

You have a problem being able to comprehend eternity?
In what way do you have a 'problem'?

Reincarnation without memory would be no different than what we experience now.

but every life experience is different, so that would be different, oly because you would lack memories in which to compare experiences, each one would be 'the first'

Reincarnation with memory would be no different from eternity.

And this concept is a problem?

But seriously, having an eternity of being just you, in the body which is yours now...well how horrible can that be?
Remember, you have an eternal playground in which to explore for eternity...all those Galaxies to visit....

I have already stated that it is not how I would spend eternity but eternity itself.

Okay - it is just the fact of eternity...but then the only place you could be is in the Nowness of the moment...it is the only reality aplicable to you.
You do not understand this, becuase iminant death gives you an out to having to deal with the thought of eternity...the thought or the actuality.
How do you know that this whole earth reality aint just some holograme which gives something eternal something to do with eternity?


[your philosophy]

interesting point of view (needing to love yourself before being able to be loved) It also sounds right.

Might even help in the process of dealing with enternal issues, since they are real concepts which many believe possibility.

Well okay - there is plenty of material to rammble on for a lifetime as to 'what is at fault' - what are the solutions?

Science needs to be taught properly in our schools and colleges. Science isn't facts, science is process. We only ever hear about "the facts" so that we never appreciate that they are not facts at all but evidence with certain probabilities of being true, supporting tentative theories which are merely "best fits" for the available evidence. We need to know how the scientist stumbles and crawls, slips and climbs on his way towards the attainment of knowledge. This is the interesting bit, not the so called "facts".


Okay - Science is not alone in this...perhaps it is just younger than religion, culture and politics?
Still. altogether our specie stumbles and crawls, slips and climbs on it's way towards the attainment of knowledge.
That is okay and something to do with the beginning of eternity for a specie.
The study of eternity from a point of origin...


No other aswers are legitimate. Answers with evidence at least has some validity. Answers without evidence?.....well, you may as well believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

Other answers must remain legitimate in the realms of possibility, because the realms exist in human thought and awareness and contemplation.
It is the mere fact of their persistence which overides any debate on what stays and what goes.
Answers without evidence reamin possibilities...they have certainly not been proven impossible.


...and sure not to criticise the answers which others have applied to their personal journey of Life.

Whatever rocks their boat. But what would you say of someone who believes in invisible pink unicorns?

I have heard no one say this. If that ever occurred, I would be interested in the deeper reasons as to why they are so convinced.
Practical, and it allows me to keep things from being swept under the carpet....but so far no one has stepped forward to proclaim such a thing...

To do so is to over extend 'what science is'.
Science is not in the job of providing reasons for being, or even describing 'what love is'...or what God is.

Then there is nothing else that can do this for us, because everything else is subjective. What are you proposing?

In Science for not proving beyond all doubt that God and love do not exist?

I am proposing that subjective is not irrelevant simple because some branch of science declares it irrelevant.
Subjective has it's place.


This is not science. It is not science "to prove beyond doubt". There is only evidence supporting tentative views.

Again....that is our specie collective...tentative views...

Hey! Would I be far from the truth to suggest that God need not be argued about while humans are still confused about Love?

I suggest we leave God alone until we have some supporting evidence.

Well if we left things alone - we might lose sight of the significance of personal subjective reality.
Become a sheeple.
If there is a God - then It would makes itself known...depends on the nature of God...as to how It would do this in relation to the individual.

Well - funny you say that, for this is really how I am entraining myself awareness to live - in the moment.
Also, (in relation to living forever) your meaning has already established itself.
The meaning of your life is eternal, thus eternity is there for you to place your effect upon.
You are doing this already, but may not be aware of this fact.

No, I don't understand this bit.

Everyone does.
Leaves their mark as they pass through this reality membrane...You cannot move without creating an effect.


I believe in the possibility of continued awareness but have no definition as to WHAT that awareness WILL be...only that it is a possibility worthy of concideration.)

If there is no evidence for this view, how can you make any judgement about possibility? What about that pink unicorn. I do not think anything without anything to support its possibility of being true is worth any cansideration whatsoever. I definitely do not believe in pink unicorns.

To exist within enternity, under the impressions of finality is a contradiction.
This explains why eternity is something of a mystery to those like yourself.
It exists, but you personal part in that reality is stymied through rigid belief systems which demand evidence to validate conceptions.
The fact that nature has endowed individuals with imagination, suggests that reality is far vaster even than what is apparent and measurable.
In this, as a product of eternity, I enable myself the right of exploration, I am attracted to the vastness of 'God" but don't equate It absolutely as 'pink unicorns' - these fit into vastness as part of It - but not It in It's entirety.
Which is to say that there is no reason to believe that pink (or any other coloured unicorns) do NOT exist in this vast Universe - somewhere...

Regards returned