The life after death or the eternal depresion?

So we all have our believes about what happens after death, but let us focus on 2 of them:

We dissapear in the void or the one all wish for : Our souls continue on.

So now how would you chose ? Dissapear or live on.

To dissapear means you will be gone. For eternity. Imagine what will it be once you die to be like this forever and ever and ever.

To live on is... the same honestly. You will live on for eternity. Ever and ever never unable to trully dissapear. The universe will be gone all will be gone yet you will continue to exist without end.

No matter what is it after death , it is eternal.

So what would you do ? Does that not bother you? I talked with a priest but he ended up answering nothing so i just redirect my question to all of you.

According to science we will be back, so not much choice, reincarnation is real so prepare yourself for another ride

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
According to science we will be back, so not much choice, reincarnation is real so prepare yourself for another ride

even if we reincarnate that will happen to all eternity again. Can we really live and know we will be around eternally?

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

Its hard to answer your questions because you are coming from a materialists premise. The universe isnt the only thing there is, its actually an infinitely small portion of all there is (which is actually a misnomer, because infinity is beyond totality, which means there is no "all" to begin with).

When you think of living eternally in a finite space, yeah it doesnt sound all that appealing. But the concept of there being a finite space (the universe) and only a finite space is a product of a lack of perception. If you are stuck in a windowless room for your entire life, all you think exists is the windowless room, but that would be a false assumption. You just were unaware of the greater reality outside the room.

Such is the same with us and the universe. From the materialists perspective, which is by far the dominant perspective in the West, all that exists is the room, and if anyone dares even suggest that they have seen more than the (seemingly) all-there-is room, they are attacked and ridiculed.

But if you look really hard, and examine everything, top to bottom and where it leads... youll notice cracks in the room; inconsistencies... out right HOLES even that are barely patched over with a piece of scotch tape with some white-out painted over it.

Now straight to the point of your thread: in actuality, yes, existence and non-existence are the same thing, because the line that divides them is illusionary. It is an arbitrary line that is drawn by our mortal minds in an effort to categorize and divide things into sections; things that are, things that are NOT, yes/no, up/down, on/off, etc.

Unfortunately the human brain does not handle the conception of gradients very well, thus everything is either a 0, or a 1. Its either black or white, good or bad, and its actually difficult and takes a conscious effort to force oneself to think that maybe something is actually a mix of the two in some ratio.

But you see even there Im dividing it without even thinking about it... "in some ratio" is still a line being drawn, somewhere. Its just a line being drawn in an unbalanced way.

You will come to a point though, that if you consider it for long enough, that there really is no objective line between existence and non-existence, only a subjective one. Its a matter of perspective.

Going back to the windowless room analogy, to the people in that room who were born there, only the people in that room exist. All ideas about "other" people are just silly... those fantastical outside people and places most certainly dont exist to them, because they have no point of reference to correlate those people to. Its a lack of information, which is due to a limited perception. People outside the room may exist, and from our outside perspective, most certainly do, but to the ones inside, we are non-existent, and they are all that exist.

I think a better way of looking at this is not whether something exists or not, because thats completely subjective and people who take a hard stance on what exists and what does not (materialists, religionists (same thing)) are coming more from a dogmatic perspective than the one they claim to be coming from (an evidential one), but rather from a perspective of manifested vs un-manifested.

Manifested things would be "tangible". They would be "things". Unmanifested "things" (you couldnt really call them that though) would be intangible, and a "no-thing" until it became manifest, which it then would take on the properties of a "thing".

If you think about it right now, you, on the inside, are really an unmanifest no-thing. You are a consciousness that has no form and no tangibility at all. No where can you point and say "that is a consciousness". Only through indirect perception of that consciousness (on this plane of existence at least) can you say a consciousness is there. You are not your body, or the ridiculous idea that you are a chemical mix bouncing around creating electrical singles. These are things that are the manifest representation of the unmanifest true essence of the individual.

So really, people fear becoming what they already are... no-thing, and its only feared because its misunderstood. Its not an eternal dark oblivion; that is a perspective born out of the ignorance of the dominant scientific paradigm of the modern age. Being "no-thing" means you are boundless and eternal already as a fundamental truth, and subsequently can manifest ANY thing. In essence, you are quite literally the primordial chaos that imposes order upon itself for reasons that from our current perspectives, are unfathomable.

If that is understood, then its not hard to also understand that "death" is a shift in manifestation, not a change in the objective existence of a being.

Another way you could put all this is that non-existence literally does not exist, and it is logically provable that even if it did, it would not be possible to know of, think about, realize, or touch upon in any conceivable way, so the entire concern would need to be completely reframed.

Thus the question, "to live on or disappear" really takes on a whole new meaning, and becomes a much more mundane ponderence than a lofty existential conundrum in which there is no good answer.

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

That's a good question. I think about it alot. I believe there will be a Four Class state of existence/civilization in Eternity: New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of the New Earth, the Outer Darkness, and Lake of Fire.

I think sleep is a physical phenomenon that will not carry over into Eternity. That part scares me, to exist constantly without having down-time...but then again, I'm trying to comprehend Eternity from a Temporal point of view.

Revelation 21 and 22 offers a unique and detailed description of Eterity.

a reply to: CaticusMaximus

Just a quick note to say that is a great response.

The closest model we have to understanding any of this is the quantum model. Where paradoxes abound and nothing is as it seems - yet it's all true - and proven so. Quantum physics drove Einstein to drink along with many other standard model advocates.

So, using the quantum model, I would say there are 3 primary states: Existence, non-existence and existence/non-existence (at the same time).

And which state one is in at any given instant is totally dependent on the observer, or lack thereof.

But please don't ask me to define who or what the observer is. My mind can only bend so much...

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

I would choose whatever reality threw at me.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: CaticusMaximus

Just a quick note to say that is a great response.

The closest model we have to understanding any of this is the quantum model. Where paradoxes abound and nothing is as it seems - yet it's all true - and proven so. Quantum physics drove Einstein to drink along with many other standard model advocates.

So, using the quantum model, I would say there are 3 primary states: Existence, non-existence and existence/non-existence (at the same time).

And which state one is in at any given instant is totally dependent on the observer, or lack thereof.

But please don't ask me to define who or what the observer is. My mind can only bend so much...

it is physically impossible to both possess mass and not possess it simultaneously.

After many years of thinking about this I have come to the conclusion that the Universe is totalitarian and we have no choice in the matter. Also, we aren't who we think we are. So although from this Earthly perspective I may find this eternal life thing and countless reincarnations utterly stupefying where I would rather just disappear into component atoms and not deal with it any more, the fact is probably that THIS personality does not know the entire story and that once freed from it, all perspective changes.

I don't KNOW, of course, and it rather galls me when people who have no more idea of reality than I do pontificate in favor of one version or another. They don't know either, and if they claim to it's a pretty good reason to disregard what they say. That's not to say we can;t discuss and perhaps come to some conclusions, but most of it is a mystery.

a reply to: TzarChasm

it is physically impossible to both possess mass and not possess it simultaneously.

Only if you limit your thinking and imagination to this universe or this reality if you prefer.

Or what about virtual particles that spring up all the time in space?

You seem stuck in the standard model. The Quantum Model is true, provable and exists. The standard model is also true, provable and exists. Unifying the 2 has been the holy grail of physics for quite some time...

Well, there's no evidence for anything except that brain processes all stop and we cease to have anything that would be considered the human construct that is a 'soul' or any ability to 'think'. So, from what we can tell, it will go back to what it was like before you were born... not existing.

Material vs. immaterial when it comes to the human mind is purely wishful conjecture.

That said, people's fear of death is short-sighted in that we can't even process the concept of 'eternity'. I mean, people are constantly bored in the short 70 years or so they have here. Eternity is, well, eternity. And the religious idea that we drift off to some celestial disneyland where we get to see our annoying old relatives and pets and such reeks so hard of wishful thinking that it's painful.

Thinking that we have an afterlife is the peak of narcissism. We aren't actually special, by any universal observation.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
According to science....reincarnation

Citation needed

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
We dissapear in the void or the one all wish for : Our souls continue on.

So now how would you chose ? Dissapear or live on.

Its not a choice, its a circumstance. you dont choose to enter into oblivion at death, its just how it works, same with if there is something afterwards.

To dissapear means you will be gone. For eternity. Imagine what will it be once you die to be like this forever and ever and ever.

You dont have to imagine that hard, the same ahead is forever behind also, you didn't exist for forever in reverse..yet you dont seem exhausted by the wait.

To live on is... the same honestly. You will live on for eternity. Ever and ever never unable to trully dissapear. The universe will be gone all will be gone yet you will continue to exist without end.

This universe one day, sure, but no doubt by that time there will be perhaps uncountable new big bangs going on in the superuniverse scale, over and over like a nonstop heartbeat. who knows, point is, I dont think this is a one off event.

No matter what is it after death , it is eternal.

Same before life also, its always been eternal, whatever the circumstance, you have been caught in this eternity for..well, forever.

So what would you do ? Does that not bother you? I talked with a priest but he ended up answering nothing so i just redirect my question to all of you.

what I would do..
is answer questions on ATS about linear time when it is ultimately a meaningless measurement on the broad scale

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
According to science....reincarnation

Citation needed

I recommend you to read the work of Dr Ian Stevenson. He did some amazing research on the matter.

originally posted by: okrian
Well, there's no evidence for

you forgot the term "conclusive" before evidence there. there is moutains of evidence, all of which is frustratingly short of conclusive evidence. there is arguably a decent amount of persuasive evidence though.

Material vs. immaterial when it comes to the human mind is purely wishful conjecture.

wishful? considering most whom believe in a afterlife are religious and subscribe to a punishing hell that they may end up in, I would say its a fear moreso than a wish on average. So shockingly scary that they are grasping at anything to save them from the misery of eternal damnation.
But anyhow, that sentence doesn't make much sense anyhow, it is a positive statement that is immediately dismissed because all of our senses and all of our scientific tools can only detect and test a narrow set of frequencies and sizes..hense why things like string theory (hypothesis) is currently untestable..we just dont have the tools or processes yet. That doesn't make it inherently unreal though.

Thinking that we have an afterlife is the peak of narcissism. We aren't actually special, by any universal observation.

And I think so far, humanity is the most special thing the universe has ever produced, full stop.
more special than quasers, black holes, entire galactic formations, etc. the homeless guy living in a box is more special than all the stars in the sky..because he is a conscious thinking entity. the rest is just a bunch of random gas and physics.

I wonder, in a million years, do you think they will come up with a way for humanity to avoid death all together? I wonder what such a world would look like...probably soo wonderful it would be like heaven..or disneyland anyhow
But yeah, we would no doubt get bored with an eternity of life experience behind is..would need hobbies or like really immersive virtual reality so incredible that we genuinely forget who we are and live out an entire lifespan...

You're not going to be like anything for ever and ever. You cease to exist, period.

Is this really so hard for people to accept? The universe carried on for billions of years without you, and will continue on for billions of years after anyone to have ever known you ever existed are long gone.

I got no problem with this.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
According to science....reincarnation

Citation needed

I recommend you to read the work of Dr Ian Stevenson. He did some amazing research on the matter.

Ian Pretyman Stevenson (October 31, 1918 – February 8, 2007) was a Canadian-born U.S. psychiatrist. He worked for the University of Virginia School of Medicine for fifty years, as chair of the department of psychiatry from 1957 to 1967, Carlson Professor of Psychiatry from 1967 to 2001, and Research Professor of Psychiatry from 2002 until his death.

a man who studies mental disorders notes...potential mental disorders and thinks he has cracked the universal code.

look, I dont dismiss reincarnation. Actually, it sort of makes sense if you consider a ancient species using humanity as a sort of ride in the physical dimension..sure, why not.
But researching, and putting together observations without any ability to test isn't science is all I am saying, its just observations and a hypothesis that is currently untestable.

It may be true, or not..it may be people are "picking up" energy patterns from other lives, or a completely seperate entity that lives alongside us has, like a parasite, detatched from a corpse and attached to someone new, sharing the memories of the old host, etc...there are a bunch of possibilities here, some reasonable, some insane, but all fair game until testing starts..and we dont have the tools for that yet.
So..its a hypothesis.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
You cease to exist, period.

You made a positive claim
...
show me the proof.

a reply to: SaturnFX

You must think me a fool.

I'm not out to prove the unprovable.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: SaturnFX

You must think me a fool.

I'm not out to prove the unprovable.

Then why did you give it an absolutist claim?

I have personally experienced things that on surface value directly oppose your claim. now, If I was dumb, I would use that as objective "proof" that something continues on after death, that it seems somehow we survive beyond the body crumpling, but thing is, I dont leap to that conclusion because I cant test it yet, it cant be confirmed through measurements, it could be other possibilities (all being odd).
So, I simply have my subjective examples to go on..and that means little overall.
You however stated matter of factly the final answer to it all, suggesting my experiences and observations are invalid, that you have indeed solved the riddles of the universe.
I am wondering how you concluded that..surely it must be based on some hard evidence..

..so...lets see it, or, maybe edit your claim to reflect a more accurate stance of it being your personal belief system.