What happens after death?

Resurection? Define it.

My rationale behind nothingness is that without a brain/nerves how I could I possibly experience anything? It would be nothingness.

My rationale behind reincarnation is that, before my life there was nothingness, nothingness lead to my life. If there is nothing after life, why could this nothingness lead to a life as well?

I'm kindof philosophically torn on this.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

You may be temporal and nothing may have existed for you before you existed BUT that does not mean that nothingness lead to your life. And since something lead to your life - something must lead to all life. Thus, nothing can never be the source of life.

This does not lead to the belief that death cant be nothingness. But it does suggest a purpose to life since it is caused by something living which suggests a purpose to death.

Resurection is the rebirth after death of the body - the idea that the physical natural world has a purpose after death as well as the soul. This goes against much Greek and Eastern thought which equates the flesh/materiality with evil.

[  Edited by Xris at   ]

"And since something lead to your life - something must lead to all life. Thus, nothing can never be the source of life."
I don't agree with that. On a philosophical level, there was "nothingness" before me (or before your life) and there will be the same kind of nothingness after I die (in principle anyway).

"But it does suggest a purpose to life since it is caused by something living which suggests a purpose to death."
Because something is caused it has a purpose?

I don't understand this resurection thing, are you saring we might arise from our tombs?

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"I don't agree with that. On a philosophical level, there was "nothingness" before me (or before your life) and there will be the same kind of nothingness after I die (in principle anyway). "

You had said nothingness LEAD to your life - that is not true - your parents lead to your life - life lead to your life - in a sense you existed in your parents before you breathed life. Life can not come from nothingness but must come from life. Thus since life now exists life has always existed - not nothingness.

"Because something is caused it has a purpose?"

It can suggest a purpose. It can suggest an intention. If you found an airplane in the jungle you wouldn't assume that somehow nature blew the parts together to make a plane but that you had found something that had been purposefully created as a flying machine. Many assume the same about nature - seeing that it contains life, intelligence and what science regards as order.

"I don't understand this resurection thing, are you saring we might arise from our tombs?"

Yes, in a sense - the idea is that not only will mankind be redeemed but nature will be redeemed. For examples sake, Jesus was the first to be resurrected and arise from his tomb - yet his new body was not like the old one - it was superphysical. Resurrection also proposes a new heaven and a new earth as well as a new body.

How do you define nothingness? If nothingness is when there is nothing, then, for my existence prior to my life there was nothing.

If you don't want to call it nothingness, we can call it lackofdataness. Since lackofdataness led to my life, I can speculate that lackofdataness (which is what one would expect when braincells/nerves are dead) would lead to another life after death.

" Many assume the same about nature - seeing that it contains life, intelligence and what science regards as order. "
Now we have an argument!

Was the universe intelligently designed? Certainly their are a number of factors which seem so fine-tuned to allow for the existence for life that it seems very likely.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

However, there is a thing known as the anthropic principle. It states that an observer (a life form) will only see universes that are compatible with the existence of that life form.

Hence, there might have been an infinity of lifeless universes whose conditions were hostile to life, but we, obviously, no life would ever see it.

If God made the universe: then all physics must be fine-tuned perfectly in accordance of God's plan (if God wants lots of life, then all physical constants should be perfectly tuned to have lots of life)
If the Anthropic Principle made our universe: then all physical constants could be anything which allows for life, constants should be equally likely to be very-pro-life and only slightly-pro-life.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"How do you define nothingness? If nothingness is when there is nothing, then, for my existence prior to my life there was nothing."

Yes that defines nothing properly. However, you are forgetting the possibility that you existed if as only an idea in the mind of the Creator and in a sense there was never a time that you did not exist - only a time when you became aware of your existence. Also there was never a time when there was a lack of data that led to your life - the data for your life existed in your father's sperm and your mother's egg which existed in their parents and in their parents back to the point of creation. And again the data existed in the Creator before the act of creation.

Yes, I clearly believe in intelligent design. I am convinced that science and logic clearly demonstrate that nature was created. There are only four possible explanations for the existence of nature:

1. Nature is eternal
2. Nature created nature
3. Nature is an illusion
4. Nature was created by something supernatural

Science, through the laws of thermodynamics, has proven #1 impossible. #2 is a clear violation of the law of contradiction since nature would have to exist before it existed. #3 is also a violation of the law of contradiction since the statement itself would then be illusory and thus false. That, by the process of elimination, leaves #4. Nature must have been created by something supernatural.

We can even go further. Since nature is finite then the Cause must be infinite. Since there can not be two infinite things then the Cause must be One. Since nature is temporal the Creator must be eternal. Since nature contains life the Creator must be living. Since nature contains intelligence then the Creator must be intelligent.... etc.

So - knowing all this we are forced to ask do we believe there is a purpose to nature and our lives. I am forced to answer in the positive. Thus, I am lead to believe there must be a purpose in our deaths.

"Since nature is finite then the Cause must be infinite."
Um, not necessarily. I can create I finite baby, but myself am also finite.

Your 4 choices are limited indeed. How about I reveal my view. It will be long, I am sure you'll oppose many points of it.

* Things only exist if they affect an Observer (whether or not the Observer knows it), this means that things that we cannot interact with in *any way* do not exist
* Without an Observer, there is nothing
* An Observer's life is a series of sensations (data) such as senses, memory, emotions, thoughts and beliefs
* The order and nature of these sensations obeys certain laws (IE, they aren't completely random), these laws are usually called Nature
* These laws must *necessarily* be compatible with an Observer, because by definition, a Nature incapable of making Observers does not define the order and nature of an Observer's sensations
* Hence we shouldn't be surprised Nature's laws *just so happen* to be compatible with life (Observers), Nature's laws incompatible with life are incapable of existing

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"Um, not necessarily. I can create I finite baby, but myself am also finite."

I'm sorry - I meant first cause - ultimate cause. A finite object can not be the First Cause of a finite object - that is a violation of the law of infinite regress.

"Your 4 choices are limited indeed. How about I reveal my view. It will be long, I am sure you'll oppose many points of it. '

I cant take credit for the 4 choices - those are what philosophers consider the 4 possibilities.

"Things only exist if they affect an Observer (whether or not the Observer knows it), this means that things that we cannot interact with in *any way* do not exist "

What about dark matter or a black hole? Do they exist? We have never observed them nor have they ever affected us?

"Without an Observer, there is nothing "

So if all lifeforms die would the solar system cease to exist?

"Nature's laws incompatible with life are incapable of existing"

What about entropy? It is incompatible with life and will ultimately destroy all life - isn't it a law of nature?

When you die, you are remembered.

Everyone has an impact on someone else, leave a positive impression.

I don't like the idea of "nothingness" it makes me anxious...

"Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life"

"Do they exist? We have never observed them nor have they ever affected us?"
But they have affeced us, with their gravitational pull if nothing else.

"So if all lifeforms die would the solar system cease to exist?"
Put it this way: you will never *ever* find a universe without life.

(if other lifeforms will come after us, then the solar system will very indirectly affect them making it exist)

"What about entropy? It is incompatible with life and will ultimately destroy all life - isn't it a law of nature?"
It doesn't matter if it will eventually destroy life, the point is a universe can only exist if there is life in it as some point in time.

I know what I am saying, like alot of physics these days, is counter-intuitive. My definition of exist puts a central place on an observer receiving data. Furthermore I define it as the rules operating on that data. If something doesn't affect any data, then it is no more than a logical system (kinda like 2 + 2 = 4).

If you were to talk about a universe after life, than you are talking about something unobservable and cannot interact with us, by my definition of existence it does not exist.

Do you know a better definition of existence?

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"But they have affeced us, with their gravitational pull if nothing else. "

Are you sure? Do we know that dark matter has a gravitational effect? Or does it have an anti-gravitational effect? Truth is we dont really know - in fact there may not even be such a thing. Do we have any evidence that our solar system has been effected by a black hole?

"Put it this way: you will never *ever* find a universe without life."

Well I think I understand where you are going - but I would just state it differently - God is the ultimate observer.

"Do you know a better definition of existence?"

Are you saying that all existence is dependent? I would agree with that except for the Ultimate existence, which all other existing beings depend upon for their existence.

Why would your greatest hope be reincarnation? What if you are reincarnated as a cock-roach or a worm or veal meat? Or worse - a starving third-worlder in the midst of some war?

Is there really nothing better that you could hope for?

"Are you sure? Do we know that dark matter has a gravitational effect? Or does it have an anti-gravitational effect? Truth is we dont really know - in fact there may not even be such a thing. Do we have any evidence that our solar system has been effected by a black hole?"
Yes, because our solar system receives light in a different way because of that black hole.

"Well I think I understand where you are going - but I would just state it differently - God is the ultimate observer."
Assuming he exists. You have based your argument that he exists largely in the fact that this universe is, by chance apparently, very compatible with life despite the odds.

The anthropic principle defeats that though by stating we can never see a universe with life, so the argument that a universe with life is unlikely becomes moot.

"Are you saying that all existence is dependent? I would agree with that except for the Ultimate existence, which all other existing beings depend upon for their existence."
I am saying that things which are not seen, IE, do not affect an observer in any way shape or form, do not exist. That is my definition of existence.

(even if we don't know something exists does not mean they are not interacting with us at an atomic or other level)

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

Life and death are so much more complex than we ordinarily think...and the concept of linear time with respect to life after death is not as simple as most ordinary christian concepts...The true nature of time is the key to understanding what may happen after we die in this temporal realm...Time is a circle (or possibly time is enclosed in a "sphere of consciousness" within us and not 'outside' us), almost eternal, and events in life return to live themselves out again and again...Only self-awareness and knowledge can can generate profound changes in the this eternal repetition.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"