Eternal Life (thanks, but no thanks)

For the purposes of this discussion, how are you drawing a distinction between the two? What defines a person so that we may know if two entities are actually one and the same person? Heh, nice. I'm glad someone brought this up. I was wondering why nobody else had spotted it. So - and here's the paradox - I may want to live until tomorrow, and tomorrow I will want to live until the day after, and while that may possibly continue indefinitely, I don't want eternal life. So how to solve this problem?It deserves more attention than the time I have right now, but I thought it important to at least say that I concede that it is a worthy and important question to get answered. To avoid the post being entirely without worth, I will provide something of a superficial answer before coming back to it later.It is possible to have too much of a good thing and an infinite amount of something is very likely to be too much.This is superficial of course because it assumes that life is a thing that one can have too much of which is essentially begging the question - but for the time being it'll have to serve as at least a starting point.Here is something from the previously cited Bernard Williams:

quote:

---

Suppose then, that categorical desire does sustain the desire to live. So long as it remains so, I shall not want to die. Yet I also know, if what has gone before is right, than an eternal life would be unliveable. In part, as EM’s case originally suggested, that is because categorical desire will go away from it: in those versions, such as hers, in which I am recognizably myself, I would eventually have had altogether too much of myself. There are good reasons, surely, for dying before that happens. But equally, at times earlier than that there are reasons for not dying.

---

Basically, a categorical desire is one which Williams says gives us a motivation for continuing to exist. The options are that you will resolve all your categorical desires before you die, or they will remain unresolved when you die (by death I mean cease to exist). Too much life might be a bad thing if you end up with no categorical desires. Different argument, but at least I have made headway to supporting the notion that life might a thing that one could in principle have too much of.With that, I have to leave it since I will only end up spending more time than I have getting into it. I appreciate it doesn't really come close to answering the central thorn of the problem you pointed out, it seems to be diverting the question. As such, I'm giving this round to you

I agree that this is, basically, what I was discussing. And that we both seemed to fear changing "too much" (whatever that is).I've been thinking a bit, and I wonder if perhaps it isn't so hard to keep away from "too much" change. I'll try to explain, and maybe you can poke some holes in the following thoughts:While I was discussing in terms of "change" and "too much", I was basically considering only one category. That is "change" vs. "no change." And while "change" occurs, we can see that over an eternity, this "change" may creep (intentionally or otherwise) into things we consider to be "too much." That, generally, is the large fear.However, this fear can be easily lifted by simply breaking up the categories of "change." I'll use a relatively simply example to show what I'm talking about.Let's break my knowledge into two distinct areas: Ethics, and Non-Ethics. Ethics is things like moral judgements (how we do things). Non-Ethics is things like entertainment or academic learning (sports, video games, meeting other people, learning about cosmology, geography... things we do).So, with these two simple divisions, I think it's easy enough to get away from the dilemma. We can have infinite change allowed in the Non-Ethics department (unlimited academic knowledge to discover... unlimited entertainment...) yet allow no change at all in the Ethics department (not changing "too much").And then we can add other simple restrictions to make things more intereseting... like only allowing the Ethics department to change "for the better." For example, I would want my Ethics department to be able to change in the direction of "helping the people that are affected by my actions" and not in the direction of "harming" those same people. But, well, this all then gets into relativistic morals and how those can be determined in the first place. I'm just trying to lay a general blue-print here, not an exact specification.But I hope this is enough to show an implementation for how we can allow unlimited change for eternity (Non-Ethics department) yet not change "too much" (Ethics department) and therefore avoid the dilemma.More complicated versions may have multiple "departments" that are allowed to change or not change. And/or "departments" that are allowed to change only in a certain direction as in "to help others better..." or something like that.The problem on this would be enforcement of what can change or not change. With no enforcement, then we're right back into the problem of the dilemma. That is, if I later decide to have my "unchangable" Ethics become "changable", then I'm right back in the middle of the dilemma with the danger of changing "too much" being too easy. However, if we give this enforcement to God (He's still in charge of the afterlife? ) does that help? I'm not sure.[Aside - Maybe this is easier to think of for those who believe there is an Absolute Morality we're all following anyway? That way... the "unchangable" Ethics is already unchangable....]I'm way off into speculation-world now anyway, so maybe speculating about an enforcer-God isn't too much extra. Mabye it is, I dunno.

No matter how cleverly you phrase or conceive the problem it still amounts to speculation based on faith versus speculation based on logic.Mod's position amounts to a logical dilemma.Your position relies on faith based speculation that God has some sort of alternative and unknowable form of logic which negates the problem as we perceive it to be. If your position is to just assume a form of "God-logic" that nullifies all argumentss based on contradiction and reason as we know it, then.............Well, other than pointing out just how unsatisfactory and unconvincing I find this to be I am not sure what else there is to say on the matter.

* Highlighting used to sum up postion.The changes you speak of and the areas which can be controled are only functionable if one has a sensory system that can receive information and make changes accordingly. Without such a system no such change, whether "too much" or "not much", can take place. If it is only the consciousness that survives it will not have a temporal body, or presumable another host, to derive information so, IMO, the consciousness will remain unchangable for eternity. You will only have what you left with.At that point I feel that it will just be a regurgitation of what one has all ready collected throughout their temporal existence, and I fear this will lead to one boring eternity.Thus I side with Mod that no other alternative, other than sheer mystery and wishful thinking, is better than oblivion.My fear is that there IS a conscious afterlife that is neither what religions have explained nor what athiest thought it would be like. Perhaps there will still be a debate about whether the afterlife we all find ourselves in IS the one that god described or if it is totally different from what was said in scriptures. I would be curious to see the arguments from the religious apologetics then. I believe, having been on this forum for a year now, that many here would be more than happy to debate this topic for an eternity.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

quote:

---

You're familiar enough with the options open to you being eternal life or eternal death (biblical death involving ongoing existance - not annihilation)? The way in which you arrive at one or other of these destinations involves your will and it's expression. Essentially it boils down to a choice and they are but twofold.

​

You can carry on as you are currently doing, deciding how it is you want to direct your life, deciding for yourself what you consider good and evil to be and living accordingly or no as you see fit, deciding for yourself what lifes meaning is, deciding for yourself that there is no need to bow down to a creator (primarily because he doesn't meet your criteria for proving his existance to your satisfaction). In short, you can choose to continue to live an independent, godless life.

​

The alternative is to surrender completely to God. You give up your God-given right to go your own way if you so choose, you give up your right to choose which direction and which morality and which purpose - in order that his direction, his morality and his purpose for you rule. We'll leave aside the fact that after such surrender you will sin (rebel) again and we'll leave aside the precise mechanics of how it is you chose to surrender to God (you can't chose for something when you have no sense of it being available to chose)

​

We can summarise your choice thus:

​

quote:You chose to maintain and sustain independance from God in which case you've chosen Hell and will spend eternity separated from the love of God

​

You surrender your will completely to God in which case you've effeectively chosen heaven.

​

We can see that there is no choice open to you regarding the nature of a non-Hell existance. In order to attain a non-Hell existance you'll have already given up your right to choose outside Gods will for you - so won't consider it immoral or unfair that you can't choose the nature of your eternal life existance. You choose not to be able to choose in other words - it'd be unreasonable of you to be whinging about it after the fact. Be a man - stick with the consequences of your decision

---

That is the most hellish explanations of heaven that I have ever heard.To choose not to be able to choose?To choose not to be able to be independent?Why in the world would I want an eternal existence of not being able to make my own decisions?I suppose if it felt good enough I would be fine with it, but then wouldn't I just be a robot?Isn't that what the Christian God doesn't want? Isn't that why he doesn't reveal himself to everyone because he doesn't want people to love him just because he is the big daddy, but through faith?Why would he then choose to spend the rest of his eternity surrounded by simpering fools who only got there because they were convinced by some fuzzy feeling or another?If he wants people to come to him by choice why would he then keep everyone there by force of will (getting rid of all tears and pain and bribing them with mansions of gold *vomit*).Why should I give up all of myself (the good and the bad) in order to spend eternity with someone who will make me forget the bad? That person will not be me. Forgetting those whom I love that are in hell will remove a significant part of me away from my eternal self. Why would I want that? Why would I want to forget? Why would a god who wants voluntary worship want me to forget an essential part of my "mortal" existence, especially if that existence is what made me accept him in the first place?Of course, this can all be explained away by your god erasing my memory of those loved ones or providing some ad hoc explanation, but by that time, my acceptance of him is irreversible, no? I can't then say, you're full of shit and I want my life back, can I? Nor, apparently, would I want to.But, then, why would he not just create beings who accepted him unconditionally without all of the messy in between? If that's what he wants, that is.And why couldn't he get it right the first time...I mean, Lucifer defied him. Why couldn't he just implant some false memory in Lucifer in order to make him behave if that is what is supposed to happen if I go to heaven?I know...he's supposed to be the tyrant who writes propaganda in order to make those who love him believe in him even more if there is a force of evil against him. Like Jim Jones. Funny how the force of evil is always stronger in those tales. Less funny is how people end up dying believing in that bullshit.{ABE}

quote:

---

This post of yours is an excellent example of the kind of independent and irrational thinking that underlies your choice against God (as it currently stands). God says eternal life will be far better than here but that's not good enough for you. You have to speculate your way to supposing it such that God stick it. But this God was the same one who assembled a time/space existance whose attributes you point to as being preferable to anything you imagine an eternal life has to offer. If time/space a subset created for the purpose of allowing created beings to decide upon their eternal destination why would you suppose it "greater" than the destination itself? Would it not be more likely that Heaven will offer far better than the best on earth and Hell far worse that the worst on earth?

---

This is the same god that supposedly wants voluntary worship. This same benevolent god that "gave" us brains and allowed free will but then offers no evidence for his existence except that which we can glean from other humans who are also fallible?Your definition of heaven sounds like hell to me, but if it then becomes heaven upon my salvation and ascension into heaven and it will NEVER be changed, then what was the point of my earthly existence? Why was I "created" in order to suffer and then forget all of that and just bow prostrate to some god? Why not skip the middle step?Why not just create beings who will sing praise with their every step if that is what we will be in heaven anyway?Edited by Jaderis, : got caught up and forgot about the rest of the post i was responding to

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

quote:

---

Merely obeying God glorifies God. For one sick to the back teeth of not being obedient to God I can't wait for an eternity of it. I'm positively rubbing my hands together with glee at the prospect of it.

---

What a depressing statement that is.And creepy.And sad.Are you so messed up that an eternity of the same thing over and over is more exciting to you than living your life as a human being, flaws and all?What is is that makes you human, then?How is it that that the you that is in heaven will be remotely the same as the you now if you see yourself as so flawed now?How will you ever know the difference?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

I totally agree with you.That is, if you're right about only the consciousness surviving for eternity. I'm simply speaking about if this (somehow) isn't the case. Um... I still think the alternative I presented is better than oblivion. I agree with you that IF we say the afterlife is not going to act in the same way as a temporal body, then my alternative may not be valid. But that does not remove it as an alternative. That is, I do not see how you're going to show that it's impossible for the afterlife to behave in such a way as to be very similar to how we experience things in our temporal bodies.Basically, I agree with what you're saying here: ...but I don't see how you're going to show that this is necessarily the case. Which means the alternative I present is still a possible (speculatory) alternative.Personally, however, I don't think we really have to fear that any of this is actually true to reality. I think the afterlife has a very high chance of being oblivion, or something that we are unable to think about or even consider. But, thinking in the realms of theoretical possibilities, I do not understand how you can imply that the alternative I'm presenting is impossible. And if it isn't impossible, then it certainly still is an alternative, and better then oblivion.

I did use a form of words intended to antagonise slightly.- You'll remember back in the garden of Eden where Adam is told that he may chose to eat any of many fruits of the garden - bar for one? Well, his case models the position that we've all been born into. We too are faced with a choice regarding the direction we want to go viz-a-viz God. When I talk about choosing to give up choice I'm talking about choosing to have the "forbidden fruit option" removed forever from my list of options. In eternity I'll have plenty to choose from - it's just that all options will be pleasing to God - none will be sinful. I'll be a bit like Adam - able to chose from all the fruit in God's garden - without having to face again the option of forbidden fruitGod has received my answer on the issue of forbidden fruit - I don't want it. That being my eternal answer, there'll be no need for him to ask me that question again.- The reason why we do evil arises out of our having a sin-enslaved nature. That's hardly the stuff of free will now is it? The vital thing which differentiates from the animals - and alters our simply acting according to that nature 24/7 is a thing called conscience (or a knowledge of good and evil if you like).Conscience is God's voice - not yours. You without conscience would do only evil all the time.Free?- Hopefully this has be clarified somewhat.- Folk who are there have "chosen" to throw in their lot with God - eternally. It's a once off choice that you're not forced to take but when you take it you take all that goes with it. It's not a choice primarily from the intellect (although that is utilised along the way). It's a choice made from the hearts desire and that tends towards the digital i/o, yes/no.- You in your current state are a proto-person. You are a work-in-progress - not a finished object. The set up of your existance in this time/space dimension, in this fallen world, with the abilities of expression you possess is all temporary, all stage setting. This world and your existance in it, acts as mechanism by which your final, eternal form is established - with your own will being an essential ingredient in what you'll become.At the moment you are composed, as you say, of good and evil elements and the question is which direction does your heart plump for - because there are only the extremes to be plumped for. And it's Gods job to attempt to convince you of the utter ugliness of the evil within you which currently doesn't cause you as much problem as it should. If he convinces you of just how ugly it objectively is (is in his sight I mean) then you'll fall to you knees in anguish over yourself. If you, on the other hand, resist being brought to conviction then you'll carry on as you are - thinking you're not such a bad person all things told.I wouldn't concern myself about spending an eternity with God whilst currently loved ones perish in hell. That which makes a person attractive and good and worthwhile and loveable is the image of God in which they are made: God is good and worthwhile and attractive and loveable. That image will be removed from the person before they are cast into the pit. All that will remain attaching to them is the horror of their evil. There would be nothing about them to love anymore.My concern for loved ones is the time they have left to be convinced by God. My prayers are that they surrender before it's too late. The Bible has no place for praying or pity for the occupants of hell.- Hopefull the above explained the mechanism whereby your eternity in heaven won't be sullied by those in hell. Exposure to God will result in only one direction you want to go in. And that towards him. He's just that fantastic..- It appears that God is constrained by his own nature and that manifests in various ways. For example: the general rule when forgiving someone an offenceis that you have to pay the cost yourself. If they break a valuable lampstand and you forgive them then you don't say "I forgive you now pay for the lampstand". No, you say "I forgive you" and you pay for the lampstand yourself (or go without it). Forgiveness being this way arises out of the nature of God. God, in forgiving us, had to pay the price of the offence against him, himself - which is why he came to die.In similar fashion, it appears that true love must be chosen for. That is, not even God can create a creature which will truly be able to love him without first giving that creature the equally-weighted option not to love him.God is God and there is no reason why he should do things half measures. Total relationship means total love mean total choice. Or not.Lucifer made his choice and it seems that an immutable aspect of making a choice is that you receive the consequences of it. If you didn't recieve the consequences then it wouldn't be a choice in the first place. Besides, satan is an intergral part in Gods presenting us which a choice for/against him. Satan represents the force enticing us to chose against. If there was no force in that direction there would be no choice possible. Would there?- Leaving aside "no true believer" issues.If you look around you'll see that some folk have been convinced and believe. And others haven't been convinced and don't believe. You've got the spectrum of people from unintelligent to very on both sides - the intelligent on the believing side being sufficient to dispel the lack of evidence defence. Perhaps it's just that the evidence that convinces is closer than you imagine. And that looking in empirical bushes is not to be found in the testimony of believers.- As I say. This is where you effectively choose where you're going. I must add a rider to this. You haven't got free will so the choice isn't set up in the same way that freewilled Adam and Eve's choice was. We could talk about that more if you like.

quote:

---

What a beautiful sight. With the ability to walk on pure gold. The substance man spends his entire life on earth trying to gather up to leave for someone else to enjoy.

---

Maybe you have spent your entire life trying to gather up gold for your descendants, but I have spent my life asking and trying to answer questions that those who proceed me will possibly benefit from.I haven't wasted my existence on visions of gold. What I wish to impart to those who proceed me (I don't have children yet, but I do have much younger siblings and many nieces and nephews and cousins) is a sense that helping others in the here and now is much more important than screeching for salvation in the unknown.I grew up poor, but richly endowed with humanist philosophy. I never had to wonder at the "streets of gold" message your book of myths used to trap people into believing in your tyrannical god. I never really wanted it. I just want a better life for those who live it. That is what happens when kids grow up not wanting heavenly gold mansions for themselves and the hell with everyone else.Visions of the relief of humanity's pain also attest to the sadism of your god. Why not end it now?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

quote:

---

It's true that Mod doesn't get to chose just anything he likes. That doesn't alter the fact he has a choice between options. Most of us get by with not being able to chose just anything we want. His claim that the options are equally horrific - rendering no effective choice is entirely speculative. He and we don't know what eternity will be like so can't begin to suppose what that existance will involve.

---

So, then why do you get to try to affect Mod's choice? What makes you so certain about your own choice such that it might affect Mod's choice?What evidence do you have to show to show Mod that his dilemna is baseless?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

quote:

---

Sorry. Biblically speaking death doesn't mean ceasing to exist. There is your physical death whereby you leave your body behind. Eternal existance in a state of death would be eternal separation from the love of God. It would appear to mean, amongst other things, that the image of God in which you are currently made would be removed from you. Your ability to relate, to create, to hope, to wonder, to enjoy...etc wouldn't be available to you.

---

I'm sorry, but i don't seem to see the significance of this statement as my ability to create, hope, wonder, relate, etc as I am now would be expunged by an existence in heaven. I am not the sum of the properties that your god wants me to be. I am more than that.I might as well be "dead" if my life as as a mortal human being does not count in the afterlife.If I can't remember my life as a human being then what is the point of eternal existence worshiping god?If I (as I know myself) am gone then there is no difference. My life was pointless. I am now just a sycophant.It's stupid, really.Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

As mentioned in my last post, "force" must be exerted in order that a persons choice is empowered. Take the serpents temptation in garden as an example of force exerted drawing Eve's choice in that direction. Given forces at work, ones activity can be aimed towards neutralising forces.Stalemating an objection is a way of neutralising it. Of kicking it into touch. The person placed in neutral is a person not going in the "wrong" direction anymore. They're not going in the right direction either - but that's not the point of neutralising objections.- My certainty is the motivation for attempting to neutralise Mods objection. I rely on the argument itself to do the neutralising.- The argument given attempts to show Mod that his dilemma is a dilemma only if his starting premise is right. Given that he can't know that his starting premise is right he can't know whether he has a dilemma or not.It doesn't seem wise to tell God to stick eternity on such flimsy foundations. He's doing what God advises against - he's relying on his own understanding.

Who said you couldn't create in heaven? Or relate? Or wonder? One of the things I expect (given God's mission concerning us) is that we will be able to relate more fully that we ever could here - and that not just with those who are "close" but with everyone.Everyone will be able to do that which is a rare enough thing here - and that is to hold constant eye contact with another.- It will count alright. What you need to remember is that you're viewing things through the lens of a lost sinner (rather than through the lens of a found one). A found sinner sees no problem in jettisoning all that they have come to realise is vile and ugly about themselves. To be mortal is to be in the grip of death - why would one want to cling to that element of oneself. I don't know that you won't remember this life.You don't seem encumbered by the title of the point of this life (which is to choose for/agaisnt God) so I wouldn't be put off by the title of the point of the next one. What it will involve in practice is seen through a glass very dimly. You won't be gone. All that will be gone will be that which attaches to you and which you'll have grown to recognise as vile and ugly. You'll be you - without the distortion. You're good looking enough now - you'll be stunning thenSee your position as a blind person complaining that they'll loose their blindness in heaven and you won't be far from the point. Perhaps this is why Jesus cured physical blindness and lameness so often. To picture the way it is spiritually.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If you trusted him you wouldn't have a dilemma. "Eternal life is going to be great because God says so - the limitations imposed by my imaginings are not limiting factors for him. Because he says it will be bliss so will it be. That's what trust is, Mod.

​

The picture given to us is child/father. A child trusts what his father says. God, unlike an earthy father, can always do what he says.

---

So, we should trust a heavenly father because the earthly examples have fallen short?Seriously? Is that what you are saying? That we should remain children?Because we might have some issues with our parents here on earth we should then entrust our immortal souls to an imaginary parent who will give us everything we want once we die? Because we will be eternally blissful and we should just trust that everything he says is true and righteous just like we thought our parents were.Talk about avoidance. It's sad.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Fallen short of what - if not how we know a father should be? In Luke 3's genealogy, the line traces all the way back to the start, terminating at Adam with these words

quote:

---

...the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

---

God's goal is to have children and given that he is the only God, the intention can't be that we become adults - which is the other alternative we can picture. Remembering that Mod is accepting that both God and an eternal life exist for the sake of discussion.In the context of the discussion I was pointing out that it's not really on to mistrust God if he says eternal life will be fantastic - even if he doesn't fill in the precise mechanical details for us.Mod asks an impossible question because even if someone supplies an answer that changes his mind and results in eternal life becoming acceptable to him he still has to trust that God will deliver on the life thus posited.Trust is not something he's prepared to do in his not taking Gods word that it will be fantasitic. You can't not trust God and trust God at the same time and call it logic.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.