Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 12:46 PM
33 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,116 Year: 5,153/19,786 Month: 1,275/873 Week: 171/460 Day: 16/97 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Author Topic:   Eternal Life (thanks, but no thanks)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 226 of 296 (588259)
10-23-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Modulous
10-23-2010 4:52 AM


Re: unattractive
Modulous writes:

Yes - but the truth of the claims in this thread is not relevant so raising that objection in this thread is irrelevant. You claim 'my mind is set' - but if my mind was set I would not have started a thread to discuss it. I wanted to hear why other people found eternal life attractive, but it turns out that for the most part they have seriously divergent tastes than I do.

You have a notion of eternal life that you find attractive. I'm sure that's very comforting. I don't find it attractive, and I can't be blamed for that! Sorry Buz, you tried - but your incentive scheme isn't as compelling to me (and others) as you might have assumed.

Yah, Mod. I was thinking about my mistake last night in bed. You're asking hypothetically and not literally.

As a 10 year old child, my main reason for commiting to the Biblical life was the fear of the alternative. Then after I got grounded in the Bible and more solid reasons to remain and grow as a Christian I discovered all of the benefits, not only in this life that I've received but promises in the future life. The prophecies and other evidence solidified that commitment.

Bottom line. Seriously consider the evidence for the Biblical record and for no other reason, to begin with, fear Jehovah, the proven true God. According to King Solomon, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and that's where you begin to find the wonderful alternative very attractive.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Modulous, posted 10-23-2010 4:52 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2010 8:33 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 296 (588326)
10-23-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Buzsaw
10-23-2010 8:25 AM


Re: unattractive
As a 10 year old child, my main reason for commiting to the Biblical life was the fear of the alternative.

Hell? Circular reasoning, don't you think? You have to believe the Biblical account to think there's a hell in the first place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2010 8:25 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 10-23-2010 8:47 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 228 of 296 (588327)
10-23-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by crashfrog
10-23-2010 8:33 PM


Re: unattractive
And also have parents abusing the child by threats and stories of terror.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2010 8:33 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1498
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 229 of 296 (590063)
11-05-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
02-04-2009 9:33 AM


Hi Mod…

I ran across your post the other day and I must say that you do have a bleak perspective of the afterlife. Part of the reason I want to participate in this forum is to better understand the “other side’s” perspective – what different ways of looking at things do people have. In doing so, I hope to have a better understanding of what I believe and why. My point is that I realized I had never really thought about it before. I guess I took heaven for granted … streets of gold, pearly gates, etc, etc … as opposed to eternal suffering and torment – not a hard choice. But you brought up some excellent points that made me really think about it and wonder if eternal life really would be desirable?

Either that or explain to me why I'm wrong

I don’t think I have good enough answers to convince you that you are “wrong” or that eternal life is desirable but here’s a couple things I thought of:

If I do grow, then I change. This is good. I like changing - I am a different person now, then when I was six years old and I am different from when I was eighteen. The me aged eighteen can be said to be 'dead' since it doesn't really exist any more.

Even though I too am a completely different person than I was when I was 18, I don’t see that person as dead, but the person I am now is the sum, or rather the product, of all the experiences I have had. I would not be the person I am today if not for the choices, good and bad, that I made then. I understand what you mean though, the things that are important to me then are not important to me now. I would not want to go back and re-live those days, so in that way that person is dead. But I don’t think I would be who I am today, for better or worse, except for who I was then and the things that happened since. So I expect that is the way the future will be, who I am will continue to grow and develop.

In many versions of immortality my personality remains the same for all eternity. What horror!

That would be a horror! But the thing is that if God created us (and by that I mean only that if we have an immortal soul and are going to spend eternity in heaven, he has a vested interest in us regardless of whether he created us 6000 years ago or used natural processes ever since the big bang) … so if God created ... or designed ... or intended us to be creative, rational, curious, relational creatures who have a free will and love to learn and change and grow, then why would he “reward” us with eternal life by turning us into stagnant, unchanging robots? That doesn’t make sense to me. I think we would retain the characteristics that make us human (except some of the bad things like selfish, greedy, violent, etc…). If he wanted us to be robots why didn’t he just make us robots to begin with?

what the heck is the point of having eternal life? An eternity of stasis without learning, without discovery? That is the most hellish concept I can think of. To even spend eternity in a state of bliss and wonder seems to me to be hollow and pointless gratification if I don't learn or change in anyway.

What would make eternal life attractive? Well for me what I have imagined is the never ending pursuit of knowledge and understanding of this universe. Could you imagine being able to study and explore every inch of this universe and all its wonders? Could you imagine exploring a black hole or the inner workings of a quasar, being able to see the inner workings of a cell or actually witness chemical reactions taking place? There is just no end to the possibilities. Unless all this knowledge is just zapped into our minds (which would be boring) I would never get tired of learning and exploring. I have heard it estimated that it will take a million person-years to understand the human genome and how it all interacts and works together to make us human. How much more to understand the entirety of the universe? As mortal humans we are so limited in what we can do. If those restraints were lifted ... I would consider that immortality. Now, this senario may not appeal to everyone. When I bring up anything scientific to some of my friends you can see the glazed over look in their eyes. Spending eternity exploring and learning would be torment. But for me, I can’t imagine anything greater than an unrestricted ability to learn. I guess that’s how I imagine eternal life would be enjoyable.

So if I do change over time: I don't really care if I have eternal life.

So, my final though is about time itself. Who is to say that time would even exist in the afterlife or that we would be aware of it. Time is a human understanding that we measure based on the cycles of nature – night/day, revolution around the sun, etc … What if time was no longer measured in that way. It seems to me that it is precisely because of our mortality that we even care about time. We need to get here or there because our time is so limited and we only have so much time available. But what if time is no longer a restraint? Would it even matter? Maybe just like when you get busy doing something you enjoy and all of sudden you look up and say “Wow, it’s been four hours! Where did the time go?” maybe in the afterlife all of sudden you’ll think “Wow, it’s been a billion years! It seemed like just a few minutes.”

perhaps you can inspire some of your followers who are members here to tell me

I certainly don’t claim my answers are “inspired” and I don’t know for sure what the afterlife will hold but I hope you at least think my take on this is intriguing even if you’re not convinced.

cheers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 9:33 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2010 9:08 PM herebedragons has responded
 Message 234 by frako, posted 12-02-2010 11:58 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 230 of 296 (590094)
11-05-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by herebedragons
11-05-2010 3:37 PM


Hi Mod…

Hi, herebedragons,
Thank you for carefully considering my OP and addressing it directly with a clear and thought out response. It is significantly appreciated.

I ran across your post the other day and I must say that you do have a bleak perspective of the afterlife.

Only the eternal ones

Part of the reason I want to participate in this forum is to better understand the “other side’s” perspective – what different ways of looking at things do people have. In doing so, I hope to have a better understanding of what I believe and why.

Respect.

That's what I'm doing here too. I hope we can help each other achieve our goals!

My point is that I realized I had never really thought about it before. I guess I took heaven for granted … streets of gold, pearly gates, etc, etc … as opposed to eternal suffering and torment – not a hard choice. But you brought up some excellent points that made me really think about it and wonder if eternal life really would be desirable?

Whatever conclusion you reach, I'm gratified that I took something someone took for granted and made them consider it more closely.

There are two prongs in the dilemma. I'll deal with the easy one first.

Static personality

In many versions of immortality my personality remains the same for all eternity. What horror!

That would be a horror!

Excellent, so we're committing to the more palatable, dynamic personality prong. And don't need to worry about this direction at all.

Dynamic personality

Even though I too am a completely different person than I was when I was 18, I don’t see that person as dead, but the person I am now is the sum, or rather the product, of all the experiences I have had. I would not be the person I am today if not for the choices, good and bad, that I made then. I understand what you mean though, the things that are important to me then are not important to me now. I would not want to go back and re-live those days, so in that way that person is dead. But I don’t think I would be who I am today, for better or worse, except for who I was then and the things that happened since. So I expect that is the way the future will be, who I am will continue to grow and develop.

I agree in the case of being 18 to present age it seems kind of not to pan out. I'm glad the example sparked off an interesting thought process though so let's try something else. Let's try it backwards.

Let's imagine that I died when I was 7. But when I was 6, someone told me that I would survive my death and after twenty or so years in the afterlife I'd work in a boring job in post-life insurance, having rejected Christianity and so on. I can't see my 6 year old self caring a great deal about that and if offered an alternative, would conceivably take that. That is, my 6 yr old self has no loyalty about my present day self.

Of course, this seems to assume a boring afterlife, but the lack of caring of the future self is the key component. This was kind of what I was driving at, and again the example is just to get across the concept - not as proof of it.

When we're talking about 500 years of change - I would expect my future personality to be much more radically different than possible with the mere 25 or so years of change that I can realistically cite at my present age.

Another example, perhaps more illuminating that the last. Imagine if, when you die, a crazy genius reconstructs your personality in an android. Then he implants billions of false memories, which alter the perception of the real memories - possibly pushing some of them from future consideration altogether. The false memories also result in a changing of all your goals, opinions and desires. Would you really care if the genius told you he would do this for you in advance?

The question turns to: What do I want to survive when I'm talking about surviving my death?

Earlier in the thread I quoted Bernard Williams, and I think you'd find it an interesting quote so I'll repost it

quote:
two important conditions which must be satisfied by anything which is to be adequate as a fulfilment of my anti-Lucretian hope, namely that it should be clearly me who lives for ever. The second important condition is that the state in which I survive should be one which, to me looking forward, will be adequately related, in the life it presents, to those aims that I now have in wanting to survive at all

(From, Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality)

OK, so let's seriously consider some things here. I've raised tedium with my last quote, and it's an important point I've mostly glossed over in this thread so let's look at it.

Tedium

Forever isn't just a long time. It's forever.

Could you imagine being able to study and explore every inch of this universe and all its wonders? Could you imagine exploring a black hole or the inner workings of a quasar, being able to see the inner workings of a cell or actually witness chemical reactions taking place? There is just no end to the possibilities. Unless all this knowledge is just zapped into our minds (which would be boring) I would never get tired of learning and exploring.

Never? Don't get me wrong - an afterlife where I get to access the source code to the universe and explore it at my leisure sounds great. But never getting tired of it? After your ten billionth quasar would you not be thinking 'When you've seen a million quasars you've seen them all!'? To borrow from the Holy Bible:

quote:
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Surely - there is only a finite number of things that exist that can hold your interest? Surely, at some point, learning and experiencing things take on a certain repeated character?

I cannot say for sure, but that seems to me to be the most likely outcome of this philosopher's immortality - what mix of activities could help pass the time FOREVER? At what point do you realize that all you are doing is passing time, with no reason or purpose for so doing? When does the soul crushing depression at the interminable prospect of having just scratched the surface of time killing? After ten billion years of finding ways to keep busy - do you look forward to another fifty billion years? Knowing that you would still be relatively 'young' (and when you realize that compared with forever any time period is not even a drop in the ocean).

So I argue that fun, exciting or emotionally stimulating activities can make an afterlife attractive - they cannot possibly make for an attractive eternity.

Unless:

Amnesia

Memory isn't perfect in our brains. This is actually rather helpful - since it gives us extra impetus towards enjoying doing things again.
What if this were true of the afterlife. If it were possible to forget how much fun it was to play in a pulsar or explore 11 dimensional space, then we might be able to enjoy eternity. But this means we'd fall foul of the 'what did we want to survive for' problem. Eventually there would be a being that might not remember what it was like to be who I am now. And even if it did, it is unlikely to 'cycle round' to have the same opinions, goals, desires etc as I once did and even if it did then I'd surely just repeat what I did the first time and that seems kind of meaningless too.

We could have all the same perks with a temporary afterlife. So I think, if we follow this prong we end up in horrifying tedium or in a state where having eternity confers no more benefits than a more temporal afterlife.

Time is perceived differently

So, my final though is about time itself. Who is to say that time would even exist in the afterlife or that we would be aware of it. Time is a human understanding that we measure based on the cycles of nature – night/day, revolution around the sun, etc … What if time was no longer measured in that way. It seems to me that it is precisely because of our mortality that we even care about time. We need to get here or there because our time is so limited and we only have so much time available. But what if time is no longer a restraint? Would it even matter? Maybe just like when you get busy doing something you enjoy and all of sudden you look up and say “Wow, it’s been four hours! Where did the time go?” maybe in the afterlife all of sudden you’ll think “Wow, it’s been a billion years! It seemed like just a few minutes.”

I disagree with your notion of time - but even were I to accept it, it just compresses an infinite amount of time to an infinite amount of time. Sure, we may get so absorbed in something that billions of years of subjective times passes though it only feels like a few minutes, but that's just a billion years. We have a billion more of them and a heck of a lot more to come. It doesn't get us out of the essential problem I'm afraid.

I certainly don’t claim my answers are “inspired” and I don’t know for sure what the afterlife will hold but I hope you at least think my take on this is intriguing even if you’re not convinced.

It inspired me to read some Williams and Kagan again - that's good enough for me


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by herebedragons, posted 11-05-2010 3:37 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by herebedragons, posted 11-23-2010 11:05 AM Modulous has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1498
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 231 of 296 (592978)
11-23-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Modulous
11-05-2010 9:08 PM


Hey Mod, sorry about taking so long to reply. So many things to do, such a finite amount of time to do them in. Maybe I could get a down payment on eternity and kinda sprinkle it around when I need it

it just compresses an infinite amount of time to an infinite amount of time.

and

Forever isn't just a long time. It's forever.

Yea. You're right. It is very difficult (impossible) to really wrap our minds around the idea of eternity. Whatever timeframe can be thought of ... it is mearly a drop in the ocean of eternity. It makes me wonder if it is even possible. Maybe "eternity" really means something else - like "a really, really long time that we can't imagine how long it is", but that does end at some time. I don't know.

Another curious thing about eternity is can it be one ended? In other words, if eternity has a beginning is it really eternity? The concept of God is that He has no beginning or end. Not something I can understand or explain - but fits the idea of eternal very easily. But, my soul had a beginning (or so I assume), so eternity for me is unidirectional. At some point will the beginning no longer matter and will there be eternity on either side of where I exist at that specific time?

Surely - there is only a finite number of things that exist that can hold your interest? Surely, at some point, learning and experiencing things take on a certain repeated character?

True. I guess I could percieve of exploration and learning occupying and exciting me for say, 100 trillion years, but that is a mere blip in eternity. Again, eternity is quite inconcievable, and thus part of the dilemma.

I disagree with your notion of time

Just to be clear, this isn't necessarily how I think it is. I would say that my "notion" is that the afterlife is a non-material exsitance (it can't be a material existance because our bodies are left here on earth to decay) but we often ascribe materialistic characteristics to it. Who could say that any of the laws of physics or time or space that we know even apply to the spirit world. My point is that perhaps time and space does not even exist in the afterlife. Does it have to?

I understand why you have come to the conclusion of "thanks, but no thanks". Eternity does seem to create more questions and difficulties than it can provide answers and resolutions to. I always puzzle at the villians in movies who are trying to achieve immortality - why would you want to live forever? But I usually limit that thinking to living physically on earth forever ... not very appealing.

I think the key to finding resolution in this topic is the character of the being that has given us eternal souls. There doesn't seem to be a possible naturalistic explaination for the soul and how it could live on after the physical body dies, so if we do have an immortal soul (and this thread assumes we do) it must have been given to us by a being that has the ability to give such a thing (a "higher power" if you will). So, if you don't trust the character of the being that gave us an eternal soul, how could you trust the outcome or the "reward" of that condition? I seriously don't mean that as a criticism or as a statement of "you just need to have faith". Its just how could any manner of debate and thought truly resolve an issue like this? Would you agree that there is a direct correlation between lack of trust in a supreme being and lack of satisfaction with the afterlife?

It doesn't get us out of the essential problem I'm afraid.

I have to agree that there are some aspects of eternity that are not very appealing or at least very misunderstood and troublesome. But for me, I don't believe that God gave me an eternal soul and promised me eternal life only to make me miserable, bored and unhappy for all of eternity.

Take care ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2010 9:08 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Modulous, posted 11-23-2010 12:46 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 232 of 296 (592989)
11-23-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by herebedragons
11-23-2010 11:05 AM


Hey Mod, sorry about taking so long to reply. So many things to do, such a finite amount of time to do them in. Maybe I could get a down payment on eternity and kinda sprinkle it around when I need it

if you don't trust the character of the being that gave us an eternal soul, how could you trust the outcome or the "reward" of that condition? I seriously don't mean that as a criticism or as a statement of "you just need to have faith". Its just how could any manner of debate and thought truly resolve an issue like this? Would you agree that there is a direct correlation between lack of trust in a supreme being and lack of satisfaction with the afterlife?

This line of thinking was attempted by iano earlier in the thread (so take a look at that subthread for more details) and I'm afraid it doesn't work. People use the promise of Eternal Life as a means to persuade us to believe in God (so as to get Eternal Life). Since I don't want Eternal Life, it stands to reason it doesn't work out as a method of persuasion.

Of course, if I believed that God exists first, believed that he was all powerful, and believed that he had his shit together - then it wouldn't matter whether or not there was eternal life.

Debate could, in principle, help describe the plus sides to eternal life, posessing an eternal soul. If you are conceding that this is not possible - then the debate appears to be over.

I don't believe that God gave me an eternal soul and promised me eternal life only to make me miserable, bored and unhappy for all of eternity.

Neither do I...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by herebedragons, posted 11-23-2010 11:05 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by herebedragons, posted 12-02-2010 11:04 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1498
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 233 of 296 (594166)
12-02-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Modulous
11-23-2010 12:46 PM


This line of thinking was attempted by iano earlier in the thread (so take a look at that subthread for more details) and I'm afraid it doesn't work. People use the promise of Eternal Life as a means to persuade us to believe in God (so as to get Eternal Life). Since I don't want Eternal Life, it stands to reason it doesn't work out as a method of persuasion.

I would have to agree. I can't make eternal life appealing enough to persuade someone to believe in God. And that is not what I was meaning. Indeed I think it is a poor method to use. It just doesn't work to say if you want and trust that eternal life is good - then trust and believe that God is good. That was my point ... that line of thinking is backwards. You put it well

if I believed that God exists first, believed that he was all powerful, and believed that he had his shit together - then it wouldn't matter whether or not there was eternal life.

This is more where I stand, I guess. My 40 year old self that is alive here and now, really doesn't care what eternal life holds for me millions and millions of years from now. What matters is how I live NOW. What matters is the difference I make in the world NOW.

The other problem with a "reward" system is that one single reward will not appeal to everone. For example, in my Zoology class, the instructor offered 10 points extra credit to anyone who attended a Natural Science Seminar that was being held. I have more than enough points already to get an A, so 10 bonus points had no appeal to me at all. What am I going to get an A++? So I needed a different motivation. My motivatiion was that I am going to have to give a lecture next Spring in a NSS so I wanted to see what it was like. I didn't even take the 10 bonus points. All the freshman in the class flocked to it - 10 points was more than enough incentive for them.

Apparently I don't have a choice whether I have an eternal soul or not. If I did, I might choose to end the afterlife at some time of my own choosing, as you suggested. I don't think it works that way. If I (or we, as in humans) do have an eternal soul, we will not know 100% for sure until we die and then it may be too late. So I want to live my life now like it does matter what I do. How can I make the world a better place and how can I help make other people's lives better? Thats really what matters, right?

Bottom line, I agree eternal life is not sufficient incentive to believe in God. Even if the alternative is eternal suffering, so what. What difference does it make to us now? I guess it is the same line of thinking you expressed earlier, that my present day self doesn't care what my future self will be. So I'll worry about my present self and just do the best I can.

I don't believe that God gave me an eternal soul and promised me eternal life only to make me miserable, bored and unhappy for all of eternity.

Neither do I...

Glad we agree


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Modulous, posted 11-23-2010 12:46 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 234 of 296 (594170)
12-02-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by herebedragons
11-05-2010 3:37 PM


What if time was no longer measured in that way. It seems to me that it is precisely because of our mortality that we even care about time. We need to get here or there because our time is so limited and we only have so much time available. But what if time is no longer a restraint? Would it even matter? Maybe just like when you get busy doing something you enjoy and all of sudden you look up and say “Wow, it’s been four hours! Where did the time go?” maybe in the afterlife all of sudden you’ll think “Wow, it’s been a billion years! It seemed like just a few minutes.”

Well that happens when you have stuff to ocupy your mind so after 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000 000 years after you counted every atom in the universe twice and have nothing else to occupy your mind would you really look forward to the next 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000 000 years, if so what about the next and the next and the next and the next ............... to infinity

Edited by AdminModulous, : broke up the zeroes to avoid formating issues


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by herebedragons, posted 11-05-2010 3:37 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 235 of 296 (594187)
12-02-2010 1:46 PM


Where is science in this?
Just a couple of thoughts on life beyond what we know.

In my Nov. issue of Scientific American the headline on the front cover is this.

Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter -- An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own.

There was a major story on time in the Sep. issue. Here is a quote from that article.

quote:
Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that time ends at moments called singularities, such as when matter reaches the center of a black hole or the universe collapses in a “big crunch.” Yet the theory also predicts that singular­ities are physically impossible.
A way to resolve this paradox is to consider time’s death as gradual rather than abrupt. Time might lose its many attributes one by one: its directionality, its notion of duration and its role in ordering events causally. Finally, time might give way to deeper, timeless physics.
Emphasis mine.

There is a lot of scientific study around the nature of consciousness.

Science is very open to the idea that there is more to this universe than what we can perceive with our five senses.


Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2010 8:35 PM GDR has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 236 of 296 (594264)
12-02-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by GDR
12-02-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Where is science in this?
Edited: something went severely wrong with this post.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by GDR, posted 12-02-2010 1:46 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by GDR, posted 12-02-2010 8:53 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 237 of 296 (594268)
12-02-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Dr Adequate
12-02-2010 8:35 PM


Re: Where is science in this?
Dr Adequate writes:

Where is science in this?
I'm not sure that science is involved in this.

I suppose it isn't technically science but it is theoretical science.
I'm not saying it proves anything but Christianity holds that is God's heavenly dimension exists, presumably all around us and that time, or more precisely change, is experienced differently as well.

All I'm saying is that secular science is also open to the possibility of another universe or dimensions all around us, as well as the possibility of other time dimensions.

It's just interesting and you can make what you want of it. Obviously if someone had their theology 100% accurate and their science 100% accurate the two would be totally congruent.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2010 8:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Phage0070, posted 12-04-2010 5:17 AM GDR has responded
 Message 241 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-05-2010 12:29 PM GDR has responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 296 (594627)
12-04-2010 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by GDR
12-02-2010 8:53 PM


Re: Where is science in this?
GDR writes:

I suppose it isn't technically science but it is theoretical science.

Is that like "make-believe science"?

Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by GDR, posted 12-02-2010 8:53 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by GDR, posted 12-04-2010 10:15 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 239 of 296 (594651)
12-04-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Phage0070
12-04-2010 5:17 AM


Re: Where is science in this?
Phage0070 writes:

Is that like "make-believe science"?

It's in "Scientific American" written by guys like Jonathan Feng who is called a theoretical physicist and Mark Trodden who is the co-director of the Centre for Particle Cosmology at the University of Pennsylvania.

They probably would prefer the term theoretical physics as opposed to make believe science, but then they probably aren't as informed as you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Phage0070, posted 12-04-2010 5:17 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 2:26 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1739 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 240 of 296 (594676)
12-04-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by GDR
12-04-2010 10:15 AM


Re: Where is science in this?
Is that like "make-believe science"?

They probably would prefer the term theoretical physics...

"You like potato, I like potAHto...tomato, tomAHto, ...let's call the whole thing off. "

Louis Armstrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by GDR, posted 12-04-2010 10:15 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019