Eternal Life

[Lambert]

Life is eternal and I beleieve it continues eternally and there is no end it to it. It goes eternally even after death. Even the body is not destroyable.

Eternal life exists if we are always conscious of God. It says in the Vedas, "I have realized the Lord of Love, and have gone beyond birth and death. No other way is there to immortality," or basically something like this. Eternal life exists and you can see it just by observing life-- you must, however, realize the Self to get this-- but if you see how life is effortless, that is, when we give of ourselves we don't lose anything but receive mercy, the Self is inside us, as Kierkegaard writes "The hidden life of love," it is our deepest source, and God exists in our hearts, too, watching us and with us always, all we need to receive His mercy is to surrender to Him. And if you meditate on one thought, honestly, you will become absorbed by it, and you you will eventually see the truth of this; "How can God, with infinite power, be separated from humankind, longing for peace and deliverance-- or, guidance?" This is the main thing. And when we realize God, or our Self, then we attain eternal life.

I believe that there is life after death. Otherwise why would we spend 80 odd years suffering and such on earth? Life is so short, there is something more. And especially after just losing someone.. .it is comforting to think that you will see them again... But thats just me...

have pondered this thought and the more I think about it I think the gift of life is eternal. I believe that when a man and a woman have a child, the child carries on their legacy. Therefore giving them eternal life, I also believe that the holy grail is a woman's uterus. I also believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. I believe if you live your life in a true Christian way that you will find heaven on earth. It seems so tough until you do it. Just try walking around smiling for one day and see how people react. Most will smile back and probably say something to you. The ones that don't are preoccupied with there own problems. Namely, hell on earth.

Sorry to ask an awkward question here folks, but what exactly has this thread to do with philosophy? Eternal Life is an absurdity in an ontological sense. Empirically I've noticed quite a number of living things keel over and die (Plants, Animals, People etc.) so it's safe to say that that pretty much ends any philosophical on Eternal Life. This really a subject for theology, not philosophy. Discussing religious inanities such as this under the guise of so-called philosophy turns philosophy into a parlour game.

[Sweets America]

Sorry to ask an awkward question here folks, but what exactly has this thread to do with philosophy? Eternal Life is an absurdity in an ontological sense. Empirically I've noticed quite a number of living things keel over and die (Plants, Animals, People etc.) so it's safe to say that that pretty much ends any philosophical on Eternal Life. This really a subject for theology, not philosophy. Discussing religious inanities such as this under the guise of so-called philosophy turns philosophy into a parlour game.

Ah, here is our new winner for the Great Closed-Mindedness Contest. Congrats, Lambert, you're wonderful.

Seriously, eternal life can be seen religiously, but philosophically as well, and I don't see why the idea should be called a 'religious inanity' either. Oh well.

[Lambert]

Ah, here is our new winner for the Great Closed-Mindedness Contest. Congrats, Lambert, you're wonderful.

Seriously, eternal life can be seen religiously, but philosophically as well, and I don't see why the idea should be called a 'religious inanity' either. Oh well.

Oh yes, how silly of me! All the great modern Western philosophers believed in Eternal Life! Hume, Hegel, Heidegger, Russell: they all believed in Eternal Life!

Wow! How could I be so silly as to think rationally! That isn't philosophical at all!

[DapperDrake]

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from Lambert, any aspect of life is philosophically debatable. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether the great philosophers held opinions or not.
Would you prefer that all modern philosophy was just sitting around trading the opinions of dead philosophers and doing no thinking ourselves?

[Lambert]

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from Lambert, any aspect of life is philosophically debatable.

That's exactly my point. It's futile to argue about Eternal Life in philosophic context because any philosophic discussion of an Afterlife essentially ends with the fact that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of an Afterlife. What you folks have been doing is discussing this subject in a theological context but pretending it's a philosophic one, carefully sidestepping any mention of metaphysics or ontology or showing any knowledge of the laws of logic.

Just look at the three quotes I chose in my first post. Anybody who came to this discussion, without knowing it was in forum for philosophical literature, would think the discussion was about theology.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether the great philosophers held opinions or not.
Would you prefer that all modern philosophy was just sitting around trading the opinions of dead philosophers and doing no thinking ourselves?

Where to be begin.....

[Chester]

It's futile to argue about Eternal Life in philosophic context because any philosophic discussion of an Afterlife essentially ends with the fact that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of an Afterlife.

I haven't paid real close attention to this thread so I have no problem believing that the issue has probably not been addressed with the proper tools of the philosopher, but before I say anything more I just have to have a clarification from you, Lambert, based on the quote above. Are you saying that matters that cannot be proven or disproven are somehow not appropriate for philosophical discourse? Surely I am misunderstanding you.

[DapperDrake]

Where to be begin.....

Feel free, I'd be interested in your opinion.

[Lambert]

Are you saying that matters that cannot be proven or disproven are somehow not appropriate for philosophical discourse? Surely I am misunderstanding you.

It's less to do with appropriateness and more to do with length. How far and how widely can you argue about Eternal Life really? It's an idealistic concept with no empirical basis. Whereas with other concepts such as history, you can still argue from an idealist stance because you have an empirical basis to go on. From an epistemological standpoint there simply isn't enough to build an argument from. At least with the concept of God you have causality for instance. It's a subject better suited to a theological discussion.

[DapperDrake]

It's less to do with appropriateness and more to do with length. How far and how widely can you argue about Eternal Life really? It's an idealistic concept with no empirical basis. Whereas with other concepts such as history, you can still argue from an idealist stance because you have an empirical basis to go on. From an epistemological standpoint there simply isn't enough to build an argument from. At least with the concept of God you have causality for instance. It's a subject better suited to a theological discussion.

What's empirical about history? Could not everything be said to fall within the realms of idealism, not least of all history.
I would say that there is an empirical basis for arguing about the duration of life, and that is life itself - possibly the only item we can be sure of.

Besides, who said we have to come to a conclusion? can we not just discuss these thing out of interest?

[Chester]

It's less to do with appropriateness and more to do with length. How far and how widely can you argue about Eternal Life really? It's an idealistic concept with no empirical basis. Whereas with other concepts such as history, you can still argue from an idealist stance because you have an empirical basis to go on. From an epistemological standpoint there simply isn't enough to build an argument from. At least with the concept of God you have causality for instance. It's a subject better suited to a theological discussion.

Well this is just a complete misunderstanding of philosophy, particularly the branch of epistemology. From whose "epistemological standpoint"?

I really don't understand at all what you're trying to say.

[Sweets America]

It's less to do with appropriateness and more to do with length. How far and how widely can you argue about Eternal Life really? It's an idealistic concept with no empirical basis. Whereas with other concepts such as history, you can still argue from an idealist stance because you have an empirical basis to go on. From an epistemological standpoint there simply isn't enough to build an argument from. At least with the concept of God you have causality for instance. It's a subject better suited to a theological discussion.

What's this about empirical bases? Who cares if something can be proven or not? Discussions about things which have no real answer are the most interesting ones to me. What matters is not the answer, it's the ideas, I really don't care about truth and proofs.

[Rakthor]

I think that the idea of eternal life is horrifying. The idea of an eternal afterlife is repulsive to me. That would completely invalidate our limited time here on earth. The fact that life has an end is what makes it so special.

And I must agree with the above post by Sweets America. It's not the destination that interests me, it's the journey itself that really matters.

[Chester]

I think that the idea of eternal life is horrifying. The idea of an eternal afterlife is repulsive to me. That would completely invalidate our limited time here on earth. The fact that life has an end is what makes it so special.

I would suggest that this is because you're considering "eternal" in temporal terms. I'm seeing it as timeless. Time-less.

[Sweets America]

I would suggest that this is because you're considering "eternal" in temporal terms. I'm seeing it as timeless. Time-less.

Oh, that's interesting, this clarification. I tend to share Rakthor's feelings about eternal life but reading your reply makes me wonder. Could you explain a little more?

[Chester]

Well I’m imagining a kind of state where the constraints of time and space disappear and one becomes at one with the universe (God, if you will). For me it’s a question of what happens to human consciousness upon the death of the body. I imagine it carries on, but is no longer limited by temporality. Maybe, strictly for demonstrative purposes, one can think of it as a single, beautiful moment (of course it’s not a "moment" since that has connotations relating to time) that one never really feels pass. One exists entirely in that moment.

Of course Lambert will remind you that this contemplation of mine on the subject of consciousness is not fit for philosophical discussion. I am apparently just engaging in theology.