Another life after death

[Gozeta]

For those who beleive in ressurection:
What do you imagine heaven will be like?
How do you imagine hell will be like?


For those who beleive in reincarnation:
What do you think you would be after you die?
What would you have to do in order to become something you want? (If it works that way)

For those who beleive in "you just die":
How do you feel about being never to live again? To be engulfed by darkeness to the very end.

[Themis]

For those who beleive in "you just die":
How do you feel about being never to live again? To be engulfed by darkeness to the very end.

Actually, I thought about just that this afternoon and here's the conclusion I reached:
If I die, I'll probably close my eyes or someone else will do it for me. So what I'm going to look at last, will be my eye lids. There goes darkness and I find myself in the situation of being "engulfed by darkness". BUT I am dead. My body ceases to function, I've got no brain activity anymore and thus, I won't think or feel anymore. So hopefully, I won't be in the situation of feeling something about my being-dead.

Then again, that's probably not a very good answer, so I'm going to try it once more and imagine what I would feel.
I'd be probably very scared, no matter whether I'd have lived a long, fulfilled life or a life where I had been looking for the "rewind" button for the last few years. And I am sure I would regret a thousand things that I hadn't done or had wished I had not done. Of course, I would also regret that I couldn't bring myself to believe in "heaven or hell" without question and I would wonder what the real end after the end could bring.

[RobinHood3000]

How do you feel about being never to live again? To be engulfed by darkeness to the very end.The concept of darkness is not the same as nothingness--it is only humans who believe it so. Besides, why "engulfed"? Why not "enveloped" or "cushioned"?

Of course, what it feels like wouldn't really matter if you couldn't feel, anyway, right?

[Chava]

My body ceases to function, I've got no brain activity anymore


I think that pretty much sums up being dead.

[Shield&Sword]

For me saying I is not a referment to my body.
If i loose my hand i wont say "I without hand" in every time i want to refer to my self, same thing if i loose hair, legs or any other part i will always feel COMPLETE I. so who is I?: my brain? my heart?. all get a headache and they say my head hurt me (to whom we relaite our minds?), they dont say I hurt Me (not logic), or only "I hurt". Same thing about heart. So to whom is relaited brain and all other parts that i say "they are mine but not me, i own them".
If i loose my legs i will feel always complete, so and loosing part one by one, untle death i will remain I. For me this I is my soul, and this body is relaited to my soul.
There is something all can try, but it need immagination:
Close your eyes and immagine that you lost all sense, that you lost every thing that comunicate you with the world, no noise, you cant hear, no taste, no skin feelings, no smell. You wont feel your body you will feel YOUR SELF, for me this my self is my soul that with this body or without it it will remain complete and it will be the real I.


Hope my idea is clear. only wanted to share my opinion about death matter and how body will die, but WE wont.

About the other life, i prefer to work and to prepair my self, because for me this world didnt come from nothing, and i believe In one God who created all this and that He showed us the right thing that we must do, and He gave us brain and logic that using them will guide us to right path, not emotions.
And the smart one who use this mind, so i wont say i will wait untle i die to see if all what said is true, because will be late and will be stupid, and now its my opportunity to sit alone and think in all this universe deep thought, and ask God guideness. the thing that make me sure from the other life is that I WILL DIE, every door lead to another place, there is no door built in air.

[Themis]

There is something all can try, but it need immagination:
Close your eyes and immagine that you lost all sense, that you lost every thing that comunicate you with the world, no noise, you cant hear, no taste, no skin feelings, no smell. You wont feel your body you will feel YOUR SELF, for me this my self is my soul that with this body or without it it will remain complete and it will be the real I.


If I try that, then I feel nothing. Because there isn't anything to feel if all is lost.

[Shield&Sword]

you will feel nothing, but you will EXIST. The term "I" will remain, and the one who say "I" will remain. I meant that if you dont feel your body you wont just vanish, you will remain complete, the thing that only you will feel it (feeling your self, your existence) will be your soul, not your body.

If we see only this world arround us, it doesnt mean that there isnot another word.
For example the 5 senses are the doors of the body to comunicate with world arround us. The things that a person see are not the real things, but are the eletric current that pass in nervs untle it reach brian, and brain trnslate these signs and we see a little image of the real image that our eyes saw. Now we are in desert, lets immagine that we took of eyes of person and we comunicated the nerves of eyes with wires that work like nerves and we comunicate these wires with a computer. Then we put a program that work as eye and transfair signs through wires untle nerves and nerves pass them to brain. If we put in pc a movie of a snow area and we put voice of this area and put arround him cold air, the person will get signs of image of snow, and the brain will SEE snow, it wont see the desert, and the person will feel completely in cold area and will see him self in cold area, he saw what his senses got, he couldnt see the desert, but it doesnt mean that desert doesnt exist. hope the example is clear
We in this world SEE WHAT OUR SENSES GET, but it doesnt mean that there is not another things, because all we get is according to capacity of our senses. Bees see roses in more beutifull colors, because they see light we cant see, same thing dogs which hear voices that we cant hear, so and machines that we invented can feel things we cant feel, it depend on senses. There are things that senses that God gave to humans and animals cant feel them, but they exist.
One day we will see what we couldnt see.

[RobinHood3000]

The question I think Themis is trying to pose is, what is there to "feel" is one can no longer sense? Does the soul remember? Does it feel? Or does it have an awareness beyond the input it received in life?

[Shield&Sword]

What i mean is if YOUR body cant feel it doesnt mean YOU vanish, what i meants is if WE disconnect from this world because of OUR senses it doesnt mean WE vanish, because the one who wont exist is "YOUR BODY" not "YOU". The one who say "I" will remain, perhaps it wont be able to say "I HAVE" because the things he have can be felt only by his body, he wont be able to say "MY EARS" because he doesnt feel them and he cant hear, so and for all other parts, but he will be able to say "I" and to feel his own existence. When we say my body we admit there are 2 things, 1:the body; 2:the one who own the body.

The brain is the one which remember, YOUR brain remamber. When i say YOUR BRAIN, for whom i relaited brain? to the other parts of the body? does the other parts own your brain? or your brain own your other parts? or YOU own All them?

The body is OUR machine to comunicate with world arround us, WE use OUR body, WE order OUR BRAIN to remember.

Its like when you are sleeping, YOU cant feel YOUR body, but YOU EXIST, you see dreems, YOU DONT VANISH. When i say YOU i mean your soul, when i say YOUR i mean things your soul own. the real one, the one that cant be devided like parts of body, the complete one.
When we say does it feel? what we mean? to feel taste of cakes? in this case we need tongue to feel this type of info, if we mean by feeling the outside world then body is needed because its the door, because its the window between soul and world. When i meant feel your soul, i meant your feeling of existence, your feeling as an absolute thing that it existence is not relaited to the existence of other things. For example we know that our legs exist because there are things exist arround as and by touching them with our legs we know that our legs exist, and by touching them by hands, and by seeing them. Now Immagine that you cant feel your legs and you cant see and you cant touch them but they exist, YOU wont FEEL THE EXISTENCE of your legs, and if we cut them or leave them it wont change any thing, so the existence of your legs is relatied to the existence of other things, like touching. But if all your body you cant feel it YOU will be DiSCONECCTED with the out side world, but YOU WILL EXIST, because its YOU, its the real YOU the one that exist and can say "I". And it's existence only YOU can be sure of it no one else can. You wont vanish. Immagine that you cant feel anything, then you hear voice, will you exist again and when the voice stop you will vanish again?
The real thing that you will feel is that YOU could communicate with other thing arround you, you found a window to look through it, and you wont feel that you came from nothing, because YOU already exist.

[Themis]

Its like when you are sleeping, YOU cant feel YOUR body, but YOU EXIST, you see dreems, YOU DONT VANISH. When i say YOU i mean your soul, when i say YOUR i mean things your soul own. the real one, the one that cant be devided like parts of body, the complete one. […]But if all your body you cant feel it YOU will be DiSCONECCTED with the out side world, but YOU WILL EXIST, because its YOU, its the real YOU the one that exist and can say "I". And it's existence only YOU can be sure of it no one else can. You wont vanish. Immagine that you cant feel anything, then you hear voice, will you exist again and when the voice stop you will vanish again?
The real thing that you will feel is that YOU could communicate with other thing arround you, you found a window to look through it, and you wont feel that you came from nothing, because YOU already exist.

The thing about all this is: I can imagine all I want but I won't really be dead. I am alive when I try imaging not feeling anything. And I feel. And I think. Because my body functions, because I live.

And contrary to you, I believe that to feel anything I've got to have something going on in my brain. There's got to be activity. Because there is while I'm thinking about this. If there isn't anything working in my body, then I am dead. And then, I will not think, feel or acknowledge myself. Because I won't have the "power" to do it.

@Robin: You summed up what I was trying to say quite nicely, think you can do it again? ;)

[RobinHood3000]

I'll try :D.

How can the brain (actually, the mind -- the brain decomposes, too. Just ask your mummy) exist after the senses vanish if its contents are the products of what the senses put into it?

[Bysshe]

I don't know what happens exactly after death, but I do believe in reincarnation. I think that there are some things that can only be explained by reincarnation - I can't think of any particular examples to prove that, but there are little things.

I think I must be a reincarnated form of someone alive in the 70's. There's no other way to explain my strange obessions with old bands. I'm completely obsessive when it comes to The Damned, and there's no obvious reason for it. I'm convinced I was a Damned fan in a previous life. :)

[mono]

As with everything, and I feel to frequently repeat myself on this area of the forum, I remain highly skeptic regarding any existence of afterlife.
If I adhered to anything the closest, to put it bluntly, I do not believe in heaven, hell, or purgatory, but place great question into Buddhist reincarnation and karma, and Pythagoras' concept of the "transmigration of souls." Also related to Buddhism, I also place great amounts of thought into merely descending into nothingness, but I, of course, cannot feel myself entirely believing in any philosophy or belief system.

[rufioag]

I believe in Heaven and Hell for Several reasons and question the idea of reincarnation. Reincarnation is a strange idea to me and It doesnt explain the concept of the first. How was the soul created and by whom? As for Heaven and Hell and the existence fo God, It all makes sense to me. Where did the universe come from and how did it come into existence? If something exists, there must be a creator. Therefore, since the Universe exists, there is a creator of the Universe. God, was not created and has no creator, He is Eternal. This is why I beleive in Heaven and Hell because the existence of God explains, even if we do not fully understand that explanation, the reality of a life after death.

[Themis]

@Robin: Very well done. :D


Where did the universe come from and how did it come into existence? If something exists, there must be a creator. Therefore, since the Universe exists, there is a creator of the Universe.
[…]
God, was not created and has no creator, He is Eternal. This is why I beleive in Heaven and Hell because the existence of God explains, even if we do not fully understand that explanation, the reality of a life after death.


Aren't these two statements contradictory?

First, you say that nothing can exist without having been created some time. Then you say that God was not created and is eternal. But how can this be when you just said that it's not possible for something to have always existed without there being a time when it hasn't? (Something for Robin to explain again? ;))

[Shield&Sword]

I dont see contraddiction in Rufioag words.
Always people ask when we say God created every thing, who created God?
This question cant be asked after we agree on first saying That God created every thing.
If the verb created we give it to someone, then we cant put this person under this verb.
When we say "GOD CREATED every thing" we draw a line and we "write" every thing was created under this line, and the one who created must be "above them all" because we gave the absolute meaning of "create" to someone. So if we say God created all, then the answer must be "i agree" or "i dont agree", but cant say "who created God?".
Will give little example:
If someone ask: From where come the electricity in wires?
Here our unswer will be "from generator". No one can ask "who give electricity to generator?" because the question above asked about the absolute thing that give electricity, and this thing will like the line that every thing will be under it, but nothing above it. So the answer will be "agree" or "i dont agree". If the answer is "agree" then the question "who give electricity to generator?" cant be asked because you agreed then you admitt that the generator is the thing which produce electricity, and from it the current start, its the source and it doesnt need any thing to give it electricity. If the answer will be "dont agree", then we discuss on this question "from where electricity comes?", and every one try to approve his view.
Same thing about God, or you agree He "created every thing (giving the absolute meaning of creator to Him), or you dont agree.

[rufioag]

Ty shield & sword, yes i never said EVERYTHING was created. I said, IF something is CREATED, then it has a creator

[Themis]

Ty shield & sword, yes i never said EVERYTHING was created. I said, IF something is CREATED, then it has a creator

Ah, nope. Sorry, but that's not what you said. You said:
If something exists, there must be a creator. .

[rufioag]

My apologies, I am not flawless when I write but thankyou for bring that up becuase it is a big mistake in what i meant to say.

Haha I didnt even go back and re read what i had written and just assumed I had said what was in my brain. Alot of times, I try to explain things that I understand and they come out all jumbled, out of order, and everyone stares at me for a few minutes and wonders how many times my parents dropped me on a head as a child.

[Themis]

My apologies, I am not flawless when I write but thankyou for bring that up becuase it is a big mistake in what i meant to say.


Don't worry about it, just take another look at what you've said next time.

[RobinHood3000]

Themis to English:


If something exists, there must be a creator.
God, was not created and has no creator, He is Eternal.
I believe what Themis is trying to say is: "Huh? :confused:"

I suppose it all comes down to what you define as "something." Personally, I think the first assertion, that everything exists must be created, is flawed. To be totally frank (I apologize if you are offended), the syllogism that "The universe exists, so the presence of God is proven and obvious" seems too great a leap for me to make.

[rufioag]

NO offense taken, its a good opinion Robin Hood. I just find myself wondering at its creation. How did it come into existance or if it never came into existance, its amazing that its always existed. But these questions are for outside topic threads but once again, no offense man.

[ShoutGrace]

Personally, I think the first assertion, that everything exists must be created, is flawed.

Robin, I think that this assertion is true, if only as it pertains to the material world. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Everything material that exists had a cause. Perhaps the word 'created' is better than 'caused', or vice versa.



I just find myself wondering at its creation. How did it come into existance or if it never came into existance, its amazing that its always existed.

I don't think that the Big Bang model proves God's existence. The Big Bang model tells us that both physical space and time itself came into existence at a specific point in the finite past (I have come to the conclusion that 'time' is entered in because without material, attributing time to nothingness is illogical).

Before the Big Bang, we had the singularity.

[ In the beginning (about 8 to 15 billion years ago) the universe in which we inhabit did not exist. In its place there was an incredibly dense region referred to as a singularity.

1. we are not sure where 'singularity' came from
2. we are not sure of its properties
3. we are not sure how old it was
4. we are not even sure if time (i.e., causation) had meaning in the beginning.

All we really know for sure are those events that followed singularity. That is, observations made billions of years later (i.e., recently) are consistent with some concept of singularity: an extremely hot and dense universal beginning. ]

As Anthony Kenny of Oxford University says, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the Universe came from nothing, and by nothing."

There are a mulititude of theories concerning the origin of the Universe, thought none as widely and greatly accepted and studied as the Big Bang. Hawking/Harte's Quantam Gravity Model (which is a variant of the Big Bang) has received the most attention. I can post more about that if anyone wants. The best evidence, however, indicates that the Universe did in fact begin to exist. Theist philosophers then ask, What was the Universe's cause?

1. Everything (material) that begins to exist had a cause

2. The Universe began to exist

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause

Premise 1 is safe because it is rooted in the metaphysical truth mentioned above, namely, 'out of nothing, nothing comes'.

The crucial premise is premise 2. If premise 2 can be proven (and it may or may not be able to, though the evidence more than suggests it) then premise 3 follows logically and inescapably.

Hopefully science will progress and we will learn all we can about origins.

As far as life after death goes, I have a very strange paradoxical fear of the naturalistic viewpoint. I cannot comprehend losing my consciousness forever. Not ever again having a train of thought or constructing thoughts in my head scares me deeply. Though if I were to die, and my brain cease, I wouldn't care about it. Or be around to worry about it or fear it anymore. So the fear is entirely irrational. It only has some kind of logic if my brain is working, which it wouldn't be then. It seems like it would in fact be peaceful (though how could you not be around to experience it? I can't fathom it).

Isn't 'engulf' a good word? "To swallow up or overwhelm by or as if by overflowing and enclosing".

[rufioag]

Is that from a William Lane Craig debate? Well choosen if so. And good post Shout grace

[ShoutGrace]

WLC is a qualified philosopher (though perhaps not astrophysicist) . . . He puts forth the Kalam argument as often as anybody. The only problem is that I'm not sure where to find the most recent astronomic developments . . . These theories/evidences that I have read are all from at least 3 to 5 years ago. Though I hope I would be able to find out different if things had changed! (I also wonder if they have in such a short period of time).

[smilingtearz]

yeah... good post :nod:


As Anthony Kenny of Oxford University says, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the Universe came from nothing, and by nothing."


namely, 'out of nothing, nothing comes'.

uhmm.. but where does this lead?

[ShoutGrace]

uhmm.. but where does this lead?

I think that it leads to a very interesting question. If something cannot come out of nothing, yet evidently does, then it must have a cause which by it's nature transcends time, space, and material. What was the cause?

If the Universe could be proven to come out of literally nothing, than it's cause by definition would need to be timeless, changeless, and unimaginably powerful.

Of course, proving anything about the Universe (and especially it's origins) is extremely difficult and in some cases most obviously impossible. My intelligence is too limited to even begin to imagine how humans would do that.

Or, it could be possible that the more we learn about the beginning of the Universe, the more apparent it is that the Big Bang model is incorrect.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is used to argue that God's existence is more probable given what we know about the Universe. If it is most probable that the traditional Big Bang model is correct, than it is most probable that God exists (as it is argued). As far as I've heard it is evident that the Universe began to exist out of nothing. (I don't like arguing the probability of God's existence - I think something is inherently lost in that methodology).

[smilingtearz]

i'm on PM's for this discussion... another locked thread won't be fun!

[Shield&Sword]

Wanted to praticipate with verses that describe the creation of all:

Surah 18:[51] I called them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor (even) their own creation: nor is it for Me to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray!

The begining of all:
Surah 21:[30] "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

The space:
Surah 51:47 "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace."

End of world:
Surah 21:[104] "The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed), even as We produced the first Creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it."

As all began from nothing and was expanding, all will return and go back to 0 (opposite of expanding).

[RobinHood3000]

A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the Universe came from nothing, and by nothing.Mr. Kenny puts words in our mouths and shows he doesn't know the first thing--literally--about the meaning of the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory does not mean that there was nothing before--the Big Bang theory means that before the singularity, time (and therefore causation) had no meaning. There was conceivably and very likely something before the singularity, we simply cannot know what it is. This concession is a recognition on the part of the scientists that we as the human race have limitations on our knowledge--much like the Christian point that no one can fathom why God does what He does.

[Nightshade]

I belive in to quote joyce "the 4 last things" death, judgment , heaven and hell.
But I wouldnt say I belive in an after life becasue we would not be a live as such as life as we know it can only reffer to what we now know and experiance.

As for what I imagine heaven to be like now that is a hard one ..generally I tend not to tthink of heaven and hell much, I fear they are concepts a little too big for me. I understand the punishment and the reward aspects but when you get down tio the nitty grity frankly I dont want to know.
But Im not going to vote becaue its more complex I think than just heaven or hell or even death. Because noone goes to heaven or hell till judgment day so there is a stage in the middle somewhere...maybe we do just die for that stage but I can belive that somehow or maybe we are all already dead and just replaying our lives over and over until that time.
Death is a mystery in more ways than one and one I dont think we will ever understand.

[RobinHood3000]

Well, "I just don't know" is an option, as well.

[mono]

Robin, I think that this assertion is true, if only as it pertains to the material world. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Everything material that exists had a cause. Perhaps the word 'created' is better than 'caused', or vice versa.
I have always found the ex nihilo, nihil fit argument rather flawed in this sense, and feel that you have slightly contradicted yourself. If we consist of something, and 'nothing out of nothing comes,' does this imply that our existence spawned out of an actual physical thing? I have trouble understanding how and why some Superior Being would require breath, hands, etc. if "He" (always a rather humorous patriarchal allusion) "created" us.
Furthermore, I find the ex nihilo, nihil fit flawed in the death-sense, considering that if a mind consists of material, assuming that 'nothing out of nothing comes,' how can it descend into nothingness? Though I have a high opinion, and consider myself a partial-believer of Buddhism, I have trouble seeing how this would apply to the ex nihilo, nihil fit argument, for just as 'nothing out of nothing comes,' 'something into nothing never comes' by a rather simple syllogism.
I consider your argument valid, according to faith, but not quite following my logic. If you could explain further, I would love to hear what you have to say. :nod:

[ShoutGrace]

If we consist of something, and 'nothing out of nothing comes,' does this imply that our existence spawned out of an actual physical thing?

Are you talking about 'our existence' as each person individually or 'our existence' as everything material in the Universe?

I don't see how the Universe could be eternal or how we could ever go about knowing that it was. It had to have come from somewhere, right? I mean, I feel cheated when I say to myself that the Universe was always there and it is continually changing forms and properties and has been doing so forever. I still want to ask myself where the material came from in the first place. It may be that we will never know the answer to that question - it may be that question doesn't even really matter - I don't think that people's objection to believing in God's existence stems from astrophysics, anyway.

Besides, I think that astronomy/cosmology, as much as we have learned so far, right now, has given us much evidence that the Universe began to exist at a specific time in the past.

I think that by definition some entity which could cause material to exist out of nothing must necessarily exist outside of the material world. We can all change the property of material, effect it and manipulate it. We can't destroy or create it though.

But Robin pointed out that we don't know what was before the Singularity, or very much about the Singularity itself, really. Like I said, the Big Bang model does not prove God's existence at all.

If it could be proven that there was a time when nothing at all existed, then I think that would be a proof of a causal agent of the Universe which transcends both material and time. That, I'm kind of assuming, is impossible. And of course, I wouldn't know, seeing as how I am not an expert (in anything) in the field. I think we all eargerly await what those folks have to say about things.

I don't think that this is contradictory because 'out of nothing, nothing comes' is a naturalistic truth. It doesn't take into account untangible, immaterial things (which I am saying would need to exist if the Universe did in fact come from nothing). Does that make sense? Out of nothing, nothing physical can come, in a naturalistic worldview. If an entity existing outside of space/material doesn't exist, than 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' is true. And if we could be sure that something did come from nothing, than it by definition entails the supernatural.


I have trouble understanding how and why some Superior Being would require breath, hands, etc. if "He" (always a rather humorous patriarchal allusion) "created" us.

I'm not sure what you mean about the breath and the hands, could you help me? Incidentally, I don't think that the 'He' is humorous. My own opinion. :D


Furthermore, I find the ex nihilo, nihil fit flawed in the death-sense, considering that if a mind consists of material, assuming that 'nothing out of nothing comes,' how can it descend into nothingness? Though I have a high opinion, and consider myself a partial-believer of Buddhism, I have trouble seeing how this would apply to the ex nihilo, nihil fit argument, for just as 'nothing out of nothing comes,' 'something into nothing never comes' by a rather simple syllogism.

I'm not sure exactly what is going on here. I don't think that our minds descend into nothingness. Physically, our brain matter will deteriorate, be cremated or eaten by worms or whatever.

I don't think that our minds are entirely physical and material. Is a thought quantifiable? It consists of a brain synapse firing, I suppose, but I think that it goes beyond that. The truth 'out of nothing, nothing comes', as far as I know, doesn't apply to the mind. I have always assumed that 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' applied to physical matter, material things. Ideas aren't applicable, I don't think.

I'm also not comfortable indulging myself in the syllogism you presented. I don't think that I am qualified to make that deduction - I don't have a good enough undersanding of metaphysics.

Did that post make sense at all? I just ate some cod fillets so I have to beg your indulgence.

[mono]

I think that by definition some entity which could cause material to exist out of nothing must necessarily exist outside of the material world. We can all change the property of material, effect it and manipulate it. We can't destroy or create it though.

I don't think that this is contradictory because 'out of nothing, nothing comes' is a naturalistic truth. It doesn't take into account untangible, immaterial things (which I am saying would need to exist if the Universe did in fact come from nothing). Does that make sense? Out of nothing, nothing physical can come, in a naturalistic worldview. If an entity existing outside of space/material doesn't exist, than 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' is true. And if we could be sure that something did come from nothing, than it by definition entails the supernatural.
By the many sentences you constructed, do you imply that a Superior Being exists outside of material? This, I think, would contradict the concept that a Superior Being, if indeed "He"/"She"/"It" exists, proves as finite, and further implies that a Superior Being, assuming its existence, created its own limitations. The thought seems infallible! If ex nihilo, nihil fit, and, as many religions boast, "everything comes from one cause," and some Superior Being exists outside of material, then this implies that we consist of nothing; I, for one, feel that I do not consist of nothing, according to a humanistic cognition. Perhaps, this, if one's mind unimaginably descends into nothingness, would support the Buddhist ideal of attaining Buddhahood, no longer subjecting one's self to the cycle of life, though I remain skeptical.
If indeed, however, some Superior Being exists, I would not contradict "His"/"Her"/"Its" infinity, nor that it consists of nothing, nor would I imply that we consist of nothing. Furthermore, I would never go as far to say that a Supreme Being, again, assuming its existence, consists of material as humans do (honestly why would a Supreme Being need a liver and kidneys?).
Perhaps this points out the finite state of life (and maybe death), and the infinite state of any Supreme Being or nothingness (which may also imply death, yet more 'absolutely,' in a philosophical sense), as Sartre would say.

[ShoutGrace]

By the many sentences you constructed, do you imply that a Superior Being exists outside of material?

If there was a Supreme Being which created our Universe out of nothing, I do believe that it would be immaterial, yes. If it matters, I can clearly state that I do believe that there is a God, and that He is immaterial.



This, I think, would contradict the concept that a Superior Being, if indeed "He"/"She"/"It" exists, proves as finite, and further implies that a Superior Being, assuming its existence, created its own limitations.

I think the thing that I am not understanding here is the phrase 'proves as finite'. I'm limited, can you help me understand that?


If ex nihilo, nihil fit, and, as many religions boast, "everything comes from one cause," and some Superior Being exists outside of material, then this implies that we consist of nothing; I, for one, feel that I do not consist of nothing, according to a humanistic cognition.

I'm not sure how the idea of everything stemming from a singular cause and God existing immaterially implies that we consist of nothing. Can you please expound on that idea?


If indeed, however, some Superior Being exists, I would not contradict "His"/"Her"/"Its" infinity, nor that it consists of nothing, nor would I imply that we consist of nothing.

I'm really not sure if I claimed that we consist of nothing. I don't intend to say that God is finite. I don't think that God is a physical being existing in our Universe somewhere - I think the He transcends space/material.

I think that perhaps the argument would be better worded "Out of nothing, nothing can possibly come".


Furthermore, I would never go as far to say that a Supreme Being, again, assuming its existence, consists of material as humans do (honestly why would a Supreme Being need a liver and kidneys?).

Neither would I! I too question why a Supreme Being would need organs. :D

[mono]

If there was a Supreme Being which created our Universe out of nothing, I do believe that it would be immaterial, yes. If it matters, I can clearly state that I do believe that there is a God, and that He is immaterial . . . I think the thing that I am not understanding here is the phrase 'proves as finite'. I'm limited, can you help me understand that?
When you stated the following, I feel that this definitely implies that a Supreme Being, according to your definition, exists outside of material, despite of immaterial consistency (and how a Supreme Being of male gender can consist of immaterial consistency, I have no idea). Stating that a Supreme Being does not exist within the bounds of material, as well as the imperceptive immaterial, also contradicts the concept that a Supreme Being, assuming "His"/"Her"/"Its" existence again, seems infinite, for it furthermore states that a Supreme Being has not only created material, but has created boundaries, agreeing much with the Epicurean philosophy (not of ethics, however - rest assured :D).

I think that by definition some entity which could cause material to exist out of nothing must necessarily exist outside of the material world. We can all change the property of material, effect it and manipulate it. We can't destroy or create it though.
----------


I'm not sure how the idea of everything stemming from a singular cause and God existing immaterially implies that we consist of nothing. Can you please expound on that idea? . . . I'm really not sure if I claimed that we consist of nothing. I don't intend to say that God is finite. I don't think that God is a physical being existing in our Universe somewhere - I think the He transcends space/material.
Of course, sir. I followed up this idea on your statement of imposing bounds on which a Supreme Being has given "Himself"/"Herself"/"Itself," stating that if a Supreme Being has created something outside of its bounds, and assuming the correctness that many common religions state of everything stemming from one cause, though, as you stated, existing outside of materialistic limits, that assumes that we consist of nothing; it implies that we seem directly apart from any singular Creator by "His"/"Her"/"Its" choice, and that we never had contact. Hence, if you figure that a Supreme Being created material, despite "His"/"Her"/"Its" imperceptible immaterial consistency, everything would have an element of, or seem synonymous with, immaterial, thereby proving the infinity of a Supreme Being, as always, assuming its existence.
Of course, not wandering too far from the thread's topic, rather than making this into an ontological argument, I believe this attributes itself to any existence of heaven, hell, or purgatory; in my belief, this can also extend into what seem assumed as the limits of a Superior Being, a devil (Satan), and co.
By saying that heaven exists as "God's Home" and hell exists as "Satan's lair" (I cannot keep up-to-date with the alternative terms, I apologize), I believe this also implies the finite existence of a Superior Being and Satan, both questionably immaterial, and evil especially present in any mind, despite any claimed purity.
When I find myself limited to my home, I consider myself finite (always finite, regardless), yet I feel this syllogism further extends to assuming "God is at home" in "heaven," and "Satan is at home" in "hell." If, indeed, these lands exist, where? If they exist in the ever-expanding universe, this directs attention that they exist separate from Earth (as I have not observed either "land" anywhere), further telling of a finite existence of "God's Home" and "Satan's Home," implying even more directly of their finite existence, contradicting any infinity of a Superior Being.
To me, material does not consist of a bundle of atoms, but I also must consider the immeasurable space between atoms, between the electrons, between the protons, between the neutrons, and between the protons and electrons. Whether one can consider this partially conceivable as "immaterial," I remain very skeptical, but even atoms have an age (estimated at 10^30 years), thereby proving the finite and temporary presence of material objects. If some "land," such as heaven or hell, exists, calling it a land, or even referring to it as a "land" by verbal consequence, states that it has an age, and it also remains finite and of temporary presence, just like humans; and if that seems where a Supreme Being, Satan, or our souls rest, this may also point out the fault of calling heaven or hell a "land," "home," or "resting place."
My opinion of what remains after death: transcendentalism - something beyond comprehension. If, at least, most knowledge, wisdom, etc. seems attainable during life, then the opposite of life, death, may involve nothing to speak of, seeming entirely of something (though I cannot refer to it even as "something") incomprehensible.

[RobinHood3000]

I don't see how the Universe could be eternal or how we could ever go about knowing that it was. It had to have come from somewhere, right? I mean, I feel cheated when I say to myself that the Universe was always there and it is continually changing forms and properties and has been doing so forever. I still want to ask myself where the material came from in the first place. It may be that we will never know the answer to that question - it may be that question doesn't even really matter - I don't think that people's objection to believing in God's existence stems from astrophysics, anyway.

Besides, I think that astronomy/cosmology, as much as we have learned so far, right now, has given us much evidence that the Universe began to exist at a specific time in the past.By the same token, I get the feeling that certain people's desire to teach "intelligent design" stems from a desire for equality in the classroom. But that's a totally different (and in my opinion, slightly more petty) debate.


If it could be proven that there was a time when nothing at all existed, then I think that would be a proof of a causal agent of the Universe which transcends both material and time. That, I'm kind of assuming, is impossible.Exactamundo.

[Truth Untold]

i'm gonna say reincarnation as i know of a fwe past lives of my own.

[Bysshe]

i'm gonna say reincarnation as i know of a fwe past lives of my own.

Agreed. Of course, it may just be wishful thinking, but I like to think that I can remember little details from previous lives...

[RJbibliophil]

I believe that all people who have died will be resurrected on the last day. They will be judged by their holiness. Either they are holy, or they are not holy. Everyone is unholy, but those who accept God's offer are clothed in Christ's righteousness.

The holy will live with God in Heaven forever, it will be the most amazing place ever, we will be fulfilled and satisfied, no reason to worry. The unholy will be seperated from God forever, and I think that must be horrible.

If I die, my body will rest until the resurrection of the dead, but my soul will still be in Heaven. At the resurrection, my body will be made perfect, like the body Jesus shows in the transfiguration and after he arose from the dead.

@david, why have you not voted yet?

[Mililalil XXIV]

The concept of darkness is not the same as nothingness--it is only humans who believe it so. Besides, why "engulfed"? Why not "enveloped" or "cushioned"?

Of course, what it feels like wouldn't really matter if you couldn't feel, anyway, right?
Deprivation of light seems reasonable to infer for the nonexistent, and a lack of light is darkness. Blackness is another matter. That is a visible lack of light. Darkness is percieved as black. There is no other picture of it. A lack of light where there is nothing to bear light is in no place at all, and, thus, a concept invisible to us.

[RobinHood3000]

Deprivation of light seems reasonable to infer for the nonexistentThat's where I disagree. Nothingness is not just the absence of light--it is the absence of the absence of light. There is no "seeing," "feeling," or "sensing" in nothingness, and hence light and dark are insignificant.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm not sure what you mean about the breath and the hands, could you help me? Incidentally, I don't think that the 'He' is humorous. My own opinion.Sorry to backtrack, but this caught my eye. The concept of a supreme being having a sex is ridiculous because if one exists, it is certainly immaterial, as you've said yourself. Somthing that lacks matter would obviously also lack a sex. The fact that most modern churches refer to god as male is, from a feminist point of view, a comically obvious allusion to the patriarchy.

"God is male, therefore I'm closer to being God than you are, therefore iron my shirt."

It seems to me that if I assume God exists, and I further assume that God is human enough to have a sex, and that It originally created life, than it is more likely that It is female. Females, the last time I checked, are the ones who give birth more often. This line of thinking becomes silly very quickly because I'm making a lot of assumptions that I think are absurd.

P.S. I am male.

[rufioag]

Just my 2 cents...God doesnt have a sex. The reference to He, Him, etc is a sign of authority and respect.

[RobinHood3000]

I think what cuppajoe is pointing out, though, is that it is a remnant of patriarchal society that male pronouns seem to command more respect than female pronouns.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Sorry to backtrack, but this caught my eye. The concept of a supreme being having a sex is ridiculous because if one exists, it is certainly immaterial, as you've said yourself. Somthing that lacks matter would obviously also lack a sex. The fact that most modern churches refer to god as male is, from a feminist point of view, a comically obvious allusion to the patriarchy.

"God is male, therefore I'm closer to being God than you are, therefore iron my shirt."

It seems to me that if I assume God exists, and I further assume that God is human enough to have a sex, and that It originally created life, than it is more likely that It is female. Females, the last time I checked, are the ones who give birth more often. This line of thinking becomes silly very quickly because I'm making a lot of assumptions that I think are absurd.

P.S. I am male.
Modern minds have a thoroughly faulty notion about this so-called sexual language about GOD. The so-called "feminine" aspect in language is not a sexual aspect. Referring to those of the female sex, a sexual component comes into play, but the so-called "feminine cases" are simply the cases employed to cover this linguistic corner. Most things in a feminine case have no sex at all, and, thus, if they are truly feminine at all, it is in a wholly impersinal, non-sexual way.

Latin "aqua" is called "feminine" why? Not at all, obviously, for sex, but merely for the case endings it possesses, also used in the few situations that are both sexual and feminine. Femininity outside of the sexual aspect of sexual beings, has always had an element of derivation from a prototype. I could better get into this in a thread just for the subject, but suffice it here to say what I am saying. The idea of goddesses needn't have originally meant anything sexual. I have done extensive studies on religions with goddesses in them, and many of them also contain them in triple sum. Often these religions postulate a single male entity over them, whose daughters they are, and this being can't strictly be seen as male in a sexual sense. This, for many reasons, seems to me to be a case of an ancient tradition of THREE PERSONS as DEITY being speculated about, in which the DEITY common between THEM is seen as preceding and/or causing the THREE PERSONS of the GODHEAD, instead, instead of seeing THEM as mutualluy SELF-existing without making THEIR shared DEITY yet a fourth person from whom a TRINITY of PERSONS derives.

Thought of in the non-sexual, more basic idea of "feminine", this pattern of three goddesses was an attempt to explain how THREE be of one DEITY, taking a view of the PERSONS as a result of the Nature they share. The commonality, it seems, being thought of as masculine, not sexually, but as the prototype, came to be separated into another person, higher than the originally contemplated PERSONS, WHOM, being now thought of as derived from the personified common divine root, were only later recast in the image of human women, this being popular with people thinking in terms of sexuality as their foremost concern.

In all ancient language, what we would now call "masculine" was simply a non-affected form. Neuter was a later developement, and still could not improve the confusion over sexual and non-sexual language as to most things. In many languages, the general form for sunstantives also doubled as masculine in sexual subject matter, but retained its universal, non-gender specific function in general statements. That goes not only for a word like "man", meaning a male human only in contrast to "woman", but for pronouns as well. When we say "HE" for GOD, we do not call HIM one of the masculine sex, but avoid a pronoun like "SHE", which could only be viewed as for sexual distinction where persons are involved.

To further illustrate this point, the Hebrew word for "man" is "`adham", an unaffected form. "`Adhamah", meaning "earth", which is a feminine word, is the same stem with an added "-ah" suffix, which makes its form feminine. The very form itself is derivational. In speaking of GOD, Christians see a non-sexual BEING of THREE SELF-EXISTENT PERSONS WHOSE mutual DEITY is the PROTOTYPE for every Role THEY took on as the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT. We see JESUS CHRIST as laying aside HIS Prime Glory to live a Life as extended from the FATHER, in a Role as SON, bearing in a derived SON-Ship, the UNBEGOTTEN FATHER's Nature. A perfect son is perfectly of the same - and therefore equal - nature as his absolute father. JESUS did not become less of a PERSON for this Mission lived out from the FATHER. Neither, then, is Eve seen as less than Adam, out of whom her humanity was derived, but not her persona. Because she was made out of Adam's own side, the language about her as contrasting her sex from his is of a derived form. She, as human, has everything in her that is in Adam, but merely in a form derived out of Adam's.

[cuppajoe_9]

That's all well and good, but I'm not accusing the ancients of sexism (although they were undoubtedly guilty), I am saying that by continually refering to God as male, the modern Abrahamic religions are showing their nostalgia for patriarchy. Many openly declare their nostalgia for patriarchy anyway. Here I'm thinking of the Catholic ban on female priests, and the medieval mideset of certain Islamic theocracies (disclaimer: I realize fully that the neanderthals who run said Islamic theocracies are no reflection on the more liberal muslims who live everywhere else).

One last point, how can you read genesis and not see a rather mysoginistic mindset? Eve, if you will remeber, was created to keep Adam company, and was portrayed as gullible and decietful (compared to Adam, who was merely gullible).

[Gozeta]

i'm gonna say reincarnation as i know of a fwe past lives of my own.

Hmmm. Interesting, why do you believe in reincarnation? Don't know too much about this subject.... Sorry!

Hmmm so many people believe in other things. So, very interesting! I'm assuming that each one thinks of what happens after you die is also based if there is a God or not. Again very interesting.

[mono]

Sorry to backtrack, but this caught my eye. The concept of a supreme being having a sex is ridiculous because if one exists, it is certainly immaterial, as you've said yourself. Somthing that lacks matter would obviously also lack a sex. The fact that most modern churches refer to god as male is, from a feminist point of view, a comically obvious allusion to the patriarchy.

"God is male, therefore I'm closer to being God than you are, therefore iron my shirt."

It seems to me that if I assume God exists, and I further assume that God is human enough to have a sex, and that It originally created life, than it is more likely that It is female. Females, the last time I checked, are the ones who give birth more often. This line of thinking becomes silly very quickly because I'm making a lot of assumptions that I think are absurd.

P.S. I am male.
I could not possibly agree more, but I also must send kudos to rufioag's following comment:

Just my 2 cents...God doesnt have a sex. The reference to He, Him, etc is a sign of authority and respect.
Indeed, though I do not refer to any existing Supreme Being as male or female (as I said earlier, why would an infinite, immaterial Being need a liver, kidneys, lungs, etc., let alone gender-identifying genitalia?), but I certainly perceive the statement of often calling a Supreme Being "He"/"His"/"Him" out of a matter of respect and custom. All bodily organs, their borders, and functioning together impose limits in terms of size, entirely contradicting the concept of an infinite and immaterial Supreme Being.
Of course, not to insult anyone's beliefs, the thought of a Supreme Being appearing like a material human being seems . . . unimaginable and Epicurean (in the cosmological and ontological perspective, not ethical, of course), as Cicero would write in The Nature Of The Gods, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in thsi subject.
Whether someone refers to God/Allah/Yahweh and co. as male or female does not exactly offend me, I only happened to politely disagree. Hence, however, seems the inevitably subjective perspective of reality by humans. ;)

[Shield&Sword]

Who refaired to Allah as male.
In arabic word Allah is : الله This word in arabic from a grammatical view, it cant be in plural, there is no plural form of this word in arabic, and when spelling it , it cant have plural like english word God adding s to it and will be plural "Gods". Also this word has no form of femminile like english word God adding ess and will be female Godess, it cant have from a grammatical view and there is no word that can be spelled that will mean Godess. Because word Allah does not refair to male, so it wont have female form, its unique word in arabic. Allah is not male or female, because he is unique, "There is nothing like him".

[sHaRp12]

Science has told us that our body functions cease to function and our brain no longer thinks or feels..

But our never dying need of security tells us you go to a place where youre filled with bliss, happiness and euphoria for the rest of existence.

[cuppajoe_9]

Shield&Sword:

A very interesting post. I was under the impression that Allah simply the arabic word for God. Is there any way to refer to more than one god in Arabic (say: for the purpose of discussing ancient Greek literature)?

[Shield&Sword]

there is the word ilaah which mean simply "god" with small G. The plural is alihah.
But the word Allah mean "God". الله Allah the first 2 letters are equal to the word "The" in english, and the word Allah cant be without these 2 letters (i think they are called "articolo" i dont know in english, but they are equal to "THE"), if we cancel them the word will change totaly. If we cancel the first letter "ا" the word will become Lillah لله which mean "for God", like saying every thing is for God, and still has no plural form or femminile form.
Really its unique word.

The greek gods are called alihah, and one god is called ilaah, but we cant say about one greek god "Allah", because Allah is a defined word and the name of the one only truly God that created all and sent prophets Moses and Jesus and Abaraham and all prophets and finished the masseges with prophet Muhammed peace be upon them all and sent with him the holy Quran.
I hope i was clear with my weak english language.

[cuppajoe_9]

So, ilaah is any god, whereas Allah is the Abrahamic God. Gotcha.

Really, you speak english better than many people who are supposed to be fluent in it.

[Shield&Sword]

You got it right cupp. :nod: