The AfterLife and Religions

[cacian]

Is the concept of Afterlife linked to Religion?


Do you have to believe in a god to believe in afterlife or they two totally different concepts?

[YesNo]

I think we keep reincarnating. I don't think this requires a god, although there may be all kinds of them, gods, demi-gods, devils, or angels out there for all I know, but I think it does require a conscious reality beyond the universe that came out of the big bang.

In the last book of Plato's Republic he describes such a reincarnation process while telling about the near-death experience of the warrior Er.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er

[cacian]

I think we keep reincarnating. I don't think this requires a god, although there may be all kinds of them, gods, demi-gods, devils, or angels out there for all I know, but I think it does require a conscious reality beyond the universe that came out of the big bang.

In the last book of Plato's Republic he describes such a reincarnation process while telling about the near-death experience of the warrior Er.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er

The myth of Er is similar to Jesus coming back to life two days later.
The difference is Jesus did not talk about reincarnation.
I do not equate reincarnation with the afterlife because the latter means you are you are when you go to this afterlife.
Reincarnation is different.

[Paulclem]

The myth of Er is similar to Jesus coming back to life two days later.
The difference is Jesus did not talk about reincarnation.
I do not equate reincarnation with the afterlife because the latter means you are you are when you go to this afterlife.
Reincarnation is different.

There is an inbetween state in Tibetan Buddhism called The Bardo, which might qualify for an afterlife, though it is also a reincarnated state.

If you reject reicarnation as an afterlife, then I can't think of an afterlife described by non-theists. It is therefore linked to theistic religions. This probably because the religious/ theistic worldview seems to be in competition with the scientific worldview. According to scientists, there isn't any evidence of an afterlife, and so it is rejected.

[cacian]

There is an inbetween state in Tibetan Buddhism called The Bardo, which might qualify for an afterlife, though it is also a reincarnated state.
Never heard of the Bardo but that sounds almost similar to unconsciousness or a state of abscentism.

If you reject reicarnation as
an afterlife, then I can't think of an afterlife described by non-theists. It is therefore linked to theistic religions. This probably because the religious/ theistic worldview seems to be in competition with the scientific worldview. According to scientists, there isn't any evidence of an afterlife, and so it is rejected.
Sure.
Scientists say aliens exist but there is no direct evidence that they actually do.
Neither science or religion can prove that the afterlife exist because neither has proof that it does.
In the same that none can prove that god exist and yet one believes in the lattest and the other does not.
Conflicting views and opinions. Are they both failing or are we to make our own personal mind up?
I think I know which way to go.

[Paulclem]

Never heard of the Bardo but that sounds almost similar to unconsciousness or a state of abscentism.

Sure.
Scientists say aliens exist but there is no direct evidence that they actually do.
Neither science or religion can prove that the afterlife exist because neither has proof that it does.
In the same that none can prove that god exist and yet one believes in the lattest and the other does not.
Conflicting views and opinions. Are they both failing or are we to make our own personal mind up?
I think I know which way to go.

Yes. Go your own way, but keep an open mind. You never know.


Never heard of the Bardo but that sounds almost similar to unconsciousness or a state of abscentism.

It's not that. It is a reincarnated state entered by beings after the death process.

[YesNo]

The myth of Er is similar to Jesus coming back to life two days later.
The difference is Jesus did not talk about reincarnation.
I do not equate reincarnation with the afterlife because the latter means you are you are when you go to this afterlife.
Reincarnation is different.
They are both resurrections rather than reincarnations.

I don't recall any of my own past lives, assuming that I am right and I've had them, so I have little to really base my belief on except the research by Ian Stevenson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson and the acceptance of reincarnation by some religions and people I trust. However, one of these people has written that we should not worry too much about our past lives. We have enough to do to live well the life we have now.

[Paulclem]

They are both resurrections rather than reincarnations.

I don't recall any of my own past lives, assuming that I am right and I've had them, so I have little to really base my belief on except the research by Ian Stevenson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson and the acceptance of reincarnation by some religions and people I trust. However, one of these people has written that we should not worry too much about our past lives. We have enough to do to live well the life we have now.

I read or heard that too. It is possible to see them through meditation, but it takes a long time, and is quite difficult, and so, it is said, the results are perhaps not worth the effort.

An interesting aspect is that your current life has its basis in your past, and so there is a relation between what you experience now and your karmic link with the past, (not just one former) lives. Thus the problems and happinesses represent a link to previous positive and negative acts.

[YesNo]

Karma makes sense to me. I suppose a past life would be worth knowing if it helped one live this life better.

[Paulclem]

Makes sense to me too.It's the only thing that makes sense in this chaotic and unfair world.

I'm not sure a remebered life does. Self knowledge of how you are now will indicate what your former predispositions were anyway. If you did remember a past life, all those past burdens would be there as well. You said as much yourself. Maybe best forgotten, and deal with the gist.

[Thomas Novosel]

Is the concept of Afterlife linked to Religion?


Do you have to believe in a god to believe in afterlife or they two totally different concepts?

No you do not have to believe in a god to believe in the afterlife...
becuase you can believe in ghosts and not believe in god? I have met aetheists who believe this and it always perplexed my mind,... usually they have poor reasoning or explanations but will stand by their views. Until one of my friends actually came over one day and we discussed it over a cup of tea. I don't exactly remember his words but the jist of what he had said was that "just becuase there are spirits doesn't mean there is a god... what if ghosts are just the after image of a person, so the persons soul carries on, staying on our world, but this transition would just be a natural form of life... Just as a Centipede turns into a Butterfly... maybe life just has stages? But since everyone is unique, some people appear more vividly in this second stage than others?" Which I guess was actually a good theoretical explanation.

[stuntpickle]

This probably because the religious/ theistic worldview seems to be in competition with the scientific worldview.

I think this is a fabrication of empiricists. And any worldview called "scientific" would be a horribly dangerous one since science can never accomplish all the things that a worldview must, such as metaphysical and moral judgments.

[Paulclem]

I think this is a fabrication of empiricists. And any worldview called "scientific" would be a horribly dangerous one since science can never accomplish all the things that a worldview must, such as metaphysical and moral judgments.

I agree, but as I said, it seems that way. This forum often seems to polarise the two views in the philosophy and religion threads.

[Frances69]

i believe in god,I believe that he will take care of us, no matter live or deathhttp://www.infoocean.info/avatar2.jpg

[usman.khawar]

if there is God than there is afterlife for sure. without afterlife there is no reason i can understand of why we are here?

what i know is that we have before and after life both. our souls have been created long ago, for sometime this soul has been entered in this world and than again transfer back through very fine sophisticated operation by angels. most of our brain cells till death are not activated. we dont remember about our previous life or state of life due to this very reason. when we will be transfered back then these cells will be activated again to understand the realities of cosmos and what is beyond of our understandings.

all concept of punishment and reward is concerned with this soul. body is like a cell u can say and soul is sim or chip. what makes difference if we are given different body with some more functions of understanding in next world with same soul?

i cant understand this theory that if a person dont do good deeds then he will be born in this very world again may b in shape of some other living being shape. he cant have "Mukti" till he does good deeds. its look so wierd that a person of bad deed is again given life for instance a donkey! human mind run at round about 22 cc. and donkey? does Mr. donkey know that he is passing life of punishment ? for the bad deeds he has done in previous life in human shape.! if i for the moment accept this theory than there is a question who is doing all this? God?.. does any concept of hell remains when all of human bear the burdens of their sins here in this world? what is the concept then for after life? its looks funny that Mr. donkey dont know that he is passing life of punishment of his previous life haha :)

Thomas Novosel ! you rightly said " No you do not have to believe in a god to believe in the afterlife..." whether one beleive in God/afterlfie or not, give importance for these questions or not. will see his/her result. is there any reason to beleive in afterlife without beleiving in God? No. this was the reason i said that all question turns back towards the basic question that is " whether there is any God or not" ? if there is God then there is no doubt in angels, paradise, hell, etc. and also as mr thosmas told the atheist's reason for rejecting God is also funny." just becuase there are spirits doesn't mean there is a god" . i wonder why not people give some time to consider and think about the reasons against God. they should do little objective research on them. should sit to write all these down on paper some day. Or otherwise take a bold step to break the argument which i presented.

If there is God than there is afterlife for sure. without afterlife there is no reason i can understand of why we are here?

[Paulclem]

i cant understand this theory that if a person dont do good deeds then he will be born in this very world again may b in shape of some other living being shape. he cant have "Mukti" till he does good deeds. its look so wierd that a person of bad deed is again given life for instance a donkey! human mind run at round about 22 cc. and donkey? does Mr. donkey know that he is passing life of punishment ? for the bad deeds he has done in previous life in human shape.! if i for the moment accept this theory than there is a question who is doing all this? God?.. does any concept of hell remains when all of human bear the burdens of their sins here in this world? what is the concept then for after life? its looks funny that Mr. donkey dont know that he is passing life of punishment of his previous life haha :)



Reincarnation and Mr Donkey make no sense at all without the proper context. The proper context in Buddhism is that all beings have lived many lives and so accumulate a lot of positive and negative Karma. Nurturing positive karma results in a beneficial rebirth. Nurturing negative karma results in a negative rebirth.

You're right Mr Donkey and Mr Tiger and Mr Hungry Spirit aren't aware of their state and how they got there, but their suffering is evident. The whole of this world - according to Buddhism is a melting pot of suffering. The charge that beings enjoy pleasures is true, but this merely heightens the suffering when the good things come to an end.

The Hindu view of reincarnatin is somewhat different with an evolutionary view of reincarnation. I know much less about that system, and so I won't say more.

if i for the moment accept this theory than there is a question who is doing all this? God?.

The Buddha didn't say - and given the problems that have arisen from theistic religions, I think it was the right thing to do.

does any concept of hell remains when all of human bear the burdens of their sins here in this world?


In the Buddhist wheel of life there are hell worlds, human, spirit, animal worlds and God realms. None of them are eternal, and none of them contains a being who is regarded as a creator.

what is the concept then for after life? its looks funny that Mr. donkey dont know that he is passing life of punishment of his previous life haha :)

It's not strictly speraking an afterlife if it's a succession of lives except for the idea of an inbetween life called The Bardo in Tibetan Buddhism.

There are millions of Buddhists and Hindus who believe in reincarnation. Is it any more ridiculous than a religion that claims a compassionate God exists when there is so much human and animal suffering in the world?

[Thomas Novosel]

A person could believe not in god so that they may have no moral obligations which would justufy there notions that doing something wrong is allowed without consequences...in the next life. Geneally there areconsequencesto an action... But theperson wouldse this toproduce that there is no consequences in the next life. They may believe that the next life is allthat matters... And towards the reason for existance all i can offeris speculation... Maybe we are a random correlation of events that occured creating life that evolvedto the point of sentience thatis we of today? maybe the point istolive and prosper, just asmany gluttons may pursue with greedy intents...maybe the purpose is to makeit to the afterlife? Thatthe afterlife is just the ending of the dreamwecall life? or maybe the purposeis just to live life kindly and have a positive impact on those around you? The point isgodis not needed to justify existance... But isjust an simper way to live...that there is a precedant in how to live, makes living easier...less to find out on your own for yourself.

[Paulclem]

A person could believe not in god so that they may have no moral obligations which would justufy there notions that doing something wrong is allowed without consequences...in the next life. Geneally there areconsequencesto an action... But theperson wouldse this toproduce that there is no consequences in the next life. They may believe that the next life is allthat matters... And towards the reason for existance all i can offeris speculation... Maybe we are a random correlation of events that occured creating life that evolvedto the point of sentience thatis we of today? maybe the point istolive and prosper, just asmany gluttons may pursue with greedy intents...maybe the purpose is to makeit to the afterlife? Thatthe afterlife is just the ending of the dreamwecall life? or maybe the purposeis just to live life kindly and have a positive impact on those around you? The point isgodis not needed to justify existance... But isjust an simper way to live...that there is a precedant in how to live, makes living easier...less to find out on your own for yourself.

A person could believe not in god so that they may have no moral obligations which would justufy there notions that doing something wrong is allowed without consequences.

The thing that may stop people doing wrong is the law. It may or may not - just as a belif in God may or may not.

that there is a precedant in how to live, makes living easier...less to find out on your own for yourself

Penty of atheists live easily without the notion of God, and perhaps the quest for the individual is to find out.

[cacian]

let say there is no afterlife then one question that might arises is this:
what is the purpose of coming to this earth?
What is the purpose of a human?
Isn't he or she directly linked with what is the meaning of life?
Both are connected I am guessing.
In a way we must come from something, how did humans begin? with the mighty big bang?A bit like the mighty meteorite that wipped the dinosaurs out of this planet whilst it decided to spare trees and birds.
and no I am not a darwinist either, I shall seek other routes of how a human got here to earth.

[usman.khawar]

.

There are millions of Buddhists and Hindus who believe in reincarnation. Is it any more ridiculous than a religion that claims a compassionate God exists when there is so much human and animal suffering in the world?

i have answered and explained this in the thread " Why Good God promote sufferings"

it is not necesary that quantity always gives quality. christinas are more than budhists, even socalled muslims are more than budhists. if millions of people are going on wrong side and one is on the right side. than how will we decide the right way? no doubt with reason and argument. i'll follow the one. set aside the glasses of budhism or every religion then think again.this is the way my dear i used and reached at islam which explained each and everything intellectuallly in very natural and normal way and asnwered every question of human intellectual curosity..

But the very important question which is also another thread that "what is the need of religion?" what is the def. of religion? i beleive now that religion consisted of those minimum things which can lead you in the nearness of God. which can minimize frustration and fears of ur inner world so that u can easlity move on towards Lord. there is no other use of religion. religion teach you how to pass life to be successful in attaining balance so that you can easily proceed to God. Balance's definition " the state of mind where there is no grief nor frustration"

All this journey towards Lord according to my another beloved teacher Syed Ali Bin Usman Hajvery [who have more knowledge than my beloved teacher(Professor ahmad who is also the student of above one) i introduced with u guys] he said "all journey towards Lord is to move on from one state of mind to another!" needs knowledge more knoweldge.
Anyway if i could found nearness in other religions other than Islam i would follow but i failed i couldnt. islam was the only choice remained for me as i got all my answers through it.

I came to know its very easy, the way. islam is the most easiest way, than rememberance is the bigest thing, remembrance of Lord through his names with love, with the understanding that He is my 1st priority of my intellect with commitment that no day should passed by without His remembrance even we start it from minimum time like 5 min, and 3rdly in which God himself help you is to read ur self. knowing ur self.

Those who think that its a difficult path! God forgive them i went so easily! Moin ud chisti...

Religion is nothing but set of those minimum things which are neceessary for your journey to the nearness of Lord. A person who dont have any wish for the nearness for God what is the use of religion? this could b my question for u guys what do u think about it. a person who dont have any wish for the nearness of God what is the use of religion for him? No use! absolutely not! he should not quarrel upon religions for sure.

thanks....

[blazeofglory]

The afterlife idea has no link with God. God is not a word or a physicality as we generally conceptualize. God is a process, something that integrates everything in the universe. God is indefinable and our endeavors to understand God through words or images or metaphors is totally stupid and we must be able to break the barriers of limitation and must keep abreast of something much subtler than what our sensory organs perceive.

The afterlife idea is totally a different thing and there is life after death and that life is not necessarily the rebirth of the kind our scriptures unroll. When an organism dies there will be just a metamorphic process.

[Paulclem]

i have answered and explained this in the thread " Why Good God promote sufferings"

it is not necesary that quantity always gives quality. christinas are more than budhists, even socalled muslims are more than budhists. if millions of people are going on wrong side and one is on the right side. than how will we decide the right way? no doubt with reason and argument. i'll follow the one. set aside the glasses of budhism or every religion then think again.this is the way my dear i used and reached at islam which explained each and everything intellectuallly in very natural and normal way and asnwered every question of human intellectual curosity..

But the very important question which is also another thread that "what is the need of religion?" what is the def. of religion? i beleive now that religion consisted of those minimum things which can lead you in the nearness of God. which can minimize frustration and fears of ur inner world so that u can easlity move on towards Lord. there is no other use of religion. religion teach you how to pass life to be successful in attaining balance so that you can easily proceed to God. Balance's definition " the state of mind where there is no grief nor frustration"

All this journey towards Lord according to my another beloved teacher Syed Ali Bin Usman Hajvery [who have more knowledge than my beloved teacher(Professor ahmad who is also the student of above one) i introduced with u guys] he said "all journey towards Lord is to move on from one state of mind to another!" needs knowledge more knoweldge.
Anyway if i could found nearness in other religions other than Islam i would follow but i failed i couldnt. islam was the only choice remained for me as i got all my answers through it.

I came to know its very easy, the way. islam is the most easiest way, than rememberance is the bigest thing, remembrance of Lord through his names with love, with the understanding that He is my 1st priority of my intellect with commitment that no day should passed by without His remembrance even we start it from minimum time like 5 min, and 3rdly in which God himself help you is to read ur self. knowing ur self.

Those who think that its a difficult path! God forgive them i went so easily! Moin ud chisti...

Religion is nothing but set of those minimum things which are neceessary for your journey to the nearness of Lord. A person who dont have any wish for the nearness for God what is the use of religion? this could b my question for u guys what do u think about it. a person who dont have any wish for the nearness of God what is the use of religion for him? No use! absolutely not! he should not quarrel upon religions for sure.

thanks....

if millions of people are going on wrong side and one is on the right side. than how will we decide the right way?

As soon as you begin to talk of the right side and the wrong side, you are fostering intolerance. I have respect for Islam, and I don't refer to its ideals by attempting to satirise it - especially when I don't purport to understand the tenets of it as well as practitioners. It's a pity that this is not true of yourself. Tolerance is not finding agreement with each other, but being willing to accept the differences between views.

God is the creator, good and bad. if u think and reconsider, that if there is only bad everywhere than this earth cannot live for a single month only. i wrote month he he gave long time. and if there is only good everywhere!! than what? is there any growth of mind will be possible ? lets think again. like everything is good everywhere than what is the meaning to create mind? anyother reason to create human than ?
you people are playing with each other and passing time ? come on. lets solve the basic question. is there any God exist or not ? if not than whats the argement? not childish one like i prayed him to give me this or that He didnt give me so there is no God. my neihbors are very good people their son died , there is no God.
is there anyone we can see whose ist priority is to solve the basic question ist. to find the truth? who like scientist passed at least 12 years to find the biggest question ? who read all holy books without prejudice including Quran and life of prophets? and finally he said there is no God.

I take it that this is your argument for the prescence of suffering in the world from the link to the thread "Why a good God promotes suffering" you mentioned.

I understand that the gist of it is to test and stretch humans by exposing them to difficulties and suffering. To an extent I agree that without the problems, no effort can be made, and no progress will result.

The suffering I'm talking about is the suffering of individuals in famines, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes. There are plenty of silent oppressed people who have no voice, but who live in abject terror and poverty. There are awful instances of children suffering, and the chaos that follows warfare.

When I hear someone say that the tsunami in Indonesia was a teaching to those left behind, then I wonder about the pride instilled and all the lives that cost, and I couldn't accept that, and I think the argument is very weak. I feel it's an argument that works with people who have a background and culture in the belief in a God, but it doesn't cut it as an argument for a God, for a justification for God, or of the ineffableness of God.

[Thomas Novosel]

I agree with pualclems final paragraph... but in when he questioned what i said... i only spoke of some individuals when i said it made life easier... some people just feel at ease and more comfortable to "fall in" with a path that seems to comfort their emotional needs to have a purpose. And yes law helps keep things in check, but when you think about nothing KEEPS you from murdering someone? the consequences just are upon you after the thought... if i wanted to (which i have no intent of doing so as it would be against my own morals) i would start a forest fire... and nothing could stop my hand from striking the match if i had no morals or remorse (which generally remorse comes from a belief of guilt, which comes from a notion that you did wrong, which is created by personal morals), but there would be consequences... And most laws (at least not economic laws i mean criminal law) stems from some religions morals. So if i suggest that if in some alternate scenario reality the world had no belief in god,... we would essentially be without morals, without law, but we could still believe in the afterlife, we could believe that this is a midstation to a destination that is the afterlife? That are actions here do not affect our standings in the next life, these people in this scenario could believe this.

[usman.khawar]

if millions of people are going on wrong side and one is on the right side. than how will we decide the right way?

As soon as you begin to talk of the right side and the wrong side, you are fostering intolerance. I have respect for Islam, and I don't refer to its ideals by attempting to satirise it - especially when I don't purport to understand the tenets of it as well as practitioners. It's a pity that this is not true of yourself. Tolerance is not finding agreement with each other, but being willing to accept the differences between views.

comon paul.. u r charging me for fostering intolerance :) as i am saying good to good and bad to bad ? if this is promoting intloerance then u also said this in above posts answring thomas. that its the law which stop bad ? in different places moral codes can b changed but there are some universal truths as well. if i say that speaking truth is goood and speaking lie is bad than what ? is it encouraging intolernace? ..

if u are answring my posts my dear than u have to consider my questions and try to answer those as well. what is it that taking a sentence leaving aside the whole scenario? i was expecting some discussion for the question i mentioned in the post from which u highligted a single line of good and bad? the question was like what is the need of religion for a person who dont have any wish to proceed in the nearnes of Lord ? and some others questions i asked previously. u just picked a paragraph from the thread "Why Good God...." and leaving the full post and also someother posts there as it is? which explained ur quries..

[usman.khawar]

let say there is no afterlife then one question that might arises is this:
what is the purpose of coming to this earth?
What deos a human mean isn't he or she directly linked with what is the meaning of life?
Both are connected I am guessing.
.

well we should walk with the topic starter . these are very good questions indeed! isnt ?

[blazeofglory]

This afterlife stuff is a highly debatable ideas and in fact there is no certainty or proof about the existence or continuation of life after death. Maybe there is life after death or life goes no more beyond the death of life.

This is not something I can say to convince you nor any of your ideas can convince me of the existence of life after death. Yet beyond any scientific evidence or empirical connotation.

Life is really mysterious and there is something yet to fathom beyond the dissection of the corpus of man. The mystery of life cannot be solved with any scientific experimentation alone.

Despite the fact that I cannot arrive at any conclusive ideas I still hold the discussion as something useful

[Paulclem]

comon paul.. u r charging me for fostering intolerance :) as i am saying good to good and bad to bad ? if this is promoting intloerance then u also said this in above posts answring thomas. that its the law which stop bad ? in different places moral codes can b changed but there are some universal truths as well. if i say that speaking truth is goood and speaking lie is bad than what ? is it encouraging intolernace? ..

if u are answring my posts my dear than u have to consider my questions and try to answer those as well. what is it that taking a sentence leaving aside the whole scenario? i was expecting some discussion for the question i mentioned in the post from which u highligted a single line of good and bad? the question was like what is the need of religion for a person who dont have any wish to proceed in the nearnes of Lord ? and some others questions i asked previously. u just picked a paragraph from the thread "Why Good God...." and leaving the full post and also someother posts there as it is? which explained ur quries..

Ok - I picked out that line as representing some points of view as good, some as bad. perhaps I misread it.

I did respond to your direction to another thread about "Why a good God promotes sufferings".

[Rores28]

if there is God than there is afterlife for sure. without afterlife there is no reason i can understand of why we are here?



I've never really understood this view. Why does there have to be a why?

It is possible that we are here for no "reason" in the teleological sense. I mean if your coffee cup falls off of your table and shatters on the floor, does it have to have had a purpose in doing so?

You may say it only applies to sentient entities, but I still fail to see why there would need to be a why or reason. This seems more like a cognitive bias.

But even barring all of that, a creator could have created us to be mortal and without an afterlife. There would still be beauty and pleasure in life. Furthermore its very transience would in some way augment its beauty.

To answer the thread question, if one isn't tied to a specific theology that mandates a connection than I can see no reason why the two would be mutually inclusive.

Someone/Something/Some Group of Things could have created us with mortality. Think how we create cars and computers and various other things without doing so, so that they last forever. Again we can't yet create sentient entities and if we could we may rethink this idea of impermanence but certainly even if we could create sentient life it wouldn't be a certainty that we would or could make it immortal.

[stuntpickle]

I've never really understood this view. Why does there have to be a why?

Godel, who is widely recognized as something like the Einstein of logic, thought the world was self-evidently reasonable as evidenced by the possibility of ratiocination. Of course, there's a reason the coffee cup crashes to the floor, and that reason is called gravity, without which neither coffee cup nor coffee drinker would ever have had a planet to sit on and is, thus, one of the requisite elements if there are to be sentient creatures reflecting on anything.

Godel thought it was monstrously irrational to think that these sentient reflectors could be sloughed off so casually.

[Rores28]

Godel, who is widely recognized as something like the Einstein of logic, thought the world was self-evidently reasonable as evidenced by the possibility of ratiocination. Of course, there's a reason the coffee cup crashes to the floor, and that reason is called gravity, without which neither coffee cup nor coffee drinker would ever have had a planet to sit on and is, thus, one of the requisite elements if there are to be sentient creatures reflecting on anything.

Godel thought it was monstrously irrational to think that these sentient reflectors could be sloughed off so casually.

Hmm I didn't understand this to be the sense of "why" that the poster was positing.

[usman.khawar]

I've never really understood this view. Why does there have to be a why?

.

with "why" the investigation of intellectual curosity initiates. "why" is to start understanding of something. . so i suggest you to leave it and dont bother it as it has nothing to do with u. i m not expecting "why" from your side that why i suggested you so :) forget it. my dear its just once again its very simple that for investigation for understanding we use "why" to comprehend the full theme. why we use why now u tell me.. ? but the question is still there which topic starter(Cacian) asked to discuss. i observe that some people divert the whole discussion. rores can u tell me why? :)

[cacian]

I've never really understood this view. Why does there have to be a why?

It is possible that we are here for no "reason" in the teleological sense. I mean if your coffee cup falls off of your table and shatters on the floor, does it have to have had a purpose in doing so?

You may say it only applies to sentient entities, but I still fail to see why there would need to be a why or reason. This seems more like a cognitive bias.

But even barring all of that, a creator could have created us to be mortal and without an afterlife. There would still be beauty and pleasure in life. Furthermore its very transience would in some way augment its beauty.

To answer the thread question, if one isn't tied to a specific theology that mandates a connection than I can see no reason why the two would be mutually inclusive.

Someone/Something/Some Group of Things could have created us with mortality. Think how we create cars and computers and various other things without doing so, so that they last forever. Again we can't yet create sentient entities and if we could we may rethink this idea of impermanence but certainly even if we could create sentient life it wouldn't be a certainty that we would or could make it immortal.

There is a why because the word is there and for this reason I am going to use it.
If it was not there I would not ask it at the first place, plus think of the story of 'little red riding hood' there was a lot of whys there and so we go on in the same path and ask why because the story said so.
Stories are not just for reading they are also for learning isn't it?

[Rores28]

There is a why because the word is there and for this reason I am going to use it.
If it was not there I would not ask it at the first place, plus think of the story of 'little red riding hood' there was a lot of whys there and so we go on in the same path and ask why because the story said so.
Stories are not just for reading they are also for learning isn't it?

Sorry I really do like to try and respond when most people address me, but I really don't know what your saying here.

I mean I think I understand the first thing ur saying. You're asking why would the word "why" exist if not to allow us to ask why we are here?

Is this an accurate translation of ur position/question?

and the second. Teleological "why's" can be foisted onto narratives, our life is a narrative, therefore teleological "why's" can be foisted onto our lives, and these why's teach us something about the universe?

Is this a fair translation?

[Dark Muse]

let say there is no afterlife then one question that might arises is this:
what is the purpose of coming to this earth?
What is the purpose of a human?
Isn't he or she directly linked with what is the meaning of life?
Both are connected I am guessing.
In a way we must come from something, how did humans begin? with the mighty big bang?A bit like the mighty meteorite that wipped the dinosaurs out of this planet whilst it decided to spare trees and birds.
and no I am not a darwinist either, I shall seek other routes of how a human got here to earth.

Why are people so hung up on purpose? In a way that is a rather egotistical view to presume that because we are here by default must mean we have some greater purpose. But does there truly need to be purpose? Maybe we are here just because we are here. Maybe it is for us to make our own individual purpose based on how we choose to live our lives, but this need not be depended upon a God or religion.

If there was only one single life, one single existence, and it was fully dependent upon us to shape it how we would and it was not part of some divine plan, would that not in fact give our life all the more meaning? To know that it is for us to create and find in our own lives, defined purely by ourselves.

Need there be a grander purpose?

[cacian]

Why are people so hung up on purpose? In a way that is a rather egotistical view to presume that because we are here by default must mean we have some greater purpose. But does there truly need to be purpose? Maybe we are here just because we are here. Maybe it is for us to make our own individual purpose based on how we choose to live our lives, but this need not be depended upon a God or religion.

If there was only one single life, one single existence, and it was fully dependent upon us to shape it how we would and it was not part of some diving plan, would that not in fact give our life all the more meaning? To know that it is for us to create and find in our own lives, defined purely by ourselves.

Need there be a grander purpose?

Hi Dark Muse
Of course anyone should do and feel the way they wish without having to burden themselves or even care as you say, I agree that is one purpose of life.
The issue however is that science and religions have far more implications in the way we act behave and think.
These institutions teach the individual to seek out the impossible and go searching for what is perhaps not attainable.
As a result I am putting into just like others have done before the reasons why humans are here in order to get an understanding on the prospect of the 'meaning of life'. It is after all a great debate to be had.
Once someone starts something such as this it is very hard to put a lid on it and so it is up to anyone to pursure it or not.

[Rores28]

with "why" the investigation of intellectual curosity initiates. "why" is to start understanding of something. . so i suggest you to leave it and dont bother it as it has nothing to do with u. i m not expecting "why" from your side that why i suggested you so :) forget it. my dear its just once again its very simple that for investigation for understanding we use "why" to comprehend the full theme. why we use why now u tell me.. ? but the question is still there which topic starter(Cacian) asked to discuss. i observe that some people divert the whole discussion. rores can u tell me why? :)

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but if it wasn't, saying "my dear" in this context is typically seen as condescending.

Why do people divert the thread?

Various reasons I suppose. If you are suggesting that I diverted the thread I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion. I responded directly to the question of the thread, I also asked a question about teleological why’s which I find to be an interesting issue, and which seems pretty tightly linked to the thread question at hand.

[usman.khawar]

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but if it wasn't, saying "my dear" in this context is typically seen as condescending.

Why do people divert the thread?

Various reasons I suppose. If you are suggesting that I diverted the thread I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion. I responded directly to the question of the thread, I also asked a question about teleological why’s which I find to be an interesting issue, and which seems pretty tightly linked to the thread question at hand.

no i m not suggesting or blaming you of diverting the coversation with mutual chat nor it was condescenting to call u my dear ! if you understand.. i read you very 1st time so there is no question of blaming you... i simply asked a general question just came in my mind... :)