Life & Hereafter: One shot to get it right; or, if at first you don't succeed?

That’s the million dollar question isn’t it?
There’s no way to be sure what happens after we die except for what happens to our physical body.

Consider this: If energy is neither created nor destroyed, does the same apply to our spiritual energy?

Maybe there’s no reincarnation at all and we have one single chance to get it right. Seems too hard a task for simple and faulty human beings? Maybe, but it makes sense if we were millions of small brinks in a great building called Life. Everyone of us would contribute with our short lives to create a really big work. Some brinks would be of a lower quality but still the building would get finished.

I never understood why people think that something that happens to you after you die will give your life meaning. That strikes me as a very sad and pathetic view of one’s own existence, especially when there’s so much cool shit out there today.

@Qingu the presumption here is that there is a purpose to life and an ultimate goal to achieve. let’s assume the big blast – what preceeded it? let’s assume steady state – begs the question of a beginning. that’s what i always come back to – what was the ultimate beginning? and what of the fact that we think therefore we are? questions about the beginning of all things and about purpose and objective are far from sad an pathetic, no matter how much cool shit is out there.

and btw, i am really interested more in what believers of a purpose and goal think that what atheists and agnostics think because the latter two can not begin to answer the question.

Why on earth do you think life having a purpose is contingent on an afterlife? You seem to have completely ignored my point.

Your question “what preceded the big blast” (I assume you mean “bang”) makes no logical sense. Nothing preceded it. Time did not exist before the big bang. There is no such thing as “before” the big bang, that’s like saying “north of the north pole.” The universe has always existed.

We think because thinking is advantageous to our survival. We can trace the evolution of our consciousness back to other primates, to other amniotes, to fish, and even to starfish.

I agree, questions about the beginning of the universe and the purpose of life are not sad and pathetic in the slightest. I just don’t see what they have to do with an afterlife.

Incidentally, atheists have argued that there is a “purpose” to life, or at least a direction or a progression to our evolution and civilization. See the book Nonzero by Robert Wright.

you seem to igore the question which is, Assume a purpose and afterlife, what’s the process of achieving the Creator’s goals with respect to both?

yes, a mind fart, i meant bang not blast.

To me, the statement that the universe has always existed makes no logical sense – how can you know that anymore than i can know with no doubt there was a beginning. ultimately, we both have to resort to faith because, at some point, science is not able to support certain of our beliefs.

And by thinking, i mean something deeper than taking sensory input, formulating responses, and directing the body to act. I mean thinking on the level that we are currently operating at (i think).

I will grant the atheists that there is a purpose to life relating to passing on our genes and advancing civilization and culture – a creationist (and I am not a creationist in the sense i use the word here) would say so were we commanded by God.

I have seen no evidence that our consciousness is other than a biological phenomenon. Therefore, like any other such phenomenon, it dies when we do. While thoughts of an afterlife are comforting, I feel that they are based on what we yearn for, not on what is.

One shot. Do good now, because it’s the only chance you’ll have.

I think we have one shot to get it right. However, whether we get it right or not, death is the end.

Right, of course, has to do with our own understanding of what we think our purpose is. I think everyone lives a purposeful life, and further, that we all have a unique understanding of that purpose.

So, no matter what you believe the purpose to be, you better feel right about it, or you will not be very happy when you die. Of course, for some of us (at least, I hope I’m not the only one), it won’t matter how good we’ve been in working towards our purpose, it can never be enough.

As of now, I will not die acceptingly. It is my goal to gain acceptance before I die, since I really don’t want to die in fear and anger. As far as I can tell, acceptance is a kind of state of grace, having little to do with what I have done, and everything to do with giving up my attachments to life and to doing things in life.

@avalmez, it’s my understanding that Fluther questions are not supposed to be targeted to a specific “group.”

Do you believe, as Einstein basically showed, that the universe contains all of both space and time? Then that means the universe has always existed. If the universe contains all of time, then it has always existed. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Humans are pretty smart, but so are chimpanzees. They can actually beat us at certain cognitive tasks. Their main drawback is that they don’t have the capacity for much language. I don’t really know what you believe is so magical about human thought, but it’s blindingly obvious that our brains evolved from earlier primate brains, and they evolved from earlier mammalian brains, and so on.

Again, I don’t understand why the existence of supernatural beings or an afterlife is necessary for our lives to have purpose. That simply makes no sense to me. The chemicals in our body were created in the explosions of dying stars. Heavier elements can only be made in supernovas. The evolution of our species and intelligence from cells to multicellular life, from the ocean onto land, from solitary to social beings—the idea that our intelligence is the universe’s way of becoming aware of itself—this seems infinitely more “meaningful” than the idea that a Mesopotamian god made us out of clay to be his slaves in a garden.

I actually try to do some work between posts so please hang in there with me..

i am not actually targeting certain groups, but i have come to learn how questions can get off topic on this site and so asked that respondents make an assumption in order to focus the discussion.

i am not am empiricist and don’t believe that all truth springs from the scientific method. certainly matters regarding the nature of the physical universe and the laws that govern it are the subject of science.

nonetheless, the body of knowledge called science is certainly bounded and although those boundaries may increase as new facts are discovered, it is bounded nonetheless.

there are therefore certain modes of thinking or beliefs that although many of us accept as probably true, to the extent they are not yet established as fact, they are beliefs and accepted on faith. so, while many of you may not believers, i can at least welcome you amongst the faithful! :)

will check later this eve or tomorrow for further responses as well as to respond more directly to some of the above.

I am not Christian but I do believe in a Creator and Creation. And I do believe there is a purpose to life. I haven’t come to any concrete solutions when it comes to my own spirituality if I believe in reincarnation. I think it is possible. But where I get stuck is this: Is it just possible/an option or is it necessary if you muck things up (like our spirits need to learn certain things so if you don’t learn something you need to live again to get it, some things can only be learned on earth). So I can’t really come to a decision if it is completely our choice or if it is expected to do it again. I feel as if it should be both, lol. I think it is really normal for your mother to be questioning her mortality and it is really touching that she is doing so. I don’t know enough about the Christian religion to speak to it. Do Christians (the majority of them, not all of course) believe only there is judgment and then heaven and then bliss. No reincarnation? Perhaps are ends are all different based on what beliefs our spirits connect to in this life?

And btw nobody try and convince me my spiritual beliefs are wrong. I don’t care to hear it and you won’t change my mind. I also do not plan on defending my beliefs. Although I am open for discussion on this topic in a respectful manner.

I think we have one shot. But I also believe God left us a guidebook to follow. Our human nature, I think, makes us resistant to the change required to follow said guidebook… but it can be done… and should certainly be attempted.

All of this imho.

I’m a Christian and believe we only have one shot. When it comes to “getting it right,” I believe that if you’re a follower of Jesus Christ and you’re honest with your conviction, you will live your life according to his teachings and example. God’s grace covers the rest.

@Quingu As far as needing religion or an afterlife to have a purpose, of course you don’t. My purpose is not to live to get into heaven, but to live so that I honor God. Live for others. As far as Einstein’s theory that the universe contains all time, that sounds about right by my book. I believe God to exist outside time, he created the universe and everything to be bound by time. So of course the universe has existed since time began, because God made it that way. But that’s another topic…

@Qingu – Well, there are even scientists who argue that death can be eliminated altogether, that immortality is possible. I’m not saying I’m one of them. Even if it were possible for a human mind to exist for 100 billion years, what about the effects of entropy? What about proton mortality? And the Omega Point puzzle hasn’t been solved yet.

@TheDeadWake, do you honestly expect me to believe that the reward of heaven and the threat of hell play no role in your decision to follow your religion?

@mattbrowne, I’m hoping the pro-immortality scientists are right. I don’t want to die, and there’s nothing inherent to biology that says we can’t be effectively immortal (or that we have to remain biological entities).

I think 100 billion years is a bit too far in the future to predict anything of value, though. There are scientists who say that we’re not going to be able to imagine stuff that happens 30 years from now because that’s how fast technology is progressing.

@Qingu – Do you believe mind uploading will become technologically feasible? Especially because technology is progressing faster and faster (at an accelerated pace)?

I chose the 100 billion year time frame because brains or artificial brains require energy. As you said, we don’t have to remain biological entities. What happens when all the red dwarfs have died long ago and almost all white dwarfs have cooled down as well? Even a non-biological entity can’t beat entropy. From where will it draw energy? Will this question determine the ultimate matter of mortality? Well, some scientists are dreaming of creating baby universes to start all over… I guess we have to wait and see.

@Qingu it’s fine to have an opinion and i like the fact that folks here are generally respectful of others’ opinions. so, believe whatever you expect motivates someone to adhere to whatever religion. as i’ve tried to point out, you at some point have to resort to faith in what you believe…do you agree at least on that point?

i assert the belief and hope in immortality is analogous to the belief in a hereafter – immortality of a different form, perhaps, but both provide comfort to their believers who must otherwise come to terms with their mortality.

and the discussion about continued existence as a non-biological entity – why not choose a soul as that’s just as likely imho.

@mattbrowne, my answer is “we’ll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.” Fortunately we’ll be smarter than we are now by orders of magnitutde.

@avalmez, how is a soul as likely as non-biological consciousness? Maybe it would help if you define what you mean by “soul” and gave us a mechanism for how it would interact with physical reality.

first, i think you know what i mean by soul and assuming that then your question is argumentative…and it acts with physical reality via the corpus.

we should probably agree to disagree and leave it at that. neither of us can prove certain of our tenets to the other, not until all of knowledge has been gained, or we pass and either come to know the truth, or not.

@avalmez – I think we can’t apply scientific method to the concept of a soul. I think there is one, but the nature of it is beyond science. Like God or the afterlife. Some things we have to believe or not to believe and some things we can observe and try to understand using empirical data.

@qingu – We as in “we humans” will be smarter only if we merge with technology, otherwise we’d be no match for a singularity which would cross the bridge without us. According to Kurzweil only 11 more years to go. He was right about many predictions, but in this case if it ever happens he has to add a few more decades. Passing the Turing test might take place around 2030, but then it’s still some way to reach singularity status.

@RedPowerLady sorry i overlooked your response and questions.

regarding the mainstream Christian belief about reincarnation. in general, it’s fair to write that most Christians believe you are born, live your life, then eventually face judgment.

On those very basic tenets I think most Christians would agree. beyond those simple statements different religions have different beliefs.

Some hold to the existence of the soul prior to birth.

There’s no general agreement regarding the criteria of judgment other than perhaps that one must have been “born again” – meaning, must have accepted Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior.

The result of judgement is also not clear. The Bible speaks of seven heavens, one of which souls are assigned to as the result of judgement. Jesus spoke clearly only about heaven and hell.

Mormons hold to seven heavens and reincarnation (though they won’t admit they believe in reincarnation)

so a mixed up bunch. imho, i believe people of different religions and persuasion have come to understand one or more ultimate truths – Jesus, Abraham, Buddha and so on. and i also believe that it’s important to respect all (most, actually) religions and to thine own self be true.

@mattbrowne some day, science may gain enough kblynowledge to apply the scientific method to posit definitively about the existence of a soul. i mean, science already contemplates a beginning (read Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers”). It contemplates concepts like entanglement. How weird a concept is that?

And if Einstein is a God of Science, what we he have to say about many of the things science contemplates now? Probably, even more emphatically, “God does not play dice!”

@avalmez – Contemplating a beginning is just about shifting the open issues. Is our universe part of a multiverse? If yes, why?

Yes, entanglement is really weird and awesome at the same time. Ever changed the quantum spin in a far away galaxy?

questions that alomst seem more about metaphysics than physics, no? and it’s ok that your gut reaction would be “Physiks!”

yes…immediately, unbounded by space or time…metaphysical Dude

And multi-verse is imho not unlike steady state..begs the question of a beginning.

@quingu That’s right. Neither of those play into my current reasons for following and participating in my faith. I grew up in a baptist tradition where they practiced such tactics as preaching the rewards of heaven, and/or the threat of hell. I have grown to realize that (for myself) neither of those reasons lend to an honest and open relationship between myself and God. My belief in God instead would be a situation in which belief would be beneficial to me. If that was the case I’d be going against one of, what I consider to be, the most important aspects of the Christian faith, that being called to be like Christ who was selfless in all he did.

@avalmez – In my opinion quantum entanglement is in the realm of physics similar to dark matter or dark energy while raising a few metaphysical questions as well. There are real experiments for example conducted by Austrian scientists, see below. We are not talking about hypothetical multiverses or baby universes.

From Wikipedia: Quantum entanglement is a possible property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This interconnection leads to non-classical correlations between observable physical properties of remote systems, often referred to as nonlocal correlations. For example, quantum mechanics holds that states such as spin are indeterminate until such time as some physical intervention is made to measure the spin of the object in question.

Entanglement has many applications in quantum information theory. Mixed state entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum communication. With the aid of entanglement, otherwise impossible tasks may be achieved. Among the best known applications of entanglement are superdense coding and quantum state teleportation. Efforts to quantify this resource are often termed entanglement theory. Quantum entanglement also has many different applications in the emerging technologies of quantum computing and quantum cryptography, and has been used to realize quantum teleportation experimentally. At the same time, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory.

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

Quantum teleportation, or entanglement-assisted teleportation, is a technique used to transfer information on a quantum level, usually from one particle (or series of particles) to another particle (or series of particles) in another location via quantum entanglement. It does not transport energy or matter, nor does it allow communication of information at superluminal (faster than light) speed.

First experiments with photons:

D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, Experimental Quantum Teleportation, Nature 390, 6660, 575–579 (1997).

D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, & S. Popescu, Experimental Realization of Teleporting an Unknown Pure Quantum State via Dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 6, 1121–1125 (1998)

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