Death.. Then what?

[Danimal]

"Death... Then what?"
It is basic animal instinct to stay alive, to carry on living. For beings as intelligent as a human, that instinct becomes much more apparent. With intelligence, we are always coming up with new ways of being healthier to enable us to live a longer life. My own personal opinion is that life after death, heaven and hell, is something created by intelligence to explain what we don't know, and typically we fear the unknown, so an afterlife is a comforting solution. This makes sense to me, for this belief would give the ultimate comfort. Allowing someone to believe God is the answer, along with a significant purpose in life is an extremely powerful and comforting thought. Although, I can easily accept that I am wrong, the insignificance of us on this planet is unbearable for some people, myself included. "There are more stars in the sky, than there are grains of sand" That kind-of sheer size, the sheer volume of the unexplained is so beyond our explanation, that we believe in something so "thought perfect" as God to allow us to feel better about ourselves.
   On a different note, the imperfections of our nature, and the injustice in the world, to give Chaos food for thought, could be a test of faith. To get into such a perfect place, people must go through a lifetime in God's creation to allow them to demonstrate their faith and trust in God. For it's suggested that life is temporary, and pain and loss will also only be temporary.

[Specialboy]

@Cactus:

The devil was originally the highest order angel, who rebeled against god, and got sent out of heaven and turned into the devil.

[Jake]

Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of being hostile, but those particular logical fallacies jumped out at me, and I wanted to address them in case I'm missing something here.  I mean, I just don't see how you're jumping from "SINCE God is perfect" to "he won't accept anyone [...]" etc.  That previous statement doesn't logically support the following statement in any way I can see.  What part of God 'being perfect' makes him choose to "not accept people into heaven [...]" etc.?

As I also said in the other post, I don't understand why a "perfect person" 'sacrificing' him/herself would suddenly absolve everyone else?  Who else other than God made that rule, and why would God make a rule that would require his son to die?  If he could have kept his son alive, but chose not to, it's not really much of a sacrifice then, is it?

I suppose God considered it necessary to send his son to die. Maybe it's part of a spiritual logic that we can't fathom, I don't really know.

And considering God created humans in the first place, how come he made them 'sin-able' in the first place?  Why would a perfect God make a knowledge giving tree, and plop it down in the middle of the garden, then go "DON'T TOUCH THIS".  Hell, the fact that humans disobeyed and touched it shows they already had sin in the first place <_<  And don't gimme that Eve was persuaded by the snake, or however the story goes.  The snake was created by God, which means it shouldn't have 'sin' either.  Because, you know, it was made by someone who was PERFECT.  Since when is knowledge 'sinful', anyway?  God is all knowing, and he's supposedly the ultimate good.  Clearly knowledge didn't mess HIM up.  And since humans are made 'in God's image', it would be assumed that they should also be perfect, anyway.   ???

Sorry.  My train of thought became a run-away.  Either way, feel free to provide me some answers to some or all of these questions, cause I'm at a loss at this point.  And that's an invitation to anyone.  I set up the ball, feel free to grab and run with it.

The tree isn't just a knowledge tree. It opens your eyes to good and evil. I think the idea behind it is that before they ate the fruit, the concept of evil didn't exist, so they couldn't commit sin. It doesn't sound really logical but then again, it doesn't have to (because God's involved). Human's can't comprehend God's ways.

Another idea that exists in Christianity is that Sin existed without God.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, because you bring up some great points. These explanations are what somebody else might try to use to debunk your points.

[Mystery]

The tree isn't just a knowledge tree. It opens your eyes to good and evil. I think the idea behind it is that before they ate the fruit, the concept of evil didn't exist, so they couldn't commit sin. It doesn't sound really logical but then again, it doesn't have to (because God's involved). Human's can't comprehend God's ways.

Another idea that exists in Christianity is that Sin existed without God.

These explanations are what somebody else might try to use to debunk your points.

If evil didn't exist before eating the fruit, then what was the reason for Lucifer 'supposedly rebelling and God casting him down'? Unless you're telling me God did that for kicks.

Humans don't comprehend a LOT of the universe(yet), but I refuse to believe we can't understand the logic involved in a 'supposed higher being'. I stick to the belief everything can be explained.

If sin existed without God, then someone else must've created it. But I thought 'God created the whole frigging universe'. Or am I mistaken?

And there is a simple paradox which debunks any 'omnipotent being'.

Consider this. Your God created a boulder of infinite mass, which even HE can't lift. But that's impossible, isn't it? Well, if he can't even create that boulder in the first place, then he's not the all-powerful, do-anything God.

Still, though.....thinking about this subject matter too long depresses me. In the end, I may try to debunk most illogical explanations, but I may not really know either. For all the human race knows, we're God's puppet show, everyone would mysteriously turn into a ghost, or we'd all go to Limbo. I can really only believe in what makes sense to me.

EDIT: The only reason I follow logical answers is because they're the only things that make sense to me. I do take them with a grain of salt occasionally, but that's what I stick to and always will, unless someone can prove logic wrong..

[Hikarikuen]

Consider this. Your God created a boulder of infinite mass, which even HE can't lift. But that's impossible, isn't it? Well, if he can't even create that boulder in the first place, then he's not the all-powerful, do-anything God.

Is that not believing that there's such thing as a boulder he can't lift?

Believing something without proof... sounds almost like faith, doesn't it?

[Chaos]

Honestly, I find that whole "not understanding God's way" as a cop-out.  If God made everything, that also includes the rules that hold the basis of logic.  I find it hard to believe he created the rules to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE in that way, and yet doesn't adhere to such concepts.  If he didn't himself use these concepts he created, I find it hard to believe he would have created the UNIVERSE to use them, either.

As a famous saying among writers, "Write what you know".

And that still doesn't explain why he felt the need to plop this all-knowing tree in the middle of the friggin GARDEN.  It's like he's TRYING to be a dick-hole.

@Cactus: Lest I'm mistaken, as Specialboy said, the Devil, commonly known as 'Lucifer', is a fallen angel.  Didn't that happen after the Garden of Eden stuff?  I mean, I don't recall God making the angels and whatnot in those 7 days.  Someone with more knowledge on the bible will have to chime in there, cause I honestly don't know when the angels were supposedly around.

@Jake again:  Who made Sin, then?  As I was saying before, if Sin existed without God, that means there has be another ultimate being pulling strings.  Someone else that was around at the same time or before God and made Sin.  But then, why would he have made Sin when NOTHING EXISTED? >_<  What's gonna Sin, the anti-matter?

@Hikari:  I think the idea was that God is all-powerful, thus he should be able to create such a boulder.

And yeah, I'm not trying to argue with anyone in particular here.  I'm just grabbing what's said and pushing them down the logic river, see if I can make them float or not.  :x

Rather, other people are pushing them down the speculation river, and I'm throwing Logic Rocks, seeing if I can make em sink?

[Jake]

The tree isn't just a knowledge tree. It opens your eyes to good and evil. I think the idea behind it is that before they ate the fruit, the concept of evil didn't exist, so they couldn't commit sin. It doesn't sound really logical but then again, it doesn't have to (because God's involved). Human's can't comprehend God's ways.

Another idea that exists in Christianity is that Sin existed without God.

These explanations are what somebody else might try to use to debunk your points.

If evil didn't exist before eating the fruit, then what was the reason for Lucifer 'supposedly rebelling and God casting him down'? Unless you're telling me God did that for kicks.

Humans don't comprehend a LOT of the universe(yet), but I refuse to believe we can't understand the logic involved in a 'supposed higher being'. I stick to the belief everything can be explained.

If sin existed without God, then someone else must've created it. But I thought 'God created the whole frigging universe'. Or am I mistaken?

And there is a simple paradox which debunks any 'omnipotent being'.

Consider this. Your God created a boulder of infinite mass, which even HE can't lift. But that's impossible, isn't it? Well, if he can't even create that boulder in the first place, then he's not the all-powerful, do-anything God.

Still, though.....thinking about this subject matter too long depresses me. In the end, I may try to debunk most illogical explanations, but I may not really know either. For all the human race knows, we're God's puppet show, everyone would mysteriously turn into a ghost, or we'd all go to Limbo. I can really only believe in what makes sense to me.

EDIT: The only reason I follow logical answers is because they're the only things that make sense to me. I do take them with a grain of salt occasionally, but that's what I stick to and always will, unless someone can prove logic wrong..

I don't really feel like arguing this point because it's not my belief.

When I said "concept of evil" I meant comprehension of evil. Sin existed, but Adam and Eve couldn't commit it because they had no understanding of it. No need to argue this further because I was simply expressing the beliefs of some Christians.

Your idea of God contradicting his own power is flawed. This guy says it best...
"The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature.  Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc.   But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent.  Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess.  This does not mean He can violate his own nature.  If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory.  If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true.  Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction.  Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God.  But God is true and not self-contradictory.  Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature."

@Jake again:  Who made Sin, then?  As I was saying before, if Sin existed without God, that means there has be another ultimate being pulling strings.  Someone else that was around at the same time or before God and made Sin.  But then, why would he have made Sin when NOTHING EXISTED? >_<  What's gonna Sin, the anti-matter?

Don't ask me. My statement was that of what many Christians believe, which is that it exists separately from God.

It's completely pointless to say that God made decisions that don't make sense, etc. If you believe in the concept of God in the first place, then it makes no difference if they make sense or not. It's like arguing whether or not aliens have penis's. It makes more sense to find out if they exist first.

[Chaos]

Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.

@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically. 

[Hikarikuen]

@Hikari:  I think the idea was that God is all-powerful, thus he should be able to create such a boulder.

Yes, I was going to edit the post and modify the phrasing a little bit, but you guys are too fast. I was going to say that by using Mystery's argument, one is more or less implying that they fully understand infinity.

Also, as for the

And that still doesn't explain why he felt the need to plop this all-knowing tree in the middle of the friggin GARDEN.  It's like he's TRYING to be a dick-hole.

I think the point is that he created humans with a share of his power (share isn't exactly the right word since his power is infinite, I suppose, but you get my point), and wanted to give them a chance to exercise this power of free will.

Here's one way to put it: He didn't create humans and Earth as his playground where he's the bully; he created humans and created Earth as our playground, with him as the adult who kids come to if they get hurt. Do we play nice or do we fight with the other kids?

Also, I made that up out of nowhere, hopefully it's a decent analogy :P

[Jake]

Yeah, that whole boulder business seemed like a pretty flimsy argument to me, too.

@Jake: Well, that wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically.  

Alright, I wasn't sure. I don't want people getting the idea that I believe all these points that I bring up (although maybe I should make that clearer).

One question I have to atheists out there is this; Has the universe always existed? How were the rules of the universe created? Is it logical to think that intelligent beings were created through random process? How were these processes put into movement in the first place? No matter how many theories people will dream up, there will always be the question of "well, if that happened, what started that process?". The big bang uses the rules of the universe, so that's not viable. Unless you want to tell me that the rules of the universe have always been there, which would be the same as saying "well, I don't know, I'm just guessing". To me, that has less logic than believing in an omnipotent being. Everything that we know was created by something. We were created by our parents. Humans were created by evolution. Our galaxy was created by the big bang. And this loop seems to be abruptly halted by the idea that it all just exists. I choose to go with the belief that a higher being is the next factor in the endless process of creation, simply because I see more evidence for it than for our illogical, unexplained, existence.

[Lucifer]

As much as I may consider myself an Atheist, I don't believe one bit in the big bang theory, and I find it much more likely that Something(s) out there is pulling the strings. Do I believe in heaven or hell? No, I don't believe any of our religions are correct about the afterlife and ever will be. However I refuse to believe that we're just some playground or testing facility, I feel there must be a purpose.

I think the point is that he created humans with a share of his power (share isn't exactly the right word since his power is infinite, I suppose, but you get my point), and wanted to give them a chance to exercise this power of free will.

Free will my ass. If you don't do as he says you're burning in hell for eternity. I may be very thick headed for posting this, but is any of it true? I myself have never read the bible, so I don't know if this is bullshit or not. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
If it is, what the hell? Apparently slavery isn't a sin? I'd love for someone to clear that up for me.

[ARTgames]

After death there is decomposition. Question answered, have a good day.

[Lingus]

I know this was way back, but I wanted to respond.

If you have a soul, it is most definitely not connected to your brain.

Why can't the soul be connected to the brain as some kind of bridge between the spiritual and physical world? I was reading through some of your posts and you seem to take the view point that the soul needs to be disconnected from any part of the brain, and therefore would not retain anything from it. Could you explain to me how this is more logical than believing in a connection between soul and brain? I'm just interested in why you take this particular stance because I don't think I've found a straight answer yet when peering through the topic.

Oh, and I just wanted to point out that not wanting to spend eternity in heaven once your their is assuming that you carry with you emotions like boredom, sadness, depression, etc. If you're truly happy all the time, living for eternity would be a good thing, regardless of how you feel towards it now.

Well, if you read what I wrote to Cactuscat and how he responded you'll see where I'm coming from. Basically I'm not saying that the brain and soul are not connected (even though that's exactly what I said). I'm saying that after death they would be disconnected because your brain and body no longer functions. If we indeed have souls, it is most definitely connected in some way with our bodies. The soul and physical world would be interacting through our consciousness. Of course, that's all supposition. It assumes that we have souls and that our concsiousness is not the final depth. It's also very likely that our brains and minds are simply so complex that it appears that there is something beyond that. We concoct a notion of a soul, something that survives past our living selves, because we can't conceive of there being nothing beyond our conciousness. But that aside, I believe I responded with enough detail. Your body and soul would be connected while your body is functioning. Beyond that, it couldn't. If your soul were to still be connected to your body after it was gone, it wouldn't get anything out of it. If you believe otherwise, I wouldn't disagree with you entirely, I just find it unlikely that we are completely wrong about how we retain memories and how the brain works; that instead those functions are a product of the soul.

And yes, I agree with what you said in the second paragraph. My example was to point out that I think a literal interpretation of heavan/hell doesn't make sense. If the typical literal interpretation says you spend eternity in heavan doing the things you love the most... except you have no feelings, etc etc... and a bunch of other stuff that qualifies the ability to do those things for eternity without going stark raving mad, then I would have to take it many steps further. Not only do you not have the physical feelings/emotions that would cause that, but you don't have any of the same ties to the physical world whatsoever. You have no body, you have no memories, you are not in a place, and you are not experiencing anything of the physical world. With that in mind, you aren't going to be spening eternity with a bunch of hot chicks drinking beer or spending time with your family or fishing or any of those things... because they are all physical desires.

[Jake]

I know this was way back, but I wanted to respond.

If you have a soul, it is most definitely not connected to your brain.

Why can't the soul be connected to the brain as some kind of bridge between the spiritual and physical world? I was reading through some of your posts and you seem to take the view point that the soul needs to be disconnected from any part of the brain, and therefore would not retain anything from it. Could you explain to me how this is more logical than believing in a connection between soul and brain? I'm just interested in why you take this particular stance because I don't think I've found a straight answer yet when peering through the topic.

Oh, and I just wanted to point out that not wanting to spend eternity in heaven once your their is assuming that you carry with you emotions like boredom, sadness, depression, etc. If you're truly happy all the time, living for eternity would be a good thing, regardless of how you feel towards it now.

Well, if you read what I wrote to Cactuscat and how he responded you'll see where I'm coming from. Basically I'm not saying that the brain and soul are not connected (even though that's exactly what I said). I'm saying that after death they would be disconnected because your brain and body no longer functions. If we indeed have souls, it is most definitely connected in some way with our bodies. The soul and physical world would be interacting through our consciousness. Of course, that's all supposition. It assumes that we have souls and that our concsiousness is not the final depth. It's also very likely that our brains and minds are simply so complex that it appears that there is something beyond that. We concoct a notion of a soul, something that survives past our living selves, because we can't conceive of there being nothing beyond our conciousness. But that aside, I believe I responded with enough detail. Your body and soul would be connected while your body is functioning. Beyond that, it couldn't. If your soul were to still be connected to your body after it was gone, it wouldn't get anything out of it. If you believe otherwise, I wouldn't disagree with you entirely, I just find it unlikely that we are completely wrong about how we retain memories and how the brain works; that instead those functions are a product of the soul.

And yes, I agree with what you said in the second paragraph. My example was to point out that I think a literal interpretation of heavan/hell doesn't make sense. If the typical literal interpretation says you spend eternity in heavan doing the things you love the most... except you have no feelings, etc etc... and a bunch of other stuff that qualifies the ability to do those things for eternity without going stark raving mad, then I would have to take it many steps further. Not only do you not have the physical feelings/emotions that would cause that, but you don't have any of the same ties to the physical world whatsoever. You have no body, you have no memories, you are not in a place, and you are not experiencing anything of the physical world. With that in mind, you aren't going to be spening eternity with a bunch of hot chicks drinking beer or spending time with your family or fishing or any of those things... because they are all physical desires.

I see where your coming from, but I think you misunderstood what I meant when I talked about the brain and soul being connected (not because you misread anything, but because I didn't explain it will enough). I was pretty much trying to convey the idea that because the brain and soul are connected, the soul contains memories of our physical lives. I was trying to say that it's just as likely for a soul to contain these past memories than to not contain any memories or desires from our physical bodies.

[Lingus]

Yes. It's possible that there is some lasting effect on the soul. In fact, it would make sense if it were. But not full fledged memories... I just don't see that being likely. Of course, I can always be wrong. This is all completely theoretical.