What its like after death

[ViaCrucis]

ViaCrucis

I'm having a hard time seeing what the actual differences are between what you said the bible did not teach and what you said the bible does teach.

Popular imagination about Christianity--and many Christians have not done a particularly good job at fixing the misunderstanding--is that there is this life, and after this life we become disembodied spirits that either go to a place "up there" called "Heaven" or a place "down there" called "Hell".

Scripture, simply put, doesn't know this narrative. And, likewise, Christianity historically has spoken about judgment, resurrection, and restoration. The resurrection of the body means that the Christian hope is everlasting life here on God's green earth, not up in the clouds strumming harps. Christianity looks forward to the renewal of all creation, not in becoming a ghost flying up and escaping a yucky world of matter--that's Gnosticism, not orthodox Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

I can't place myself in the position of non-existing as a thought experiment because to not exist would require the absence of a mind. But it is hardly difficult to comprehend the idea of something not existing. Again, we live in a world where things have beginnings and things have endings.

We live in a world of transience.

-CryptoLutheran

Alright, thanks for responding

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Popular imagination about Christianity--and many Christians have not done a particularly good job at fixing the misunderstanding--is that there is this life, and after this life we become disembodied spirits that either go to a place "up there" called "Heaven" or a place "down there" called "Hell".

Scripture, simply put, doesn't know this narrative. And, likewise, Christianity historically has spoken about judgment, resurrection, and restoration. The resurrection of the body means that the Christian hope is everlasting life here on God's green earth, not up in the clouds strumming harps. Christianity looks forward to the renewal of all creation, not in becoming a ghost flying up and escaping a yucky world of matter--that's Gnosticism, not orthodox Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

Oh ok. So are you saying that at some time the dead will simply come back to life and be restored to a better state than before here on earth when earth itself has been fixed so to speak?

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Joshua

When you "kiss" me before laughing at me for how I stop talking to people and then provide that I will soon stop talking to other people too and imply that I have no desire to have fair conversation that isn't a kind or fair gesture. You then edited your post and removed the "kiss".

Do you honestly expect me to think that you're being fair and that I will want to continue talking to you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh ok. So are you saying that at some time the dead will simply come back to life and be restored to a better state than before here on earth when earth itself has been fixed so to speak?

More or less. All creation, not just the earth, will be made new. Hence the language used in both Isaiah and in the Revelation of a "new heavens and a new earth".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

More or less. All creation, not just the earth, will be made new. Hence the language used in both Isaiah and in the Revelation of a "new heavens and a new earth".

-CryptoLutheran

Oh I see. thanks for explaining.

 

[drich0150]

Drich

I don't think a coherent and logical conversation with you is possible. Have a good day.

I have provided evidence to the contary. In fact have provided an excellent frame work in which to have a coherent logical conversation, however the frame work provided does not support your position. To which I can completely understand why you would not wish to proceed, if indeed you were simply trying to troll for typical christian answers. 'Thinking on your feet' is not for everyone, some need to follow well maintain trails and well established schools of thought. however if you wish to try and really seriously question what you believe I am just a PM or a new thread away.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua

When you "kiss" me before laughing at me for how I stop talking to people and then provide that I will soon stop talking to other people too and imply that I have no desire to have fair conversation that isn't a kind or fair gesture. You then edited your post and removed the "kiss".

Do you honestly expect me to think that you're being fair and that I will want to continue talking to you?

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. In which post did I edit out some "kiss" that you are referring to?

 

[aiki]

Aiki

I'm not trying to argue that I will cease to exist or prove that i will. I'm saying that I believe I will and this helps me make sense of that.

But why believe that you will one day cease to exist? It seems to me that you are assuming you will without any concrete grounds upon which to do so.

Not existing before birth is not the proof but rather the method of me making sense of my belief.

But you haven't been using it merely as a method by which you make sense of your belief that you will eventually cease to exist. You have very plainly been using it as proof. Your thinking appears to be:

1. If I did not exist at a point in the past, I will not exist at some point in the future.
2. At a point in the past I did not exist.
3.) Therefore, in the future I will at some point cease to exist.

As syllogisms go this is not a particularly good one. On what is the first premise grounded? As I have already explained, it is a non sequitur. But if this is so, the rest of the argument ends up being of the same character. In any case, the above syllogism uses a method of arguing that attempts to prove itself in its premises. And if the syllogism succeeds, then it is a kind of proof of the premises it puts forward. Consequently, it looks very much to me that you are using the notion of your finite beginning in the past as a proof of your belief that you will one day cease to exist.

I don't think it's logical or reasonable to consider that I existed before I was born or that I will exist after I die. I have no reason to think that I will and it isn't reasonable to act or consider outside those boundaries of reason and logic.

But the two circumstances are not identical, as you seem to want to make them. Before you were conceived and born you had never existed; but before your death you will have existed for some time. Why wouldn't this significant difference between your birth and death have a bearing on what you can expect after you die?

When my body and brain is destroyed I will again be the way I was before my body and brain were formed. I cannot prove this and such a question undermines the concept of proof itself. I'm trying to explain myself.

What makes you think your brain is you? Assuming your mind is merely the effect of the physical processes of your brain is to seriously misunderstand your own mind. Perhaps the following might be of help to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDkLUBdvOkw&feature=share

Selah.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. In which post did I edit out some "kiss" that you are referring to?

It was post #31 where you laughed at me for refraining from talking to yourself and Drich.

I actually was mistaken about the "kiss". If you hover your mouse over the fish symbol you see the word "kiss". That word appeared at the top of your post and I believe it was while my page wasn't loading properly. I apologize for the misunderstanding on that but everything I've said about the way you talk and position it puts me in is still true.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

aiki

While yes I did make the statement that we did not exist before and so we do not need to exist after this wasn't an argument. I was providing my thought process to you and trying to show why it's easy to understand ceasing to exist, not asking you to rebut it or challenging you with it.

The reason I believe I will cease to exist is because I have no reason to think otherwise and because my body and my brain will cease to be. I think that means I will cease to exist. That there was a time when I did not exist is merely AN EXPLANATION or DEMONSTRATION for why not existing is reasonable and understandable.

A common characteristic of the two is that my brain and my body will no longer be.

I do not consider spiritual things like gods, heavens, hells or religious after lives. I cannot consider them and regard logic and reason properly so I do not consider those things at all.

I do not believe that free will exists at all. I think neuroscience and instrospection pretty well demonstrates that but I have had a lot of trouble communicating that to Christians in the past so I don't want to discuss that here and now.

 

[aiki]

I was providing my thought process to you and trying to show why it's easy to understand ceasing to exist, not asking you to rebut it or challenging you with it.

Well, I'm afraid you haven't succeeded in demonstrating to me why it is easy to understand ceasing to exist. I've already explained why not.

The reason I believe I will cease to exist is because I have no reason to think otherwise

Oh? Jesus rose from the dead. He raised others, too. If death is truly the end, resurrection is not possible. But Jesus did rise from the dead. So, death is not the end. And what about NDE's? Some of them are silly, but others offer very serious indications that the death of the body is not the end of everything.

I have noticed that you don't have any answer for the criticism that you're making an assumption about ceasing to exist entirely at physical death. But you prefer that assumption over other possibilities. Why is that?

A common characteristic of the two is that my brain and my body will no longer be.

But this isn't entirely accurate. Your brain and body at your physical death do still exist. In any case, I do understand how you're thinking about this matter, I just don't think it is very careful thinking.

I do not consider spiritual things like gods, heavens, hells or religious after lives. I cannot consider them and regard logic and reason properly so I do not consider those things at all.

Now this is just silly. Reason and logic have not abandoned the religious - at least, not the Christian. You show serious intellectual dishonesty in trying to suggest that faith in God and reason are antithetical to each other. They very clearly are not. Many great philosophers and scientists have been Christians. If what you imply about reason and logic being opposite religious faith is true, this should not be the case. But it is. In fact, the Christian faith has been the ground out of which some of the greatest science and philosophy has arisen!

I do not believe that free will exists at all.

But you haven't freely chosen to believe this, right? You are just parroting what you have ultimately been forced to believe. Why, then, should I consider any of it worth believing, too? You're rather like a puppet who speaks, not from his own understanding and conviction, but from whatever he is made to say. Like a puppet, you make your statements because you have to; and because your statements are compelled, they may express falsehood as readily as truth. You have no real choice in the matter. Your words aren't expressing genuine conviction, only the impulse of deterministic forces upon your mind. In light of this, I would be well-advised, I think, to suspect anything you might say.

I think neuroscience and instrospection pretty well demonstrates that but I have had a lot of trouble communicating that to Christians in the past so I don't want to discuss that here and now.

I should guess not since what you believe is just what you have been forced to believe. Having no free will, you cannot think other than you do, which makes getting at the truth of anything quite impossible. The truth is only ultimately what you have been compelled to believe it is. And since you cannot choose to think differently about what is true, how can you say what is and isn't true at all? But, then, I may be simply doing the same as you and spouting only what I have been made to think. A bit awkward, eh?

Selah.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

aiki

Well, I'm afraid you haven't succeeded in demonstrating to me why it is easy to understand ceasing to exist. I've already explained why not.

I am aware that what I provided to you wasn't sufficient for you. That's ok. The intent of my post was to learn about you, not ensure that you become satisfied with me and my ideas.

Oh? Jesus rose from the dead. He raised others, too. If death is truly the end, resurrection is not possible. But Jesus did rise from the dead. So, death is not the end. And what about NDE's? Some of them are silly, but others offer very serious indications that the death of the body is not the end of everything.

Jesus raising people from the dead isn't a logical concept, it deals with spirit and magic and the supernatural. I do not consider such things.

I have noticed that you don't have any answer for the criticism that you're making an assumption about ceasing to exist entirely at physical death. But you prefer that assumption over other possibilities. Why is that?

My answer was that there is no information to the contrary of my position and that there is no logical reason to reconsider. I would no sooner seriously consider life after death than I would seriously consider fairies and trolls and werewolves. I made that clear more than once.

But this isn't entirely accurate. Your brain and body at your physical death do still exist. In any case, I do understand how you're thinking about this matter, I just don't think it is very careful thinking.

Not very long they do not, decay and rot and eventually cease to exist.

Now this is just silly. Reason and logic have not abandoned the religious - at least, not the Christian. You show serious intellectual dishonesty in trying to suggest that faith in God and reason are antithetical to each other. They very clearly are not. Many great philosophers and scientists have been Christians. If what you imply about reason and logic being opposite religious faith is true, this should not be the case. But it is. In fact, the Christian faith has been the ground out of which some of the greatest science and philosophy has arisen!

We just aren't going to make any progress on that topic. I cannot logically consider the existence of gods, fairies, demons, trolls, angels and magical sky beings or virgins with kids or zombies come back from the dead or people walking on water. There is no way for me to responsibly take these things seriously. If you contest then I will allow but I will ignore it. It don't entertain these things.

But you haven't freely chosen to believe this, right? You are just parroting what you have ultimately been forced to believe. Why, then, should I consider any of it worth believing, too? You're rather like a puppet who speaks, not from his own understanding and conviction, but from whatever he is made to say. Like a puppet, you make your statements because you have to; and because your statements are compelled, they may express falsehood as readily as truth. You have no real choice in the matter. Your words aren't expressing genuine conviction, only the impulse of deterministic forces upon your mind. In light of this, I would be well-advised, I think, to suspect anything you might say.

I should guess not since what you believe is just what you have been forced to believe. Having no free will, you cannot think other than you do, which makes getting at the truth of anything quite impossible. The truth is only ultimately what you have been compelled to believe it is. And since you cannot choose to think differently about what is true, how can you say what is and isn't true at all? But, then, I may be simply doing the same as you and spouting only what I have been made to think. A bit awkward, eh?

No I did not have a conscious choice about anything I've told you or done. The manner in which you respond is determined by your brain before you ever become consciously aware of it. As far as it being true, whether I am consciously involved in the decision making process has no bearing on the decision making process completed by my central nervous system. Being consciously involved has no bearing on the process of determining the truth, your brain still does that, it never needed a conscious will to be involved. But that's all I'll say on that.

 

[aiki]

I am aware that what I provided to you wasn't sufficient for you. That's ok. The intent of my post was to learn about you, not ensure that you become satisfied with me and my ideas.

You may try to learn about me as you like but when you do so by making assertions (which you have) you should be willing to justify what assertions you make. That's just common courtesy and a fundamental aspect of being intellectually honest. If you don't want to account for your views, you shouldn't offer them.

Jesus raising people from the dead isn't a logical concept, it deals with spirit and magic and the supernatural. I do not consider such things.

I spoke of Jesus himself rising from the dead and of NDEs. You mention neither of these things in your response. Why is that? If there is no afterlife, how do you account for the Near Death Experiences of so many people that confound naturalistic explanation? If death is truly the end, how do you account for the powerful, historical evidence in favor of Jesus' resurrection? It is not sufficient to simply dismiss it all out-of-hand. THat is the response of the intellectually dishonest and lazy. You aren't that sort of person, are you?

On what grounds do you dismiss the supernatural and miraculous?

My answer was that there is no information to the contrary of my position and that there is no logical reason to reconsider.

But there is! As I have pointed out.

I would no sooner seriously consider life after death than I would seriously consider fairies and trolls and werewolves. I made that clear more than once.

Well, you made statements to this effect but you have yet to offer any substantial or reasonable justification for such statements. If you aren't prepared to defend what you say, why say it?

Now this is just silly. Reason and logic have not abandoned the religious - at least, not the Christian. You show serious intellectual dishonesty in trying to suggest that faith in God and reason are antithetical to each other. They very clearly are not. Many great philosophers and scientists have been Christians. If what you imply about reason and logic being opposite religious faith is true, this should not be the case. But it is. In fact, the Christian faith has been the ground out of which some of the greatest science and philosophy has arisen!
​

We just aren't going to make any progress on that topic. I cannot logically consider the existence of gods, fairies, demons, trolls, angels and magical sky beings or virgins with kids or zombies come back from the dead or people walking on water. There is no way for me to responsibly take these things seriously. If you contest then I will allow but I will ignore it. It don't entertain these things.

None of what you've written here addresses my point. If faith is opposed to logic and reason why are some of the greatest philosophers and scientists of all time Christian believers? You skated around the point of this question entirely! It appears, again, that you simply want to make declarations without having to back them up. Does this strike you as intellectually honest?

No Christian believes in fairies and trolls, or zombies, or any other gods but One. So what is all this about being expected to accept such things? As for angels, demons and people walking on water, well, again, simply dismissing all of these things out-of-hand, without any justification, is not intellectually honest. Why would Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, or Gregor Mendel, or Johannes Kepler, or Dr. Francis Collins be people of biblical faith if it was so terribly obvious that doing so was irrational?

No, I did not have a conscious choice about anything I've told you or done.
The manner in which you respond is determined by your brain before you ever become consciously aware of it. As far as it being true, whether I am consciously involved in the decision making process has no bearing on the decision making process completed by my central nervous system. Being consciously involved has no bearing on the process of determining the truth, your brain still does that, it never needed a conscious will to be involved. But that's all I'll say on that.

If you truly believed any of this, you would not be here writing the things you are. You would leave us all to the inevitable and inexorable forces of determinism. Logic, reason, argument, conviction, beliefs - they are all mere illusions if determinism is true.

Selah.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Aiki

I simply asked you what you thought, you told me what you think and I didn't do anything that I should explain or justify.

I never told you I would address all your points, what I told you repeatedly is that I never promised or even intended to address all of your statements and I am not going to, I repeatedly tried to end those conversations politely. I can't help that you have things you want to know or want to see that I don't want to help you with. I'm not going to talk about the supernatural and I'm not going to talk about free will because it's too difficult to talk with you about.

 

[Radagast]

How do you guys feel about the idea that we don't really need and afterlife, there doesn't have to be anything, we don't need to continue existing because we didn't need these things before we were born either?

Ummm, we're Christians here. We believe in "the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come," to quote the CF statement of faith.

To the extent that this thread is a question about Christianity, I think that answers it.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Ummm, we're Christians here. We believe in "the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come," to quote the CF statement of faith.

To the extent that this thread is a question about Christianity, I think that answers it.

Well yes I know what Christians usually think. I was hoping you'd tell me a bit more about my idea but alright.

 

[aiki]

Aiki

I simply asked you what you thought, you told me what you think and I didn't do anything that I should explain or justify.

I never told you I would address all your points, what I told you repeatedly is that I never promised or even intended to address all of your statements and I am not going to, I repeatedly tried to end those conversations politely. I can't help that you have things you want to know or want to see that I don't want to help you with. I'm not going to talk about the supernatural and I'm not going to talk about free will because it's too difficult to talk with you about.

You have begun to sound very much like an unbelieving fellow who was posting frequently several months ago. He, too, had a rather disingenuous approach to posting. Ostensibly, he wanted to know what we all thought, but in actuality he simply used our responses as a springboard to disrespect and cast doubt upon the Christian faith. I hope this is not the sort of thing you are intending to do.

We have clearly exhausted your willingness to actually converse about your ideas. It's unfortunate that you are so closed off that you cannot bear examination of your views. This is not a condition in which you are likely to arrive at the truth of things.

Selah.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

You have begun to sound very much like an unbelieving fellow who was posting frequently several months ago. He, too, had a rather disingenuous approach to posting. Ostensibly, he wanted to know what we all thought, but in actuality he simply used our responses as a springboard to disrespect and cast doubt upon the Christian faith. I hope this is not the sort of thing you are intending to do.

We have clearly exhausted your willingness to actually converse about your ideas. It's unfortunate that you are so closed off that you cannot bear examination of your views. This is not a condition in which you are likely to arrive at the truth of things.

Selah.

I haven't disrespected anyone. I tried and tried and told you over and over that I just didn't want to talk to you about those two topics and you wouldn't listen.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Aiki

If you were as condescending and inconsiderate and unrelenting to that other person as you are to me I can see why you had problems. If you'd accepted a simple "thank you but I don't want to talk about that because that's normally a really hard subject to communicate" things might be different.