Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[ToHoldNothing]

Negatore!

Everything we have spoken of so far is summed up in this one example. The Spirit is "the earnest of our inheritance" (Ephesians 1:14) says exactly what you deny. And typically a downpayment or earnest money is 10% - just like the tithe, just like G-d's remnant of Faithful people.

Except you cannot demonstrate that your so called downpayment will result in anything, whereas there's more obvious evidence that paying for a mortgage will earn you ownership of the house.

From your non-born again POV, the explanation would no doubt seem sillier. Let's take things one at a time, ok? This is why time was created.

And yet supposedly time will have no meaning in the afterlife, so it seems like time is only a matter of convenience and then it will be abandoned. I hardly think time should be regarded in such a flippant way.

Nope. We're BOTH talking about EL. I'm pointing out that we can partake of that to some extent in the here and now, in which case your assertion here is false. The Bible uses the term "translation," but thinking of it like a Star Trek transporter beam is ok.

Translation means the nature of something is changed if we take something like english to japanese. They might both be written, but they're vastly different in the degree of communication nuances. The problem seems to be that even if I took your word that we'd be physical, I have to wonder why it would be better at all

Either way the point is that if we have not partaken of EL upon death, why should we suppose we will start then? And if we have been steadily partaking of EL at the time of death, why should we suppose that would suddenly stop?

I don't think I implied either of these. The fact that you're claiming a constant state of Eternal Life in some way only seems to confuse the issue in qualifying that it's only in part and not in full, but a mere change in behavior and consciousness is hardly reflective of eternal anything, but a temporal adjustment in psychology, so to speak. Full eternal life, you seem to be implying, is a change in both psychology and biology.

The answer to the question in your OP is to experience the quality of EL, as compared to "normal life." Then that particular question vanishes, and the questions become much more numerous, complex and interesting

What would you qualify as normal life? You seem to think normality doesn't have a sacred or spiritual aspect to it that is awe inspiring.

 

[razeontherock]

Except you cannot demonstrate that your so called downpayment will result in anything

Demonstrate to whom?

You: doesn't matter.

Me: sure can!

G-d: ditto.

And yet supposedly time will have no meaning in the afterlife, so it seems like time is only a matter of convenience and then it will be abandoned. I hardly think time should be regarded in such a flippant way.

And I will defer to it's Creator on the matter. Should you hold Him in judgment over the matter, will he plead softly with you?

Translation means the nature of something is changed if we take something like english to japanese. They might both be written, but they're vastly different in the degree of communication nuances. The problem seems to be that even if I took your word that we'd be physical, I have to wonder why it would be better at all

The issue here is trust. Since you are not hesitant to compare G-d to Dr Frankenstein, this seems like an issue that needs to be worked out ...

The fact that you're claiming a constant state of Eternal Life in some way only seems to confuse the issue in qualifying that it's only in part and not in full

No, I'm not implying any constant. I'm not sure if any denom that reveres Saints makes that claim of them, either ...

but a mere change in behavior and consciousness is hardly reflective of eternal anything, but a temporal adjustment in psychology, so to speak.

C is not behavior mod

Full eternal life, you seem to be implying, is a change in both psychology and biology.

We actually don't know that biology will be involved, or if so, how. The very concept of EL seems to defy everything we know of biology.

What would you qualify as normal life? You seem to think normality doesn't have a sacred or spiritual aspect to it that is awe inspiring.

Normal is not a term I normally associate with

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Demonstrate to whom?

You: doesn't matter.

Me: sure can!

G-d: ditto.

It does matter if you can or can't demonstrate it to me or other skeptics. If it's some isolated experience, there's no reason to think it will be consistent with everyone else's experience.

And I will defer to it's Creator on the matter. Should you hold Him in judgment over the matter, will he plead softly with you?

I would hope he'd grant me a reincarnation option

The issue here is trust. Since you are not hesitant to compare G-d to Dr Frankenstein, this seems like an issue that needs to be worked out ...

Why would I trust an entity that thinks it can just change its mind at a whim and say it doesn't change in the same text? Why would I trust any entity that thinks it deserves my praise and worship just because it created me?

No, I'm not implying any constant. I'm not sure if any denom that reveres Saints makes that claim of them, either ...

The problem is the exact claims you're making about eternal life, which you keep dancing around,saying that you can't prove it, but just believe it

C is not behavior mod

I never said it was, but it's implied that Jesus will make you behave differently, am I wrong?

We actually don't know that biology will be involved, or if so, how. The very concept of EL seems to defy everything we know of biology.

In which case, you have to resort to faith claims in order to not seem like you're pulling this out of thin air.

Normal is not a term I normally associate with

Again, you don't know, why not just plainly admit it?

 

[razeontherock]

It does matter if you can or can't demonstrate it to me or other skeptics. If it's some isolated experience, there's no reason to think it will be consistent with everyone else's experience.

Oh it absolutely will NOT be consistent with everyone else's experience! This is part of what will make EL (in the future, "heavenly" type sense) enjoyable. One quirky thing I personally look forward to is the chance to develop my musical skills unhindered by those things this life has set me back with, and to enjoy that of others. I'm pointing to the diversity / personality facet, which you seem to fear will be lost.

Anyway, EL is not given to enable me nor anyone else to somehow "prove" to others that any of this is real.. That would produce horrible outcomes!

1) It would remove Faith
2) It would hyper-inflate egos of believers

These sorts of things i also wished for as a baby Christian, not yet recognizing that this life is not the place for glorification but humility.

I would hope he'd grant me a reincarnation option

It's not a McDonald's drive thru menu. "Once to die, and then the Judgment." The closest sense that reincarnation could jibe is if Biblical intent is not forever, but age-long. This could allow for a Judgment Day at the end of every age.

Why would I trust an entity that thinks it can just change its mind at a whim and say it doesn't change in the same text? Why would I trust any entity that thinks it deserves my praise and worship just because it created me?

G-d doesn't say either of these things, and you can't demonstrate He has. You can consider that a challenge ...

The problem is the exact claims you're making about eternal life, which you keep dancing around,saying that you can't prove it, but just believe it

To expect me to take the ineffable and transform that into an "exact claim" is not reasonable. If you could perceive the claim, you would also already know it to be True.

I never said it was, but it's implied that Jesus will make you behave differently, am I wrong?

Not make, but enable.

In which case, you have to resort to faith claims in order to not seem like you're pulling this out of thin air.

Again with the unreasonable thing? The Gospel is not that some super-human race exists: the Borg's "you will be assimilated, resistance is futile"

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Oh it absolutely will NOT be consistent with everyone else's experience! This is part of what will make EL (in the future, "heavenly" type sense) enjoyable. One quirky thing I personally look forward to is the chance to develop my musical skills unhindered by those things this life has set me back with, and to enjoy that of others. I'm pointing to the diversity / personality facet, which you seem to fear will be lost.

This just seems like your utopian ideal as opposed to what might actually be the case. You can't be conclusively certain this will be the case or that it would even be good in terms of eternity. You might be able to enjoy things, but you wouldn't experience anything like what life is like now, which isn't evil in and of itself at all. You seem to view this life as only good as it resembles what you think paradise or heaven would be like, which is a problem in itself.

Anyway, EL is not given to enable me nor anyone else to somehow "prove" to others that any of this is real.. That would produce horrible outcomes!

1) It would remove Faith
2) It would hyper-inflate egos of believers

These sorts of things i also wished for as a baby Christian, not yet recognizing that this life is not the place for glorification but humility.

Then the whole thing is moot in terms of discussion except as you believe the tiny amount of qualities you think heaven might possess, which not every Christian would agree with. And then there's hell, which I recall elman doesn't really believe in as a place at all, just death and annihilation of the soul.

It's not a McDonald's drive thru menu. "Once to die, and then the Judgment." The closest sense that reincarnation could jibe is if Biblical intent is not forever, but age-long. This could allow for a Judgment Day at the end of every age.

You seem to forget God isall powerful, so you have no reason it seems besides your own concerns that God wouldn't allow that. And I didn't compare it to a drive thru menu, simply a notion that God would respect people's freedom.

G-d doesn't say either of these things, and you can't demonstrate He has. You can consider that a challenge ...

Then by all means try to explain how God can change its mind in the Bible and supposedly be immutable? Or why God deserves my praise at all? These are just a few issues I'd have with such an entity that thinks its the origin of all things when it may very well still be in the cycle, like the proverbial Metatron from His Dark Materials, thinking he was God when he wasn't at all.

To expect me to take the ineffable and transform that into an "exact claim" is not reasonable. If you could perceive the claim, you would also already know it to be True.

That's presuming I even care about God as a source of fulfillment enough to even pursue something like that, which I don't.

Not make, but enable.

I never said force, I implied that sense of enable of the word make.

Again with the unreasonable thing? The Gospel is not that some super-human race exists: the Borg's "you will be assimilated, resistance is futile"

I don't think I compared your heaven to the Borg. At best, it's only something that seems good and then becomes normal after an infinite amount of time, where your experiences are inhuman in nature, not unlike the notion of how gods think that I communicated in my thread on whether gods are superhuman or inhuman since they don't think like humans at all

 

[razeontherock]

This just seems like your utopian ideal as opposed to what might actually be the case. You can't be conclusively certain this will be the case or that it would even be good in terms of eternity. You might be able to enjoy things, but you wouldn't experience anything like what life is like now, which isn't evil in and of itself at all. You seem to view this life as only good as it resembles what you think paradise or heaven would be like, which is a problem in itself.

Well this does address the stated purpose of this thread, doesn't it?? Can you elaborate on the part I bolded, why you feel this is a problem?

My attempt at addressing it so far:

Life now has both good and evil. We are designed for good, but not to endure evil. It kills us. The primary distinction of EL is, no death because of no evil. For all the mysticism and intrigue, the mundane reality we have to deal with is - resist evil. Allow me to point out, THAT is boring! (Since you express fear of boredom re: EL.)

Then the whole thing is moot in terms of discussion except as you believe the tiny amount of qualities you think heaven might possess

Where does this absurd notion come from? Look, G-d claims whatever qualities He chose to be. He is that he is, and He is immutable. Lucifer's fall stranded him with whatever G-d rejected, which is puny by comparison. The first and oldest book of the Bible is Job, which directly refutes yin and yang, which was apparently the pinnacle of wisdom in it's day.

Good and evil are not equal yet opposite. Spiritual warfare is not G-d vs satan, there is no contest; rather it is satan vs MAN. (satan would also like to cause us to turn on one another, but a C is to recognize no mortal is his Spiritual enemy)

The qualities of EL are vast, and only not infinite because of the (relatively) tiny amount of qualities excluded from EL, which apparently will eventually exist only in hell. (Incidentally this is the justice of hell, to confine these things and separate them from all that is good)

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well this does address the stated purpose of this thread, doesn't it?? Can you elaborate on the part I bolded, why you feel this is a problem?

Basically, you understand this life as only good insofar as it resembles heaven. It is bad in every way it does not resemble heaven. This appears to be your principle of judgment about this world's goodness or lack thereof.

My attempt at addressing it so far:

Life now has both good and evil. We are designed for good, but not to endure evil. It kills us. The primary distinction of EL is, no death because of no evil. For all the mysticism and intrigue, the mundane reality we have to deal with is - resist evil. Allow me to point out, THAT is boring! (Since you express fear of boredom re: EL.)

You presume that it is evil that kills us, when it can be argued that death is a necessary evil or even a good in some sense in enabling us to face the temporality of life. Life would be more boring if we didn't have death, disease or any of those sorts of things to one extent or another. Disease will always exist in a biological universe, so it would seem your heaven would have to negate that in some extreme sense (inorganic bodies?). Again, this seems a perspective problem of your judgments of certain things as good or bad in and of themselves as opposed to considering that goodness and badness are a matter of context and perspective, as well as our general approach towards them. We can view many things as bad that are in fact good because of our mistaken presumptions and beliefs.

Where does this absurd notion come from? Look, G-d claims whatever qualities He chose to be. He is that he is, and He is immutable. Lucifer's fall stranded him with whatever G-d rejected, which is puny by comparison. The first and oldest book of the Bible is Job, which directly refutes yin and yang, which was apparently the pinnacle of wisdom in it's day.

More parroting of the groundless claims of Lucifer aside, I don't see how yin and yang are proven absurd through Job, and you presume I will just understand it by reading it, which isn't necessarily the case. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding on the part of you or Jews about what yin and yang nondualism actually consists in, which is not dualism, but in fact closer to monism.

Good and evil are not equal yet opposite. Spiritual warfare is not G-d vs satan, there is no contest; rather it is satan vs MAN. (satan would also like to cause us to turn on one another, but a C is to recognize no mortal is his Spiritual enemy)

Good and evil are equal in importance to me. If we do not recognize what is evil, we cannot recognize what is good and vice versa. We have models, or fa in Chinese, to approach these problems, but of course they aren't perfect, which is why we adjust them.

The qualities of EL are vast, and only not infinite because of the (relatively) tiny amount of qualities excluded from EL, which apparently will eventually exist only in hell. (Incidentally this is the justice of hell, to confine these things and separate them from all this is good)

Again, ideas of hell that aren't necessarily defensible through the bible or even consistent with God. Not to mention justice becomes another tangent you're injecting into this that is not necessary, because this isn't about whether heaven/hell is just, but whether it is desirable and/or good, neither of which are directly connected with justice by necessity.

 

[razeontherock]

Basically, you understand this life as only good insofar as it resembles heaven. It is bad in every way it does not resemble heaven. This appears to be your principle of judgment about this world's goodness or lack thereof.

No sir. I find it impossible to judge anything by the standard of heaven, which I have never seen. I don't see how you could think such a thing?

You presume that it is evil that kills us, when it can be argued that death is a necessary evil or even a good in some sense in enabling us to face the temporality of life.

You're overlooking some really obvious definitions here!

And why would we have to "face the temporality of life" w/o evil resulting in death? (Pointing out your circular argument here)

Life would be more boring if we didn't have death, disease or any of those sorts of things to one extent or another.

You're volunteering to host all the diseases that've ever plagued me so you can play with them for fun, and so i can be free of them? Cool!

I don't see how yin and yang are proven absurd through Job, and you presume I will just understand it by reading it

Where did I ever say that? Rather, G-d would have to show you that, which would take ears to hear, on your part.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No sir. I find it impossible to judge anything by the standard of heaven, which I have never seen. I don't see how you could think such a thing?

Then how are you judging this world except by the standard of someone related to heaven, God?

You're overlooking some really obvious definitions here!

And why would we have to "face the temporality of life" w/o evil resulting in death? (Pointing out your circular argument here)

Facing the temporality of life does not preclude that we ourselves will die, and doesn't make the argument circular. Me accepting I will die is part of facing life's transience. And you and I facing the inevitable deaths of others. It doesn't make life pointless, it makes life all the more enjoyable in that we have new things to experience every day.

You're volunteering to host all the diseases that've ever plagued me so you can play with them for fun, and so i can be free of them? Cool!

I'm not saying they're good in themselves, they're good in that we build immunity to them, we have medical challenges, we can make vaccines. The common cold is not evil, it's a fact of life. And it teaches us to be more mindful of our health. How is that a bad thing?

Where did I ever say that? Rather, G-d would have to show you that, which would take ears to hear, on your part.

Which only gets into your ideas of what you think I must hear as opposed to what I hear at the moment.

 

[elman]

True and you have failed to prove reincarnation.

When did I ever claim I could? At best, it's a more practical and probable explanation than ending one life and positing some unfalsifiable notion of a soul.

When did I ever claim I could prove the existence of God or the spiritual realm or the soul. I don't find reincarnation more practical or probable than believe in a loving Creator and a soul.

True, the exsitence of God is not provable.

Then God is little more than a glorified opinion.

Perhaps an improvment over the opinion of reincarnation and oblivion.

Perhaps and perhaps if you have become a loving being, your experiences and self does not cease.

Only in the sense perhaps that people will remember you and preserve you in some sense as a loving person. But not in any sense that you survive beyond the death of your brain.

Like reincarnation, this is simply speculation on your part.

. No my existence is real and therefore my attacment to life as a good thing is not delusory. Your attachment to death as a good thing is delusory.

Death is not a good thing, nor is life a good thing absolutely. Both of them are quite subjective.

Death is bad. Life can be good or bad.

People can be unrealistically afraid of life and death and can be unrealistically attached to them as well. I prefer to remain impartial and regard both as natural and coming as they will. I hope I corrected this misunderstanding.

True but prefering life to death is not being unrealistically attached to life.

Even if your existence is real, it does not follow that your judgments reflect reality

Agreed.

No becoming a loving being is not a waste of effort, even if your belief of oblivion is correct. It is still the better way to live

.
I don't disagree with becoming a loving being, I disagree that becoming a loving being will make you immortal in any permanent/absolute sense.

But your view of reality could be mistaken.

As I discuss them with you and you talk about surviving in the memories of others, I come to the conclusion I was correct about my understanding that emptiness does mean void and non existence does in fact mean oblvion.

Emptiness means no-thingness moreso than nothingness in a Buddhist understanding. And non existence would mean oblivion in a simple natural sense that things return to their constituents, not annihilation of those constituents.

The bottom line in Buddhist understanding is the self is gone--obliterated.

It can go either way, focus on the present and believe there is no future--oblivion of self or focus on the present and believe there is a future--eternal life.

'
There is a future, but it is not absolutely known. You seem to be absolutely certain, which is where I'd disagree.

I have said nothing that justifesyour belief I am absolutly certain of an afterlife. You seem to me to absolutly certain there is no loving Creator.

Why do you think a Creator could not handle that problem?

BEcause something merely possessing the ability to create does not mean it will possess the ability or foresight to solve problems resulting from that creation.

It seems reasonable to me it would possess such ability and foresight.

The Creator of a universe is still limited in some sense, as much as you want to deny it.

We cannot know in what senses the Creator would be limited. It is unreasonable to assume the Creator would be as limited as you seem to speculate.

Perhaps I am the one recongizing things as they are and you are the one that is not. Wanting to be able to live forever does not mean reality cannot be that way. Reality is what it is, separate of our wishes and desires, which is what you are saying and I agree but, reality can also be in line with what we hope.

wanting to live forever is not reflective of recognizing that things pass away and that is the way of things.

Believing in etenal life as I do does not reflect a failure to recongize this world is temporary.

You want to supersede nature and go beyond it because you think you're special, when you are just as much a part of nature as anything else.

I do believe all life is more special than none life. Yes I am more special than a rock.

Reality is not in line with what we hope except in our delusions.

Unless it is and we are delluded into thinking it is not.

Reality is objective and objectivity does not become influenced by subjectivity, except as it comes to human beliefs concerning reality as objective to comfort themselves and thus bend objectivity to their will.

Your view of reality is not objective--and neither is mine.

I don't believe that is accurate. I find value in our becoming loving beings.

I do as well, but I do not see immortality as the result of becoming loving beings.

I see the possibililty.

 

[elman]

God may just be an idea, but on the other hand, I may be correct and God may be ultimate reality.

And I may be correct and you cease to exist as an individual when you die and the constituents are simply reconstituted into another existence through reincarnation.

That does not seem as likely to me but sure anything is possible.

The argument on these grounds is pointless because it focuses on only potential things and not actual things.

It may be referring to actual things but our knowledge and perception ability is limited.

This is square circling again. EXistence is not when one ceases to be. That is non existence.

Individual non existence is not the same thing as absolute non existence for the world.

I can do nothing about the world and its future--I might be able to effect my future, but if I have no future, the future of the world becomes ultimatly meaningless to me.

Again reincarnation is not a hope and blessing but a curse and in any event the one coming back in your own theology is not you, as I understand you.

Again, this reflects your unhealthy attachment to you as something permanent.

That has nothing at all to do with what I just said. What I said is true of Buddhism or not and has nothing to do with any attachment to life on my part.

As long as you believe that, anatta is something you are averse to, and understandably so, because you refuse to reject the unjustified belief that you possess some cosmic uniqueness that demands that you survive beyond your death in conscious form, which is delusory.

Why are you so certain?

You've failed to argue how reincarnation is a curse.

I don't have to argue it. It is Buddhism that reincarnation is continuation on the life cyle, the wheel of life and the goal of Buddhism is to escape. Why would one want to escape from a blessing?

If existence is more valuable than non existence, it follows that eternal existence is more valuable than limited existence. You have not successfully argued that eternal existence is a bad thing.

Eternal existence would negate our perception of time and would negate any sense of accomplishment, since we could fail forever and eventually would succeed. These are just two points as to why eternal existence is bad, primarily due to it being dehumanizing.

That is a meaningless argument. What is the point to preserving our perception of time? If there is a Creator of everything that would include the creation of time perhaps. That does not make existence bad. Also the sense of accomplishment etc. is not an argument that proves life is not good and death is better.

It does not logically follow that because something is good in itself that an excessive form of it is good

.It also does not follow that life is bad just because you get more of it.

There is a fallacy here, but I admit I do not know what to call it, though I'd coin it the fallacy of excess. Something in excess does not become better than something in moderation.

When one is discussing life and death, life is not in excess just because it goes on longer.

After the foolish and wise are dead and gone, what does it matter that one was wise? To whom does it matter?

You think too much in generalities and not in particularities of experience.

When all are dead and gone, your partiularitis of experience are no long meaningful.

It is valuable to the individual, even if they eventually pass away.

No it is not valuable to the individual that has passed away.

Wanting to love and be loved forever may be unrealistic, but it is a good hope and there is nothing wrong with it.

It is a bad hope because love should not persist forever, but be something transient and valuable because it eventually passes away.

Maybe it does not eventually passaway. How can love go on too long?--and then it becomes better to hate? Not a reasonable comment.

The bottom line for you is the same as the Atheist--all is meaningless eventually.

All is natural, meaning is contingent on the individual. Therefore, meaning will cease to be in some sense, but not the fact that people had meaning in life.

What meaning will there be when humans are extinct?

Saying that life is meaningless when humans disappear is like saying bears eat deer because they're carnivores. It's obvious but too centered on obvious conclusions and not recognizing that not every instance can be boiled down to one principle.

Yes it is obvious and I wonder why you argue against it.

Prerfering death to life is more about insanity I think than the other way around.

I do not prefer death to life. You are mischaracterizing me. I accept death as natural, you think it is unnatural, it appears. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Physical death seems to be a part of this world. If there is nothing then we have no choice but accept it, but if there is a choice, it then is no longer better to deny the better choice.

I also admit the non existence of God could be correct. Do you admit the existence of God could be correct?

As unpleasant as it would seem, yes.

Why woould the existence of a loving Creator be unpleasant? Why assume that to be the case?

Not that it would affect me in any sense if there was such an entity, which is why I consider myself apatheist, not atheist technically

If reincarnation turns out to be false and a loving Creator turns out to be true, why would it not effect you?

Some suffering is avoidable. Wisdom and love can result in less suffering.

As you correctly approach things, yes. But not as you incorrectly approach things, thinking it is wisdom or love.

True. I don't advocate incorrectly approaching things or being unwise.

I agree.

We agree on one or two points, it would seem, but disagree primarily on the nature of the self and whether it deserves to survive in any sense

I don't know that deserve has much to do with it.

Is it not your belief that ultimately self is merged with the whole and the whole includes the rocks?

Only, in some sense, if one attained nirvana, but that gets into an entirely different thread technically. By reincarnation/rebirth standards, self is not merged with the whole because self is merely an experience, it is not part of existence in the sense that form and matter are.

But the ultimate goal is not reincarnation but nirvana.

Form and matter generate the experience that is self through generating sense, perception, thought and consciousness. But form is at the basis the primary reality, so since self is not form technically, the self is not what merges with the whole. A lot of this gets into psychology of self and attachment thereof.

So self does not become part of the whole but simply disappears--is obliterated.

So technically, no, self is not merged with the rocks, the body is merged with the rocks and everything else, similar to Tibetan sky burial,which I'd be happy to explain why I find it a liberating funeral experience, though I've never seen it in reality.

Christians also believe the body returns to dust. I am fine with that, but my hope is in the spirit that returns to the Creator.

Release from existence in this life is not the same as release from existence period.

Release from existence is not what nirvana is, one might argue. It is simply accepting existence as a whole and not reducing it to the parts and missing the forest for the trees.

The bottom line is oblivion for us--you and me. The continuation of the rocks and trees give you hope. It does not give me hope. I see it also becoming obliterated. All becomes meaningless.

Strawman--you know very well I am not talking about immortality in this mortal body on this planet.

Then the whole point becomes moot in that you're discussing something we cannot falsify in any sense, since we can't prove it exists. You are free to believe, but you are not free to believe those things without someone criticizing you.

_Is it not a bit hypocritical to criticize me for believing in a spirit that returns to God and you believe in the reincarnation of the self into a worm or whatever?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

When did I ever claim I could prove the existence of God or the spiritual realm or the soul. I don't find reincarnation more practical or probable than believe in a loving Creator and a soul.

I don't think I claimed you could prove that. Part of why you might not see it as practical is where your priorities are focused.

Perhaps an improvment over the opinion of reincarnation and oblivion.

Reincarnation does not equal oblivion, annihilation=oblivion, does it not?

Like reincarnation, this is simply speculation on your part.

I didn't come up with reincarnation, don't pin that theory on me as if I developed it from the ground up

Death is bad. Life can be good or bad.

Death is only bad if you think that's the absolute end of everything. It might be where a person's identity goes away, but that's where other people replace them. It's inevitable.

True but prefering life to death is not being unrealistically attached to life.

It is when you think that life eternal is better than life temporary.

But your view of reality could be mistaken.

When did I say it couldn't?

The bottom line in Buddhist understanding is the self is gone--obliterated

The self never really exists in Buddhism, you seemed to have missed that. It exists empirically, but that doesn't reflect reality necessarily

I have said nothing that justifesyour belief I am absolutly certain of an afterlife. You seem to me to absolutly certain there is no loving Creator.

I see no reason to beleive in a creator at all. And even if I believed in a creator, they wouldn't be limited by yours or anyone else's notions of love

It seems reasonable to me it would possess such ability and foresight.

Then clearly it didn't with the state of things after it supposedly created the world "perfect"

We cannot know in what senses the Creator would be limited. It is unreasonable to assume the Creator would be as limited as you seem to speculate.

Limits on its sensibility are not limits on its abilities, but limits on it being contradictory.

Believing in etenal life as I do does not reflect a failure to recongize this world is temporary.

You recognize it, but you want it to not be the fact of existence; you want there to be something beyond this life, there is where you start jumping ahead.

I do believe all life is more special than none life. Yes I am more special than a rock.

No one said you weren't more relevant than a rock. All life is special, but no life may happen, but that doesn't mean life is meaningless except in the fact that there'd technically be no individuals to find meaning in life.

Unless it is and we are delluded into thinking it is not.

Problem is there is no absolute certainty our experiences absolutely line up with reality, but only a consideration that they have practical and applied benefits.

Your view of reality is not objective--and neither is mine.

When did I say it was objective?

I see the possibililty.

Possibility is only that, potential, not actual.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That does not seem as likely to me but sure anything is possible.

Likelihood doesn't increase because we think it does, it's dependent on factors of probability, one of which is observation

It may be referring to actual things but our knowledge and perception ability is limited.

In short, you're trying to argue that something might be there, but we can't discern it? What's the difference between it being undetectable and not really being there, to use Flew's invisible gardener example?

I can do nothing about the world and its future--I might be able to effect my future, but if I have no future, the future of the world becomes ultimatly meaningless to me.

To you, but not to others.

That has nothing at all to do with what I just said. What I said is true of Buddhism or not and has nothing to do with any attachment to life on my part.

Buddhism does not hope for rebirth, it observes rebirth as a necessary result of dependent origination, everything having something causing something else to come about.

Why are you so certain?

Because, while you seem unique, you share qualities with people that would make you part of something, but not above that whole of which you are a self sufficient (relatively) part

I don't have to argue it. It is Buddhism that reincarnation is continuation on the life cyle, the wheel of life and the goal of Buddhism is to escape. Why would one want to escape from a blessing?

Nirvana could be argued to be better than the life we experience now, but that would get into the problematic comparison to heaven. Nirvana at best is a state of mind, since you can attain it while still alive. In that sense, it is not something of life you want to escape from, but your own mistaken ideas about life and what makes it good and/or bad.

That is a meaningless argument. What is the point to preserving our perception of time? If there is a Creator of everything that would include the creation of time perhaps. That does not make existence bad. Also the sense of accomplishment etc. is not an argument that proves life is not good and death is better.

Eternal existence would mean time becomes pointless, since time would go on forever. Accomplishment is something that is temporary and you wil eventually forget. I said nothing about accomplishment that argued death was better, you keep putting words in my mouth about this false dichotomy.

.It also does not follow that life is bad just because you get more of it.

You become attached to it, that creates a bad state, if nothing else.

When one is discussing life and death, life is not in excess just because it goes on longer.

Depends on how you view life in terms of quantity anyway. Quality of life is not improved because you have it longer either, so immortality would seem to negate the notion of having a better or worse quality of life, you'd just be a shell of a person.

When all are dead and gone, your partiularitis of experience are no long meaningful.

Except to others who shared those experiences in a similar way, which is where you seem to be missing the point. We are not isolated minds, we share things with people, which creates memories, am I right?

No it is not valuable to the individual that has passed away.

Because the individual does not persist past their death, so of course it is not meaningful. You seem attached to the desire for meaning permanently.

Maybe it does not eventually passaway. How can love go on too long?--and then it becomes better to hate? Not a reasonable comment.

Love can become infatuation, attachment, smothering. Anything good can still exist in excess by attachment or just a general overflow.

What meaning will there be when humans are extinct?

You assume meaning has to exist outside of human perspective. Meaning is contingent on human perspective, so when humans are extinct, the phenomenon of meaning will not exist either, unless you're saying meaning is separate from us, which seems incredulous.

Yes it is obvious and I wonder why you argue against it

.

Because I don't think meaning exists apart from an individual's perspective, so meaning is just as temporary as an individual.

Physical death seems to be a part of this world. If there is nothing then we have no choice but accept it, but if there is a choice, it then is no longer better to deny the better choice.

You haven't argued why living forever is a better choice than having a good but finite life with that quality of transience that gives it meaning in some sense.

Why woould the existence of a loving Creator be unpleasant? Why assume that to be the case?

Because a Creator's love is not human love, it thinks in a different way, therefore it is like you trying to place judgment on an ant.

If reincarnation turns out to be false and a loving Creator turns out to be true, why would it not effect you?

It depends on if there is also an afterlife. Just because we happen to be created does not mean we automatically have a soul.

True. I don't advocate incorrectly approaching things or being unwise.
I don't know that deserve has much to do with it.

You think the self has to exist, but you haven't argued why that should be the case.

But the ultimate goal is not reincarnation but nirvana.
So self does not become part of the whole but simply disappears--is obliterated.

I think that was clear from my initial explanation that nirvana was the goal.

That isn't a bad thing when you've realized self is not the end all for the world. Meaning is a shared and individual experience. Just because you become one with all things does not mean you necessarily lose all meaning, except as an individual.

Christians also believe the body returns to dust. I am fine with that, but my hope is in the spirit that returns to the Creator.

But there is no reason to believe you have a spirit in that sense, or a soul. Or you've failed to argue for its existence.

The bottom line is oblivion for us--you and me. The continuation of the rocks and trees give you hope. It does not give me hope. I see it also becoming obliterated. All becomes meaningless.

You try to separate yourself from everything, that is why you don't see some kind of meaning in a sort of union with all things.

_Is it not a bit hypocritical to criticize me for believing in a spirit that returns to God and you believe in the reincarnation of the self into a worm or whatever?

I can criticize you because you believe in an unnecessarily complex system with a Creator outside of time, a soul and spirit we cannot even experience in any objective sense, but I neither believe in a Creator or gods or even the notion of a permanent essence of the self.

You confuse Buddhist rebirth/reincarnation with Hindu reincarnation, which implies it is the same person that is reincarnated as a worm. I do not believe it is me or any other person that is that worm when being reborn, because our identity does not persist after death. I thought I made that pretty clear.

 

[elman]

When did I ever claim I could prove the existence of God or the spiritual realm or the soul. I don't find reincarnation more practical or probable than believe in a loving Creator and a soul.
I don't think I claimed you could prove that. Part of why you might not see it as practical is where your priorities are focused.

My priorities are focused on life, not on death and pain and suffering.

Perhaps an improvment over the opinion of reincarnation and oblivion.

Reincarnation does not equal oblivion, annihilation=oblivion, does it not?

Nirvana or enlightenment is oblivion of self, right?

Like reincarnation, this is simply speculation on your part.

I didn't come up with reincarnation, don't pin that theory on me as if I developed it from the ground up

So someone else speculated.

Death is bad. Life can be good or bad.

Death is only bad if you think that's the absolute end of everything. It might be where a person's identity goes away, but that's where other people replace them. It's inevitable.

But eventually you arrive at enlightenment--the end of self.

True but prefering life to death is not being unrealistically attached to life.

It is when you think that life eternal is better than life temporary.

Why does prefering life to death indicate an unrealistic attachment to life?

The bottom line in Buddhist understanding is the self is gone--obliterated

The self never really exists in Buddhism, you seemed to have missed that. It exists empirically, but that doesn't reflect reality necessarily

Not reasonable--I exist--really.

I have said nothing that justifesyour belief I am absolutly certain of an afterlife. You seem to me to absolutly certain there is no loving Creator.

I see no reason to beleive in a creator at all. And even if I believed in a creator, they wouldn't be limited by yours or anyone else's notions of love

OK-- You seem absolutly certain.

It seems reasonable to me it would possess such ability and foresight.

Then clearly it didn't with the state of things after it supposedly created the world "perfect"

This world is not perfect. Hopfully the next will be or at least closer to it.

We cannot know in what senses the Creator would be limited. It is unreasonable to assume the Creator would be as limited as you seem to speculate.

Limits on its sensibility are not limits on its abilities, but limits on it being contradictory.

I don't know what you are saying here.

Believing in etenal life as I do does not reflect a failure to recongize this world is temporary.

You recognize it, but you want it to not be the fact of existence; you want there to be something beyond this life, there is where you start jumping ahead.

I do want life instead of death as our ultimate destiny, but that has nothing to do with recognizing this world is temporary and we all die.

I do believe all life is more special than non life. Yes I am more special than a rock.

No one said you weren't more relevant than a rock. All life is special, but no life may happen, but that doesn't mean life is meaningless except in the fact that there'd technically be no individuals to find meaning in life.

If there is no one existing, then there is no meaning for someone to have or know about.

Unless it is and we are delluded into thinking it is not.

Problem is there is no absolute certainty our experiences absolutely line up with reality, but only a consideration that they have practical and applied benefits.

I don't know for sure what you are saying here, but I agree absolute reality is not discernable to us.

 

[elman]

It may be referring to actual things but our knowledge and perception ability is limited.

In short, you're trying to argue that something might be there, but we can't discern it? What's the difference between it being undetectable and not really being there, to use Flew's invisible gardener example?

If it is real, our inablility to detect it does not make it not exist.

I can do nothing about the world and its future--I might be able to effect my future, but if I have no future, the future of the world becomes ultimatly meaningless to me.

To you, but not to others.

To them also after they are gone.

That has nothing at all to do with what I just said. What I said is true of Buddhism or not and has nothing to do with any attachment to life on my part.

Buddhism does not hope for rebirth, it observes rebirth as a necessary result of dependent origination, everything having something causing something else to come about.

What about enlightenment?

Why are you so certain?

Because, while you seem unique, you share qualities with people that would make you part of something, but not above that whole of which you are a self sufficient (relatively) part

What is your point?

I don't have to argue it. It is Buddhism that reincarnation is continuation on the life cyle, the wheel of life and the goal of Buddhism is to escape. Why would one want to escape from a blessing?

Nirvana could be argued to be better than the life we experience now, but that would get into the problematic comparison to heaven. Nirvana at best is a state of mind, since you can attain it while still alive. In that sense, it is not something of life you want to escape from, but your own mistaken ideas about life and what makes it good and/or bad.

I don't understand what is being said here. Nirvana cannot be a state of mind to a non existing self.

That is a meaningless argument. What is the point to preserving our perception of time? If there is a Creator of everything that would include the creation of time perhaps. That does not make existence bad. Also the sense of accomplishment etc. is not an argument that proves life is not good and death is better.

Eternal existence would mean time becomes pointless, since time would go on forever.

You cannot understand being not subject to time. It is therefore impossible for you to know it would be a state of pointlessness.

Accomplishment is something that is temporary and you wil eventually forget.

The next existence may not be like this one.

I said nothing about accomplishment that argued death was better, you keep putting words in my mouth about this false dichotomy.

You were using accomplishment to argue about the bad consequences of eternal life.

.It also does not follow that life is bad just because you get more of it.

You become attached to it, that creates a bad state, if nothing else.

Not really. Why does being attached to being alive make it a bad thing?

When one is discussing life and death, life is not in excess just because it goes on longer.

Depends on how you view life in terms of quantity anyway. Quality of life is not improved because you have it longer either, so immortality would seem to negate the notion of having a better or worse quality of life, you'd just be a shell of a person.

No living longer does not require we become only shells. That is not reasonable or logical. Our life would be improved so your argument goes away.

When all are dead and gone, your particularities of experience are no long meaningful.

Except to others who shared those experiences in a similar way, which is where you seem to be missing the point.

There are no others when all are dead and gone.

No it is not valuable to the individual that has passed away.

Because the individual does not persist past their death, so of course it is not meaningful. You seem attached to the desire for meaning permanently.

This kind of attachment like the attachment to life is a good thing.

Maybe it does not eventually passaway. How can love go on too long?--and then it becomes better to hate? Not a reasonable comment.

Love can become infatuation, attachment, smothering. Anything good can still exist in excess by attachment or just a general overflow.

It can, but does not have to simply because it continues.

What meaning will there be when humans are extinct?

You assume meaning has to exist outside of human perspective. Meaning is contingent on human perspective, so when humans are extinct, the phenomenon of meaning will not exist either, unless you're saying meaning is separate from us, which seems incredulous.

We agree--we reach the point of meaninglessness when nothing exists.

Yes it is obvious and I wonder why you argue against it

.

Because I don't think meaning exists apart from an individual's perspective, so meaning is just as temporary as an individual.

That is my argument--you don't get to use it. The continuation of the individual is necessary if meaning is to continue.

Physical death seems to be a part of this world. If there is nothing then we have no choice but accept it, but if there is a choice, it then is no longer better to deny the better choice.

You haven't argued why living forever is a better choice than having a good but finite life with that quality of transience that gives it meaning in some sense.

Death can be preferable to life if life is meaningless, but otherwise life is to be prefered.

Why would the existence of a loving Creator be unpleasant? Why assume that to be the case?

Because a Creator's love is not human love, it thinks in a different way, therefore it is like you trying to place judgment on an ant.

Why assume the Creator loves differently than we love? The size is not relevant.

True. I don't advocate incorrectly approaching things or being unwise.
I don't know that deserve has much to do with it.

You think the self has to exist, but you haven't argued why that should be the case.

I think therefore I am. Why would you think you do not exist?

But the ultimate goal is not reincarnation but nirvana.
So self does not become part of the whole but simply disappears--is obliterated.

I think that was clear from my initial explanation that nirvana was the goal.

That isn't a bad thing when you've realized self is not the end all for the world.

It is the end all that matters to self.

Meaning is a shared and individual experience. Just because you become one with all things does not mean you necessarily lose all meaning, except as an individual.

There is no meaning for self except as an individual.

Christians also believe the body returns to dust. I am fine with that, but my hope is in the spirit that returns to the Creator.

But there is no reason to believe you have a spirit in that sense, or a soul. Or you've failed to argue for its existence.

There is no reason to believe we exist as random accidents. If we exist because there was an intelligence and a purpose behind or causing our coming into existence, it follows that purpose may be more than we can detect in this world.

The bottom line is oblivion for us--you and me. The continuation of the rocks and trees give you hope. It does not give me hope. I see it also becoming obliterated. All becomes meaningless.

You try to separate yourself from everything, that is why you don't see some kind of meaning in a sort of union with all things.

I am separate from everything--that is what being an individual is. Union with other things has significance to self--me so long as I exist--no longer.

_Is it not a bit hypocritical to criticize me for believing in a spirit that returns to God and you believe in the reincarnation of the self into a worm or whatever?

I can criticize you because you believe in an unnecessarily complex system with a Creator outside of time, a soul and spirit we cannot even experience in any objective sense, but I neither believe in a Creator or gods or even the notion of a permanent essence of the self.

Your Buddhist belief is also very complex and cannot be experienced in any objective sense.

You confuse Buddhist rebirth/reincarnation with Hindu reincarnation, which implies it is the same person that is reincarnated as a worm. I do not believe it is me or any other person that is that worm when being reborn, because our identity does not persist after death. I thought I made that pretty clear.

That just means we reach oblivion sooner than waiting for Nirvana. What is the point of Nirvana then if oblivion is achieved when you die?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

My priorities are focused on life, not on death and pain and suffering

I'm not a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], I'm not fixated on death, pain and suffering. I merely accept their existence as equal in consideration to life, which is good. I don't disagree with you in principle, life is good, it's just not absolutely good.

Nirvana or enlightenment is oblivion of self, right?

No, nirvana doesn't really comment as much on self as anatta does. That's where your real issue. Nirvana is intertwined with samsara on some leve, because it's moreso about our perspective towards samsara, in my opinion.

So someone else speculated.

Same applies to your "religion/philosophy" so, we're at an impasse

But eventually you arrive at enlightenment--the end of self.

The self doesn't have a definite beginning or end really, since it's dependent on the individual. Some people just begin to develop a "self", others begin to lose it

Why does prefering life to death indicate an unrealistic attachment to life?

Preferring and being fixated on life are not the same thing

Not reasonable--I exist--really.

You experience existence, that doesn't mean it is permanent or that it must mean that your existence must go on forever.

OK-- You seem absolutly certain.

Seeming is not being

This world is not perfect. Hopfully the next will be or at least closer to it.

Presuming there is one is just wishful thinking, it's missing the point of focusing on this life and being loving as you advocated to begin with.

I don't know what you are saying here.

If I limit God in some way concerning its omnipotence that does not necessarily limit its actual omnipotence, but only the nature of it so that it will not be contradictory

I do want life instead of death as our ultimate destiny, but that has nothing to do with recognizing this world is temporary and we all die.

Wanting life and appreciating life are not the same thing. If you want life forever, you don't appreciate life as it is.

If there is no one existing, then there is no meaning for someone to have or know about.

I didn't deny that

I don't know for sure what you are saying here, but I agree absolute reality is not discernable to us.

At best, it's something we can discern by experience in some instinctive sense, but Zen is not really expressible in logical words necessarily

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If it is real, our inablility to detect it does not make it not exist.

But it makes it basically unnecessary except as it could be demonstrated to be pertinent. God has not been demonstrated to be pertinent or relevant to human life, therefore even if God is real, its existence does not matter to humans

To them also after they are gone.

But there are always people for the most part connected with others, so memories persist in various ways.

What about enlightenment?

Enlightenment is a goal that is also goalless in some sense, since it is spontaneous. If it was an actual goal like normal, it wouldn't be spontaneous, but determined.

What is your point?

You are too fixated on yourself as an individual instead of recognizing that you are part of a community and a web of life and of causes and effects. You're trying to separate yourself from that.

I don't understand what is being said here. Nirvana cannot be a state of mind to a non existing self.

The self is not non existent absolutely, it is merely always in a state of transience. I do not claim to be an expert, so these questions will not always be answered sufficiently within a Buddhist perspective.

You cannot understand being not subject to time. It is therefore impossible for you to know it would be a state of pointlessness.

You've just made eternal life all the more pointless by that argument that we cannot understand timelessness. If I cannot understand it even slightly, it is pointless. I can understand many things in part, but such things you explain seem completely inscrutable. They're para-human, if you will.

The next existence may not be like this one.

That's presuming there is one. What if there is not? This whole back and forth is pointless if it is just based on speculations and wishful thinking. I'm not basing my ideas on what I want so much as what makes practical sense. Energy and matter are not destroyed, therefore, we do not absolutely go away, but there is also no evidence our identity or self persists beyond our death.

You were using accomplishment to argue about the bad consequences of eternal life.

If you cannot accomplish anything, what would be the point of eternal life? Or if you could accomplish everything, what would be the point after that?

Not really. Why does being attached to being alive make it a bad thing?

Because it's unrealistic expectations about the length of being alive.

No living longer does not require we become only shells. That is not reasonable or logical. Our life would be improved so your argument goes away.

Life would not be improved just because we live forever or even for a longer period of indefinite time. Life is valuable in its transience. This is where our aesthetics are disagreeing. You think life is valuable only if it goes on forever, I am more than willing to accept that it is temporary and always a fleeting image.

There are no others when all are dead and gone.

I never denied that.

This kind of attachment like the attachment to life is a good thing.

There is such a thing as too much of something good, though. You seem to want to willfully ignore or outright deny this observation because it's inconvenient.

Meaning should not exist beyond the existence of beings that create meaning.

It can, but does not have to simply because it continues.

It does if you become attached to love.

We agree--we reach the point of meaninglessness when nothing exists.

We reach a lack of meaning, but that's only because there is no one to seek meaning. Meaning is not independent of a person creating meaning

That is my argument--you don't get to use it. The continuation of the individual is necessary if meaning is to continue.

This presumes meaning has to continue, which you haven't argued why this must be the case.

Death can be preferable to life if life is meaningless, but otherwise life is to be prefered.

Preferred, but not attached to. If I meet my end by natural death or accident, then why should I fight against it unreasonably?

Why assume the Creator loves differently than we love? The size is not relevant.

The quality is relevant. If God's love involves making us immortal, that is not love in a human sense, but a divine sense of thinking eternal life means love, which isn't the case

I think therefore I am. Why would you think you do not exist?

I exist only temporarily. I change from moment to moment. This whole discussion is you misunderstanding anatta, it would seem. I do not claim I do not exist at all, I only deny that I exist absolutely separate from everything. I am interconnected, which is why when certain things are severed, those things will go away.

It is the end all that matters to self.

Deluded selves can imagine many incorrect or misguided ends. That doesn't make any of them right.

There is no meaning for self except as an individual.

No one is absolutely an individual, we are always in some form of community, are we not?

There is no reason to believe we exist as random accidents. If we exist because there was an intelligence and a purpose behind or causing our coming into existence, it follows that purpose may be more than we can detect in this world.

That presumes a creator imbues the universe or us with purpose beyond ourselves. That's an extra presumption beyond simply our existence being a result of creation. We do not exist as absolutely random accidents, we exist as chaos ordering itself in a particular way that still maintains chaos with free will.

I am separate from everything--that is what being an individual is. Union with other things has significance to self--me so long as I exist--no longer.

You are not separate from everything, you are interacting with others as you type, as you speak with other people in real life, as you observe things. You seem to confuse what separation means.

Your Buddhist belief is also very complex and cannot be experienced in any objective sense.

Only complex to someone who insists on looking at things in only one way. Buddhism looks at things in various ways, which is why it seems complex. It looks at life as a series of processes, of causes and effects woven together in a web of sorts.

That just means we reach oblivion sooner than waiting for Nirvana. What is the point of Nirvana then if oblivion is achieved when you die?

Nirvana is a liberation from the cycle of continuing to be reborn. Nirvana frees you from being in bondage to your desires which can be said to keep you trapped in the cycle of rebirth, even if it isn't technically you that is reborn strictly speaking. Merely because it appears that your present self disappears does not mean you absolutely disappear.

 

[elman]

My priorities are focused on life, not on death and pain and suffering

I'm not a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], I'm not fixated on death, pain and suffering. I merely accept their existence as equal in consideration to life, which is good. I don't disagree with you in principle, life is good, it's just not absolutely good.

I agree this life is not absolutly good. I have some hope there is a better one.

Nirvana or enlightenment is oblivion of self, right?

No, nirvana doesn't really comment as much on self as anatta does. That's where your real issue. Nirvana is intertwined with samsara on some leve, because it's moreso about our perspective towards samsara, in my opinion.

We have been over this many times. The bottom line is always self is gone.

So someone else speculated.
Same applies to your "religion/philosophy" so, we're at an impasse

Nothing in the spiritual realm can be proven objectivly. All must be accepted on faith and hope.

But eventually you arrive at enlightenment--the end of self.

The self doesn't have a definite beginning or end really, since it's dependent on the individual. Some people just begin to develop a "self", others begin to lose it

I had a beginning. I was born. I am going to die. That will be the end of self if there is no spiritual realm, or if the spiritual realm is one where one can reach Nirvana and do away with self.

Not reasonable--I exist--really

.
You experience existence, that doesn't mean it is permanent or that it must mean that your existence must go on forever.

No but it does mean I exist.

This world is not perfect. Hopfully the next will be or at least closer to it.

Presuming there is one is just wishful thinking, it's missing the point of focusing on this life and being loving as you advocated to begin with.

Assuming there is a better future does not prevent one from focusing on the present and being loving in the present.

I do want life instead of death as our ultimate destiny, but that has nothing to do with recognizing this world is temporary and we all die.

Wanting life and appreciating life are not the same thing. If you want life forever, you don't appreciate life as it is.

That is just not true. I can appreciate life as it is and still want it to continue and be better.

 

[elman]

If it is real, our inablility to detect it does not make it not exist.

But it makes it basically unnecessary except as it could be demonstrated to be pertinent. God has not been demonstrated to be pertinent or relevant to human life, therefore even if God is real, its existence does not matter to humans

God is necessary if our existence is to have any ultimate meaning and if we are to have any hope of destiny beyond this life.

To them also after they are gone

.
But there are always people for the most part connected with others, so memories persist in various ways.

Not always and not forever and if there is no afterlife, with no meaning for the departed.

What is your point?

You are too fixated on yourself as an individual instead of recognizing that you are part of a community and a web of life and of causes and effects. You're trying to separate yourself from that.

I do not have to separate myself from being the same as the community and web of life and causes and effects around me--I simply am separate in some sense from that.

I don't understand what is being said here. Nirvana cannot be a state of mind to a non existing self.

The self is not non existent absolutely, it is merely always in a state of transience. I do not claim to be an expert, so these questions will not always be answered sufficiently within a Buddhist perspective.

I understand before Nirvana all is in a state of transience--but not after Nirvana.

You cannot understand being not subject to time. It is therefore impossible for you to know it would be a state of pointlessness.

You've just made eternal life all the more pointless by that argument that we cannot understand timelessness. If I cannot understand it even slightly, it is pointless. I can understand many things in part, but such things you explain seem completely inscrutable. They're para-human, if you will.

Being limited on our ability to percieve or understand things does not make our existence pointless. What makes our existence pointless is no ultimate meaning or destiny.

The next existence may not be like this one.

That's presuming there is one. What if there is not?

Then you and I are both wrong and all is meaningless and ultimately pointless.

This whole back and forth is pointless if it is just based on speculations and wishful thinking.

Searching for truth and meaning does not become pointless if we partally fail to find or understand.

I'm not basing my ideas on what I want so much as what makes practical sense.

I also am not bgasing my ideas on what I want, but on what seems reasonable. It seems unreasonable to me that we exist as random accidents with no meaning or purpose to our existence.

Energy and matter are not destroyed, therefore, we do not absolutely go away, but there is also no evidence our identity or self persists beyond our death.

our conscious realization of our own existence is not energy or matter.

You were using accomplishment to argue about the bad consequences of eternal life.

If you cannot accomplish anything, what would be the point of eternal life? Or if you could accomplish everything, what would be the point after that?

If we can accomplish loving someone else, the point of eternal life might be to continue to love others and be loved by them.

Not really. Why does being attached to being alive make it a bad thing?

Because it's unrealistic expectations about the length of being alive.

I think it is unrealistic to assume life occured with nothing to cause it to occur-no intelligence or purpose behind it.

No, living longer does not require we become only shells. That is not reasonable or logical. Our life would be improved so your argument goes away.

Life would not be improved just because we live forever or even for a longer period of indefinite time.

No not just because it was for a longer period but if one was able to love others for a longer period of time, it would be improved.

Life is valuable in its transience. This is where our aesthetics are disagreeing. You think life is valuable only if it goes on forever, I am more than willing to accept that it is temporary and always a fleeting image.

Life is valuable. Its value is not because it is temporary but because life is valuable. Being temporary has nothing to do with its value.

This kind of attachment like the attachment to life is a good thing.
There is such a thing as too much of something good, though. You seem to want to willfully ignore or outright deny this observation because it's inconvenient.

There can be no such thing as too much good. There can be too much of something such that what was good is no longer good. You have not shown any logical reason to assume life contininuing would not be good.

Meaning should not exist beyond the existence of beings that create meaning.

OK but the meaning can exist as long as the beings that create it exist.

It can, but does not have to simply because it continues.

It does if you become attached to love.

Being attached to caring about others is not a bad thing.

That is my argument--you don't get to use it. The continuation of the individual is necessary if meaning is to continue.
This presumes meaning has to continue, which you haven't argued why this must be the case.

I did not say it must be the case but it would be for the best if it were.

Death can be preferable to life if life is meaningless, but otherwise life is to be prefered.

Preferred, but not attached to. If I meet my end by natural death or accident, then why should I fight against it unreasonably?

There is no fighting against death. Being attached to life is a good thing.

Why assume the Creator loves differently than we love? The size is not relevant.

The quality is relevant. If God's love involves making us immortal, that is not love in a human sense, but a divine sense of thinking eternal life means love, which isn't the case

I think it just might be the case.

I think therefore I am. Why would you think you do not exist?

I exist only temporarily.

That was not the issue. You exist.

This whole discussion is you misunderstanding anatta, it would seem. I do not claim I do not exist at all, I only deny that I exist absolutely separate from everything. I am interconnected, which is why when certain things are severed, those things will go away.

I don't understand anatta or square circle. I understanding I am a part of a whole and do not exist without anything else existing around me and I also understand I am not the same as the existance around me and exist separately from the rest of existance around me.

It is the end all that matters to self.

Deluded selves can imagine many incorrect or misguided ends. That doesn't make any of them right.

That life matters is not and incorrect or misguided idea and it is not wrong.

There is no meaning for self except as an individual

.
No one is absolutely an individual, we are always in some form of community, are we not?

Yes and my statment is still true.

There is no reason to believe we exist as random accidents. If we exist because there was an intelligence and a purpose behind or causing our coming into existence, it follows that purpose may be more than we can detect in this world.

That presumes a creator imbues the universe or us with purpose beyond ourselves.

Yes it does and that is reasonable.

That's an extra presumption beyond simply our existence being a result of creation

.No that is not true. A creation only happens if there is a Creator.

We do not exist as absolutely random accidents, we exist as chaos ordering itself in a particular way that still maintains chaos with free will.

chaos is not intelligent and is not God. It is a term that to me refers to non intelligence and non life.

I am separate from everything--that is what being an individual is. Union with other things has significance to self--me so long as I exist--no longer.

You are not separate from everything, you are interacting with others as you type, as you speak with other people in real life, as you observe things. You seem to confuse what separation means.

I understand connected, but do you undestand being separate from the whole?

Your Buddhist belief is also very complex and cannot be experienced in any objective sense.

Only complex to someone who insists on looking at things in only one way. Buddhism looks at things in various ways, which is why it seems complex. It looks at life as a series of processes, of causes and effects woven together in a web of sorts.

It is complex which is indicated by the various form and beliefs which are different.

That just means we reach oblivion sooner than waiting for Nirvana. What is the point of Nirvana then if oblivion is achieved when you die?

Nirvana is a liberation from the cycle of continuing to be reborn. Nirvana frees you from being in bondage to your desires which can be said to keep you trapped in the cycle of rebirth, even if it isn't technically you that is reborn strictly speaking. Merely because it appears that your present self disappears does not mean you absolutely disappear.

It makes no sense to claim self continues after there is no self.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I agree this life is not absolutly good. I have some hope there is a better one.

That's where we disagree. This life is benign. It's our approach to this world that makes it good or bad. It's not objectively good or bad. I don't see a reason to wish for another life that's only slightly better, but still unsatisfactory. You see my point?

We have been over this many times. The bottom line is always self is gone.

To be fair, not strictly gone, but dissipated. Water can break down into hydrogen and oxygen, but water itself is only gone temporarily before it's reconstituted. Think of it like that. Self is not vaporized to nothingness after death, but just reduced to base elements.

Nothing in the spiritual realm can be proven objectivly. All must be accepted on faith and hope.

Depends on what you mean by the spiritual realm. What do you mean?

I had a beginning. I was born. I am going to die. That will be the end of self if there is no spiritual realm, or if the spiritual realm is one where one can reach Nirvana and do away with self.

Again, I wouldn't say the self is done away with so much as it's returned to its base form of sorts. Anatta isn't so much the absolute claim that we have no soul in some sense, but only moreso that nothing can be possessed. But with anicca as an ancillary truth, the self cannot be said to be permanent and stuck in one state, but always in a state of flux.

No but it does mean I exist.

Why should it matter whether you exist? Why do you deserve to exist forever?

Assuming there is a better future does not prevent one from focusing on the present and being loving in the present.

A better future in what sense though? In another world or in the present world?

That is just not true. I can appreciate life as it is and still want it to continue and be better.

There's such a thing as wanting too much, in an unrealistic fashion. No one's saying you can't want things to be better, but in what sense is what makes an important point