A question for those who believe in an afterlife...

[cheshrcarol]

This question is inspired by Metfan's question to the atheists, but this is something that I've actually always wondered. If you believe in an afterlife, why are you sad when people die? If you truly believe they're going to a better place and you'll see them again one day, shouldn't that make you happy?

[and1grad]

No. You're sad b/c you're losing that person and they mean a lot in THIS life. I'm not sure if there's an afterlife or not but, for me, it doesnt matter.

[wordsmith]

I agree. It's about being left behind, and missing someone. Regardless of what happens when I die, I'm not with them now, and that makes me sad for the experiences I won't have with that person.

[stonemonkey]

I can understand that, you can definitely be sad when you leave loved ones even though you know you'll see them again.

I used to know Christians who would ask me, as an atheist, what the point of living was, after all, I could just die and there would be no consequence (which is actually what I think happens). This would always be so weird for me because I could ask them the exact same question: what's the point of holding onto life in this world if there's a much better one waiting for you on the other side, where you'd be reunited with all the people you've known who have passed away? I guess there was always the argument that suicide is a sin, but it just seemed too arbitrary for me.

[WeirdBrake]

But the whole "missing someone" explanation doesn't really add up if you consider the way people talk about death. When a young loved one dies, people say, "Poor kid. He never had a chance." When a child is murdered, people say, "How could [the murderer] do that to a kid?" This all suggests that people regard the death itself as something horrible and tragic not just for the survivors but for the person who died. People will talk like that, even if they believe the dead person in question went to heaven.

Maybe people can believe one thing philosophically but have an inconsistent reaction emotionally. Like a Nietzschean moral relativist who still feels guilty when he hurts someone.

[wordsmith]

I guess for me, it's the concept that life is a gift, the world was a gift. I have my time on earth to make of it what I want/can, do what I can for other people. Then I go on to whatever's next.

[Stormshadow]

It's definitely a selfish reason--that you will miss that person being gone.

I believe in an afterlife--but in all honesty, it's a bit scary to believe that all people (even if they belong there) can be happy in one place. If we're all in Heaven, playing harps and singing hyms and being happy-------was there a point to God giving us free will? Isn't that what seperates us from anything else?

[wordsmith]

But the whole "missing someone" explanation doesn't really add up if you consider the way people talk about death. When a young loved one dies, people say, "Poor kid. He never had a chance." When a child is murdered, people say, "How could [the murderer] do that to a kid?" This all suggests that people regard the death itself as something horrible and tragic not just for the survivors but for the person who died. People will talk like that, even if they believe the dead person in question went to heaven.

Maybe people can believe one thing philosophically but have an inconsistent reaction emotionally. Like a Nietzschean moral relativist who still feels guilty when he hurts someone.

It also depends on how you feel about life, I think. If you think that life is a good positive thing, a gift, a blank slate, you'll feel sad when someone's time here is done and that they won't have the opportunity to make anything more of their life...if you knew and loved them, you'll miss them, grieve for them, and for yourself, because you'll have to become accustomed to life without them.

I do believe that there is something more when we are done with life, and I'm still sad when people die because I will miss them. Whether that adds up or not.

[and1grad]

I agree and I dont think its selfish to grieve for another person. You're not just grieving for yourself but b/c this person's time here is up. Even if there is an afterlife, there's no way to know if you would see this person in it and it has nothing to do with whether or not u would grieve for them.

[Desiderata]

LIke you eph, my curiosity lead me to want to get into cryogenics for a while, but now, I have more of a "come what may" mentality. And like was mentioned in another thread, does it concern anyone else that the pope, god's GOTO guy, is so desperately hanging on to life? I mean, he should be rarin' to join the almighty and finally get some face time. Seriously though, to see someone so holy so desperate to hang on to life, that even gets me saying "what the hell?"

[pisces2473]

All the people I've known and lost were old and/or VERY SICK. It's been a blessing each time for them to be taken. I've been sad because they are gone, but I don't really miss them. That sounds sick, but I don't miss my grandmothers. They are gone, I move on. I think that if people closer to me were to die suddenly (or not even suddenly) I would miss them much more.

[paiger81]

When my gramps died, I truly felt he was in a better place, I didn't cry once, and my cousins felt I was being heartless.

In high school 6 friends died in very violent/sad ways, I cried terribly, mainly because the deaths were all sudden & terrible. I didn't cry because they WERE gone, I cried for the WAYS they had to go.

[wordsmith]

My grandma will die, probably sooner rather than later. I've watched a disease progress to the point where it has taken from her every piece of what makes her HER, it has robbed her of her memories, her personality, it makes her afraid of people who know and love her, and whom she has always known and loved. No one will ever know the inside of the mind of an Alzheimer's patient, but from what I have seen, I don't believe that her quality of life is anything. Because of this, I won't be sad for her when she's no longer living. I don't think it's any way to live.

But I will still be sad. I will be sad for what happened to her, and for the fact that the last half-dozen years of her life were not what she would have wanted for herself, and for the fact that she was in many ways gone from the world, but still in it. I will be sad because I will still miss her. I miss her now, and have for the past six years, and I can see her every day.

[midtwenty]

I was desperately sad when my father died. I was only 18, he was only 54. Now I have my whole life to live without him. He'll never know my husband. He'll never know my baby. He'll never see my home, or know where I work, or what kind of car I drive. There were so many things left unsaid that I'll never have the chance to say. Yes, yes, in the afterlife I will. I do believe and do think I'll see him again. But just because there's an afterlife doesn't mean THIS world and THIS existence don't have meaning, too. And until I die and see him again, I have to carry around with me all the things I didn't get to say, and live all the future years without him. Right now, that is what's important for me. It's not selfish to grieve a loss so deep and so personal, even knowing that someday you'll be together again.

[paiger81]

I agree, mid. To this day I still leave messages & flowers at the graves of my h.s. friends when I go home. A lot of their families appreciate it, knowing that people haven't forgotten about their children.

[wordsmith]

There were so many things left unsaid that I'll never have the chance to say. Yes, yes, in the afterlife I will. I do believe and do think I'll see him again. But just because there's an afterlife doesn't mean THIS world and THIS existence don't have meaning, too. And until I die and see him again, I have to carry around with me all the things I didn't get to say, and live all the future years without him. Right now, that is what's important for me. It's not selfish to grieve a loss so deep and so personal, even knowing that someday you'll be together again.

This is it, exactly. Believing that there is something more than an earthly existence doesn't negate feeling this way, not at all.

[Jedi of Zen]

This question is inspired by Metfan's question to the atheists, but this is something that I've actually always wondered. If you believe in an afterlife, why are you sad when people die? If you truly believe they're going to a better place and you'll see them again one day, shouldn't that make you happy?


I'd like to think there is an afterlife, but I'm not ready to say that it's necessarily the Christian heaven. ie, The mere existence of an afterlife is no gurantee that we will get to see our loved ones again, etc. Though I'm not saying I wouldn't want that.

[paiger81]

If I had any say in my after life, I'd like to go haunt houses for a while before moving on.


Hehe, I completely agree. Except I think we should be able to come back and "haunt" anytime we want.

[Lumburg]

I've always wondered this too, why people who believe in an after life seem to do everything they can to avoid death. As much as I detest crazy Islamic fundamentalist violent types, I have to give them credit for being consistent in their beliefs and their actions. They really do believe they go to paradise when they die, and they show it.

[mijois]

Well I use to be fearful of death... after living in this real world, working everyday... death represents an end to the maddness. Yes, it's sad that I will never see the person again.. but then I think about all of the pain and suffering ... and I just feel they are in a better place.

[wordsmith]

I don't think grief is materialistic, selfish, or greedy at all. and1 said it well earlier on the thread, "You're not just grieving for yourself but b/c this person's time here is up."

[J-girl]

I don't think grief is materialistic, selfish, or greedy at all. and1 said it well earlier on the thread, "You're not just grieving for yourself but b/c this person's time here is up."


Well I was talking in the GRAND scheme of things. Mankind is just one of the many realms a soul goes through and it's very minute in scale to what happens in the big picture (there are so many undiscovered universes out there). So technically us holding back the person's soul by crying is considered selfish.

Ofcourse I dont make sense.

[sunshine326]

I have mixed feelings about this question. For example, when I dad died when I was 13, I was not upset about it, at first. The more I thought about it and how he wouldn't see my drive and he wouldn't see me get married, I was devastated. This comes back to my mind every once in a while and I get depressed. Then, other days, I know he is with me when I need him. Even thought I won't be able to see him, he'll be at my wedding. I'm even reserving him a chair.

My grandma just died about a month ago. I went through the grieving process before she died. The woman that died in her living room was not her. My grandma was already gone. I am glad that she moved on because she was in pain and hated being in the hospital. Now, she'll never have to go back there again. I cried a little about it, and occassionally I miss her like when I get a random thought about calling her to say Alice in Wonderland on TV. Or to tell her about my birthday. For the most part, I am not sad that she is gone. It was her time.

So, sometimes I feel sad, when I think about what they can't see other times I am relieved that they are not in pain anymore.

[cheshrcarol]

I can't speak for everybody who believes in an afterlife, but speaking as a Christian, life is better than non-life. Even the dead are waiting for a resurrection. Eternal life is the ultimate goal of a Christian, not eternal death.That seems pretty depressing. That once your few decades on Earth are over, you spend all of eternity wanting it back. Wouldn't that be its own hell?

[asm198]

I'm torn. I don't believe in God, which, per my limited knowledge of Christianity, means I shouldn't believe in an afterlife. But it's complicated for me. I lost my dad suddenly when I was 19. I believe that he is in heaven, because he believed in God, Heaven, and Hell. I also believe that part of me will go to heaven because he wants to see me again. In my mind, the heaven that he believed in is a happy place, filled with those he loved. Since I am one of those people, his heaven wouldn't be a perfect and happy sanctuary without me in it when I die.

I don't really believe in an afterlife for myself, but I believe that he believed. That probably makes no sense whatsoever and I'm confused about it myself, but this makes the most logical sense to me, so that's what I'm going with. I have more thoughts on the matter, but I think that's all I'll say, lest I get branded a really crazy person.

As why I am sad when someone dies? Purely selfish reasons. I want then with me in this life.

[WeirdBrake]

lest I get branded a really crazy person.

And if you're REALLY crazy, they'll call you a "philosopher." ;)

Not believing in God doesn't automatically equate with not believing in an afterlife. I'm an atheist myself, and I'm resolutely opposed to the idea of an afterlife reward and punishment, but that doesn't mean I also believe our existence ends at physical death. I'm not sure what I believe regarding the afterlife. I'd like to think there's a better world that awaits us, but if it exists, I'd want everyone to experience it, not just "good" people.

[asm198]

And if you're REALLY crazy, they'll call you a "philosopher." ;)

One can only hope. :heehee: Would have been a philosophy major, instead of minor, only what kind of job could I have gotten?



Not believing in God doesn't automatically equate with not believing in an afterlife. I'm an atheist myself, and I'm resolutely opposed to the idea of an afterlife reward and punishment, but that doesn't mean I also believe our existence ends at physical death. I'm not sure what I believe regarding the afterlife. I'd like to think there's a better world that awaits us, but if it exists, I'd want everyone to experience it, not just "good" people.

WB, now you've got me pouring over my philosophy and Buddhist texts. Since I am much more schooled in both of those than I am in Christianity, I will believe you when you say that a belief in God doesn't automatically equate with not believing in an afterlife. I hesitate to call myself an atheist, because I am hesitant to disbelieve in gods. I don't believe in God, as explained by typical Christanity. My beliefs gravitate more towards Buddhism and Wiccan. I will try to explain myself using the texts I have and the internet, including my sources, if anyone wants to learn more.


Buddhism has nirvana. From my book, The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh, pg. 136, "Nirvana, the Third Dharma Seal, is the ground of being, the substance of all that is." "Nirvana is the complete silencing of concepts." Pg. 137, "Nirvana is the extinction of all notions. Birth is a notion. Death is a notion. Being is a notion. Nonbeing is a notion. In our daily lives, we have to deal with these relative realities. But if we touch life more deeply, reality will reveal itself in a different way."

The dictionary.com definition of Nirvana:

1. often Nirvana
a. Buddhism. The ineffable ultimate in which one has attained disinterested wisdom and compassion.
b. Hinduism. Emancipation from ignorance and the extinction of all attachment.

2. An ideal condition of rest, harmony, stability, or joy

From the website, How Stuff works, a good definition, as far as I'm concerned. http://science.howstuffworks.com/nirvana1.htm They are talking about Siddhartha Gautama, otherwise known as 'the Buddha' or "the awakened one".


According to legend, soon after Siddhartha took this path, he finally achieved enlightenment. As he meditated under a tree, he saw all of his past lives, and then the past lives of others. Eventually he gained a perfect, omniscient knowledge of this world and the world beyond it.

The most famous Buddhist figure today, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama: His followers consider him a living buddha, the incarnation of the Buddha of Compassion.

In Buddhism, this state, which the Buddha couldn't relate in language, is called nirvana. The word is Sanskrit for "to extinguish." In this case, it means to extinguish ignorance, hatred and earthly suffering. The term is most closely associated with Buddhism, though it's applied to a similar concept in Hinduism (as we'll see later on).

By achieving nirvana, you can escape samsara, the cycle of reincarnation that characterizes both Hinduism and Buddhism. In each life, a soul is punished or rewarded based on its past actions, or karma, from the current life as well as earlier lives (which also include lives as animals). It's important to note that the law of karma isn't due to a god's judgment over a person's behavior; it's closer to Newtons law of motion -- every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It happens automatically, of its own accord.

When you achieve nirvana, you stop accumulating bad karma because you've transcended it. You spend the rest of your life and sometimes future lives "working off" the bad karma you've already accumulated.

Once you have fully escaped the karmic cycle, you achieve parinirvana -- final nirvana -- in the afterlife. As with Hindu nirvana, souls that have achieved parinirvana are free of the cycle of reincarnation. The Buddha never specified what parinirvana was like. In Buddhist thought, it is beyond normal human comprehension.


I believe in Nirvana. I believe that we go through trials and tests that we must pass before we can go on to the next 'life'. After we complete all the tests, we can move on to "Nirvana", which can be viewed as heaven by tradtional people.


On to Wiccan. Quoting my book, Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham, this is what he has to say about this, on pg. 5. "As in Eastern religions, Wiccan also embraces the doctrine of reincarnation, that much-misunderstood subject. Unlike some Eastern philosophies, however, Wicca doesn't teach that upon physical death our souls will reincarnate in anything other than a human body. Also, few of the Wicca believe we began our exisitence as rocks, trees, snails, or birds before we evolved tot he point where we could incarante as human beings. Thought these creatures and substances do possess a type of soul, it's not the sort we humans have." "The Wiccan ideal of morality is simple: do what you want, as long as you harm none. This rule contains another unwritten condition: do nothing that will harm youself."

This is more commonly known as, from the website, http://biblia.com/wit/ethics.htm as the Wiccan Rede. The last part of the Wiccan Rede, "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none, do what ye will." Also from that website, "The law of three which states, 'Any energy you send out will come back three-fold.' This is a natural law that is recognized by many groups. Others state it as 'you reap what you sow' or 'what goes around, comes around.' To Wiccans, what goes around comes back three times as strong. I believe in the three fold law, that what we put out into the world, comes back to us three times as strong... in this life, or in the next."


I have a mixture of beliefs from both Buddhism and Wiccan. I believe in Nirvana and the Wiccan rede of 3x3. I also believe in free will and what I've been taught in my philosophy classes. This mixture makes more sense to me than anything that I have been exposed to in any religion, and I've been exposed to several.

Going back to what I quoted from WeirdBrake, I agree with an afterlife "punishment", but not exactly. I believe that people keep living their same lives over and over until they learn the lesson they need to. Then they go onto the next one until they learn all the lessons they need to learn. There isn't really a heaven or hell in my definition, as long as you believe. There is only nirvana, which is only achieved, if you believe in it, by completing all the tasks. Wiccan is separate from this, but is a doctrine that I believe in, in this life.

My problem stems from the fact that not everyone I care about believes in these structures. So, in my mind there has to be a compromise between theirs and my own.

[asm198]

I agree with WeirdBrake that you don't have to believe in God to believe in an afterlife. But I have to admit that I don't really understand your view. Maybe it's because I'm crazy. I am partial to philosophy, after all.

Here's what I'm confused about. On the one hand, you say that you don't believe in God. On the other hand, you say that you believe your dad is in heaven because he does believe in God. It just seems odd to me that believing in something that's not true would be the cause for a person going to heaven.

Here's another thing I'm confused about. First, you said you believe part of you will go to heaven because your dad wants to see you again, and it wouldn't be heaven without you. But then you said you don't believe in an afterlife for yourself. Do you mean that maybe some shadow or replica of yourself will be in your dad's heaven so he won't have to miss you? If so, maybe you're there already!

I don't think you're crazy, so by all means, tell us your other thoughts on the matter. Your view is a little different than usual which makes it interesting to me.

Sam

Ephphatha, you said it very well. I believe that my dad is in heaven because he believes in a heaven, not because I do. I believe in a slightly different afterlife than my father, which is part of the disparity. I believe it comes after, or when nirvana happens. He believed it happens after death.

When you said a shadow or replica of myself will be in my father's heaven, that is exactly what i was talking about. I believe that part of myself, or my 'soul' with be with my parents (they believed in the same thing, but my mom hasn't left yet), because their heaven will include both of their children and anyone they held dear to them. I believe that a "heaven" for anyone, includes people, pets, and places that they held dear to them. To use one my my terms, that's their "Nirvana". "Nirvana", as I define it, as being the ultimate paradise.

That said, I actually believe that my father is 'with me' on some level. I have never 'seen' him since he died, but I can sense him, if you will. I know that he is with me and looking out for me. It could be in a 'guardian angle' way like is typical in a Christian religion type of way, or just my way of coping. I'm not sure. But I can feel him around in some way, and I don't care if that is in his way or mine. I like knowing that he's, in some way, with me.

[Deadend]

This question is inspired by Metfan's question to the atheists, but this is something that I've actually always wondered. If you believe in an afterlife, why are you sad when people die? If you truly believe they're going to a better place and you'll see them again one day, shouldn't that make you happy?

Good question!

My initial reaction was somthing along the lines of "easy, it's a selfish act because you don't get to see them *again*"

Or presumably a long time. Still, even if you "meet up in heaven" (although I personally definitively don't believe in hell), the dynamic you had in your relationship as people will be lost right? Your mom is then just another immortal soul, nothing differant than you are. How is she a mother to you anymore?

[asm198]

asm,

Thanks for sharing your views with us. I'm taking a comparitive religion class, and we just finished Buddhism last week. My philosophy teacher is a Mahayana Buddhist, and I find this all very interesting.

Just to get one more clarification, I have another question. You explained your views about reincarnation and reaching Nirvana, but then you also said you think your dad is in heaven because he believed in heaven. Is it your view that whatever happens to a person after they die depends on what they believe? For example, your dad is in heaven because he believes in heaven, whereas you'll be reincarnated because you believe in reincarnation?

Sam

Sorry so long for the reply. My roommate came home.

To your question, yes. My belief is that people will go where they are intended to go, depending on their belief system. I believe that my dad is in heaven, because that's what he believed. And that I will go into some form of reincarnation, because that it what I believe. However, part of my 'current self' will also go towards my dad's heaven, because I believe his "heaven" won't be complete without a form of his daughter. Therein lies my dilemma. Making my dad's form of 'afterlife' coincide with my own.

ETA: I just wanted to clarify something I said earlier. At the begining of pg, 3, (at least pg. 3 for me), and the begining of my involvement in this discussion, in reference to my dad, I stated, "Since I am one of those people, his heaven wouldn't be a perfect and happy sanctuary without me in it when I die." I am going with the assumption that my everyone older than myself, that he held dear to him, will pass on before me. Not that once I die, if I happen to go before older people, that he will be truly happy with only me in his afterlife. Just wanted to clarify that. :)

[and1grad]

If I'm starting to sound crazy, keep in mind that I like philosophy. That's my excuse. :)
I wouldnt say you guys are sounding crazy as much as just nerdy. :evil:

[sunshine326]

asm,

If reality is determined by what we believe, then our beliefs can't be based on reality. What, then, are they based on? I'm not sure if I'm being clear here about what I'm asking. Do you understand what I mean?


Sam

I am going to try to answer this based on my interpretation of your question and my beliefs. First, I should note that I have very open beliefs that can change from minute to minute, but the majority are based on Christianity. I have toyed with the idea of people's afterlives depending on what they believe. So, if beliefs create realitity instead of being based on reality, where do they come from? I think they come from many aspects. For one, they come from tradition and what your family believes. If you separate from your family for a different religion, then that is where they come from. While I have religion, I am going to speculate on if I did not. So, if I did not have religion, my beliefs would come from what comforts me - somewhat like it does now. I am comforted by the idea of my dad acting as a guardian in this life and being connected to him in an afterlife of some sort. Or it is possible that through reincarnation, we develop a new relationship with only glimpses of the memories of what occurred during this life. -Right now, my actual beliefs are based on a mixture of religion, books I've read (fiction/ non fiction), discussions with friends, and what comforts me.

If I misinterrupted the question, oops. I tried.

[Desiderata]

I'm curious about the christian beliefs in an immortal, or eternal afterlife? I mean, the idea itself is not a reasonable one. There is nothing permanent, unchanging in all of nature or the universe. Birth, death, growth, everything changes eventually. There's no such thing as a static unchanging anything. So I'm a little baffled how some can believe in this idea of "forever" when the word itself is based on a concept, not a reality.

also, that was a great tidbit on buddhism, well done.

[Desiderata]

Some very good points. And yes, nothing physical stays the same forever. And whatever it was that did create everything, ie get the big bang going, whatever, that's not to say it was forever or endless. What ever "it"was, could have done its job and thus ended its current existence. Ie some ball of "uber"matter explodes to generate the universe, so it is no longer ubermatter and has become the universe. So it does not exist in the same form, forever and evever. And I don't take issue with there being a beginning, but it's the never ending part that I don't agree with. Yah, semantics aside it's a good argument about the statement itself, but slightly off topic, I think

[Deadend]

Desiderata, you should read Plato's Phaedo If you think about it, it's impossible for the Christian soul to exist for an infinite amount of time. It began to exist as some finite time in the past, so it has a beginning. And no matter how far in the future you go, the time the soul has existed is still finite. There's no point at which is becomes infinite, because you can't reach infinity just by adding another day or another hour

Actually, mathematically speaking, that's not true.

It's easy to show that an infinite series from n=m (where m is a finite number) to n=infinity is still divergent and therefor the sum of terms is still infinity.

[Desiderata]

alright deadend! I knew math would come to my rescue someday

[Desiderata]

But given this "beginning stuff" had an end, eliminates the possibility of eternity. Ok sure, it was around for a long time, but since it existed before time itself, how can it even be measured? There's nothing to measure it to, therefore it can only be measured in terms of its ending. Eternity means its gonna keep on going, but if this stuff had to change to create the unvierse (and given its created something, ie everything) then it has changed, therefore is not its eternal same self. An action will change something. Be it the passage of time, cells being used up, or matter being converted into whatever. I liken this idea to a rock. Yah, it's a rock, it's been around for a long time, but it has changed over time, been worn out and moved around by the world around it. Whether it has "done" anything or not is irrelevant, the world has changed it. Just as the creation of the universe "changed" whatever started the whole big show to begin with.

[Deadend]

Well we're not talking about mathematical abstractions here. We're talking about real linear time, seconds, hours, days, years. You can't add one after another and arrive at an actual infinite.
Sam

There's nothing at all "abstract" about the math, I can gaurentee the concept is integrated into the software you are using now.

You're expecting to "arrive" at infinity. Well don't. You're not wrapping your head around the concept of an infinite series (in this case, of units of time), and the concept that no point is infinity. Infinity is the end, but by definition you don't get to the end ! Of course you're going to form erroneous conclusions if you contradict your own definitions!!!

You're confusing the computation of a specific point differance as opposed to the value of the entire infinite interval. All you're doing is comparating the finite beggining with an arbitrary point after it, as oppossed to the end with the beggining, which is the definition of length.

Take the infinite series "n", n=1 to n=infinity, call the units hours, sum the componants, it's infinity. There you go, nothing abstract about the math, in fact I can assure you the concept is integrated into the software you're using right now.

It's infinitity which is the abstract concept... it requires the comparing of somthing which, by definition, doens't exist. You'll never get to it, don't expect to.

By saying that without a beggining you've arrived at infinity, and therefor are infinite, you're essentially cheating. "It's already happend", rather than looking at definition. Proof by observation over somthing which has never been observed.

Look the timelines of your argument, which you say is an infinte interval (no beggining compared to present), vs my argument (no end compared to present, or time of birth, both arbitrary points). They look exactly the same, but are mirror images. Henceforth the absolute values of the intervals are equal. They are both infinite.

Desi: Math always comes to the rescue :)

ASIDE:

Now, if we really want to get technical, we're assuming that time is divergent, and we don't know that. Xeno's paradox. In fact, we don't even know if time is moving at all, technically, because if time does stop, we'll never know.

[WeirdBrake]

Calling Ludwig Wittgenstein! We have a language game in the house!

[WeirdBrake]

Define "win an argument." Convince Desi or Deadend that you are right? Convince the majority of QLCers that you are right? ;)

[Deadend]

Summing the components in reality is precisely the problem. Time happens sequentially--one hour followed by the next hours, etc. They are added one member after another sequentially, and the process can never be completed. No matter how many hours, days, or years you add, you will always arrive at a finite number each time you do the addition.
Sam

YES! But that's just the point..... it is NOT completed... which is WHY it is infinite!!!

You're trying to say that because you never reach infinity, the soul does not exist infinitely. It does.... it just hasn't at any particular point in time.

The beggining argument is merely flipping around your definitions. "To be infinte mean having already existed forever" vs "Has infinite existance remaining" or "Exists for an infinite amount of time. I think most people think of it as that last one. In which case you do not require "arriving" at infinity to be "infinite". You're still thinking in terms of arriving, I can see by your last paragraph.

You however DID state that the christian soul is not infinite because of the finite beggining. This is completely irrelavent, and therefore your statement is false. Infinite existance in time is infinite existance, regardless if it has been, or is to be.

If we can agree on that, we can agree on everything.

[Deadend]

Define "win an argument." Convince Desi or Deadend that you are right? Convince the majority of QLCers that you are right? ;)

No way man, I'm just talking math.

A line of infinite length can have a defined beginning (or end, but not both). That's just math.

First year stuff too.

[WeirdBrake]

Alright, I have to go, and I won't be back on the boards for a few hours. Play nice, you two. I don't want to have to step in as mod and break up a fight over the metaphysics of infinity.

[Deadend]

Alright, I have to go, and I won't be back on the boards for a few hours. Play nice, you two. I don't want to have to step in as mod and break up a fight over the metaphysics of infinity.

I hear someone broke their glasses last week over at the perimeter institute in a similar argument.

[J-girl]

Okay. Now check yours.
I did. Now check yours again.

[Deadend]

No, I completely get what you're saying, now please try and meet me half way.

You're defineing being infinite as a state. I am or am not infinite right now. In which case you're completly right, at no particular point in time is the soul infinite.

I'm saying the definition should be a measure of the time interval in which it exists. In which case, I'm right, because that time interval is indeed infinitately long (no end).

This may seem initially contradictory, but it's not. Infinity is a strage concept, present day mathematicians are still working on its finer points.

[pisces2473]

Alright, I have to go, and I won't be back on the boards for a few hours. Play nice, you two. I don't want to have to step in as mod and break up a fight over the metaphysics of infinity.
And you all know I'd have no idea how to break up that shit...which leaves And1...

[Deadend]

If you agree with that, then why are you arguing with me?
The definition of what? I don't understand what you're saying here.
What time interval are you talking about? The existence of the soul? Infinity? If all you're saying is that infinity is infinitely long, of course I would agree with you. That's just a tautology.

1) I am agreeing with you given your definition, I however had a differant one. Hence the argument.

2) I am refering to the definition of "infinite soul". I am defining it as a soul for which the time interval of its existance is infinitely long. No end of existance means the time interval of the existance of the soul is infinitely long.

Now you may at this point say that it's simply my definition vs yours. I will also say however that because "infinity" is by definition, a measure, it requires a measure between two points. Henceforth it cannot be a state as your definition suggests.

[heatherf]

Maybe it's infinity plus one? ;) :cool: :D

[Deadend]

Well, as long as you agree with the concept, I can live with your disagreement with the words I use to convey the concept. I guess WeirdBrake was right--it was just a disagreement over words.

Well as long as we all learned somthing!

I learned the WB is always right

Heather:

Looking at the G-mail upgrade eh? My roomate just showed me that... I love the coffee stain....

Gotta love it.

[heatherf]

It was from some SNL quote- back in the day.....maybe Wayne's World??? I can't remember.

[WeirdBrake]

And you all know I'd have no idea how to break up that shit...which leaves And1...

What am I, the philosophical bouncer? :lol:

Anyway, Eph and Deadend, I'm glad to see y'all came to an understanding. :)

[Desiderata]

Wow, glad I missed the majority of that... as fun as math is, it has been a while ;) I was waiting for the verbal equivilant of hair pulling, hehe.

[asm198]

asm,

From what I understand, Buddhists only undergo reincarnation until they are able to reach their ultimate goal, which is Nirvana. If whatever happens to you depends on what you believe, then why not just believe you're going to enter Nirvana as soon as you die instead of believing you're just going to be reincarnated again?

The idea that things are true because we believe them is a little confusing to me. How does one come to believe anything? Do you choose your beliefs, or does something cause you to arrive at your beliefs? I mean suppose I wanted to find out what was going to happen to me after I died. If truth is determined by beliefs, then I wouldn't try to find out what was true, and then believe it. Instead, I would have to first believe something before is becomes true. But if there's no way, even in principle, to find out what's true, then what are my beliefs based on? What does it mean to believe something if not to think that it's already true? If believing somethign means thinking it's true, then it seems like we would try to have our beliefs conform to reality rather than having reality conform to our beliefs. If reality is determined by what we believe, then our beliefs can't be based on reality. What, then, are they based on? I'm not sure if I'm being clear here about what I'm asking. Do you understand what I mean?

If I'm starting to sound crazy, keep in mind that I like philosophy. That's my excuse. :)

Sam

I've read this entire thread and was mostly lost through a couple of pages, so this may have already been discussed, but I wanted to respond to this. Nirvana trancends beliefs. You can't believe in nirvana and reach nirvana because nirvana is everything and nothing at the same time. Nirvana is basically the ability to look at things a different way.

I'm paraphrasing, but from the book I quoted in my earlier post, pg. 129: Nirvana means extinction of all concepts and notions. Our concepts about things prevent us from really touching them. A good example is on that same page. A flower is not a flower. That is why it's a flower. Their explanation for this is our concept of a flower is not really what a flower is. A flower is made only of non-flower things, the sun, earth, minerals, etc. A true flower contains the entire universe and if we return any one of these elements to its source, there will be no flower.

From pg. 136. A wave does not have to die to become water. Water is the substance of the wave, so it's already water. The waves do not exist outside of the water. If you know how to touch the waves, you touch the water at the same time. Nirvana is the ground of all that is. It's the extinction of the concepts of birth and death and being and nonbeing.

This kind of ties into the discussion of infinity. Pg. 137: We think that being born means from nothing we become something, from no one we become someone, from nonbeing we become being. We think that to die means we suddenly go from something to nothing, from someone to no one, from being to nonbeing.

It goes on to talk about this, which I found interesting. This book is written on paper. This paper came into existence at a factory. But before it came into existence, was it nothing? Well, no, it was a tree, dirt, etc. They go on to make this statment, quoting the French scientist Lavoisier, "Nothing is born, nothing dies". Now, if I take this book and burn it, is the paper then nonbeing? No, it's smoke, heat, and ash. And if I dump the ash outside, it will eventually become part of the earth, trees grow in the earth, etc.

The interesting thing about Buddhism is that it can't really be taught. A person can teach you that 2+2=4 and you will learn and understand that 2+2=4. You will get the concept. But one can't teach you what nirvana is and you learn and understand it and then reach nirvana. That's why it's a solitary journey. I could tell you that 2+2=4, but you are taking it on faith that I am correct. That's why a flower is not a flower, but is a flower.