Kevin's Watch

Sure, it's possible. It's also speculation. Since nobody remembers anything from before their birth, and there's no other evidence that there was anything before birth, there's no reason to suspect there was anything before birth.

Fist and Faith wrote:Sure, it's possible. It's also speculation. Since nobody remembers anything from before their birth, and there's no other evidence that there was anything before birth, there's no reason to suspect there was anything before birth.

There's also no way to deny existence before birth. Or after death. Not knowing something does not make it nonexistent.

But not knowing something does not make it existent, either. I mean, come on, how many other things that we don't have any evidence for should we assume exist?

I'm just saying that we shouldn't entirely discount the possibility.

What about all those people who remember their past lives? Huh? Huh?

Auleliel wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:If there was nothingness before birth, you will return to it.

Was there nothingness before birth?

Yes. The atoms that made your brain were elsewhere.

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The thing you have to do is explain the presence of this desire in the overwhelming majority of humanity throughout history, and simply saying that "They are just curious" doesn't answer that question at all. A scientist worth his salt would examine the question, form hypotheses, etc, rather than merely write it off.

Didn't write it off. Merely said it's an unanswerable question and humans oh so love their order and answers, so it's merely natural that it will plague us throughout time. I don't think that means it has to have an answer, other than brain death and decomposition.

rusmeister wrote:

Lord Foul wrote: Aye, sucks don't it? And therein is the common (not "objective") thirst to wish for something better, or believe there must be something after this existence.

The sleep analogy is very good (best comment highlighted). But sleeping ends in awakening. This points to resurrection, not oblivion. And it is a renewal. We have renewed strength, energy to face the new day. The caterpillar must sleep in the chrysalis, and the caterpillar's existence, as such, ends. But it emerges as something far better.

And then it dies. The fact that we wake up in the morning (or whenever you do) is a biological process. If you believe it means you'll be resurrected in the afterlife, that's completely your supposition and merely a large conclusion-jump to say waking up after sleep means existing forever after death. What comes up must come down. If there was nothingness before birth, you will return to it.

This seems a little unfair - first sleep is used to demonstrate oblivion after death, and then I point out how it illustrates a possible truth of Resurrection, and then you mix (confuse?) the sleep analogy with death to say you die anyway, so the analogy is irrelevant. Now it's true that the sleep analogy doesn't prove resurrection. But what I am saying is that if our experiences mirror eternal truths, then it is possible.

Religion essays to answer the question. You choose to evade the question - write it off as unanswerable. That does not make your response any more scientific and proven than those of religion. We might be in agreement that science is not the instrument we can turn to in search of a correct answer.

rusmeister wrote:Religion essays to answer the question. You choose to evade the question - write it off as unanswerable. That does not make your response any more scientific and proven than those of religion. We might be in agreement that science is not the instrument we can turn to in search of a correct answer.

But if one has no reason to believe in religion, then the question is still unanswered. Science can't answer it, and, for those of us who do not believe in religion, there's no other way to get an answer. As far as I can tell, the question is unanswerable.

Which is not a problem, since the question is also unimportant.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Religion essays to answer the question. You choose to evade the question - write it off as unanswerable. That does not make your response any more scientific and proven than those of religion. We might be in agreement that science is not the instrument we can turn to in search of a correct answer.

But if one has no reason to believe in religion, then the question is still unanswered. Science can't answer it, and, for those of us who do not believe in religion, there's no other way to get an answer. As far as I can tell, the question is unanswerable.

Which is not a problem, since the question is also unimportant.

All I can do is repeat:

That does not make your response any more scientific and proven than those of religion. We might be in agreement that science is not the instrument we can turn to in search of a correct answer.

rusmeister wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The thing you have to do is explain the presence of this desire in the overwhelming majority of humanity throughout history, and simply saying that "They are just curious" doesn't answer that question at all. A scientist worth his salt would examine the question, form hypotheses, etc, rather than merely write it off.

Didn't write it off. Merely said it's an unanswerable question and humans oh so love their order and answers, so it's merely natural that it will plague us throughout time. I don't think that means it has to have an answer, other than brain death and decomposition.

rusmeister wrote: The sleep analogy is very good (best comment highlighted). But sleeping ends in awakening. This points to resurrection, not oblivion. And it is a renewal. We have renewed strength, energy to face the new day. The caterpillar must sleep in the chrysalis, and the caterpillar's existence, as such, ends. But it emerges as something far better.

And then it dies. The fact that we wake up in the morning (or whenever you do) is a biological process. If you believe it means you'll be resurrected in the afterlife, that's completely your supposition and merely a large conclusion-jump to say waking up after sleep means existing forever after death. What comes up must come down. If there was nothingness before birth, you will return to it.

This seems a little unfair - first sleep is used to demonstrate oblivion after death, and then I point out how it illustrates a possible truth of Resurrection, and then you mix (confuse?) the sleep analogy with death to say you die anyway, so the analogy is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. High Lord Tolkien was comparing the deep stage of sleep without dreaming to the state of nothingness/death, and I merely agreed with it. Wasn't talking about the whole sleep cycle.

rusmeister wrote:Now it's true that the sleep analogy doesn't prove resurrection. But what I am saying is that if our experiences mirror eternal truths, then it is possible.

That's a big if. There's no way or knowing what in life mirrors an afterlife, even if there is one. I could, with just as much substantive evidence, say my CPU tower's innards mirror the eternal truth of the afterlife, so heaven will be composed of wires, a cooling fan, and video cards.

rusmeister wrote:Religion essays to answer the question. You choose to evade the question - write it off as unanswerable. That does not make your response any more scientific and proven than those of religion. We might be in agreement that science is not the instrument we can turn to in search of a correct answer.

Death is unanswerable. Religion says it knows what it is but the makers of religion were people who were still alive. Unless you've been dead for a few months and gone through some considerable decay (and are not a zombie I have to whack with a crowbar), then I'll listen.

I'm glad you have some hope that there's an afterlife. Hope's a good thing. But there is no instrument that will ever answer death, not science or religion. I'll see death when I see it (or un-see it, if oblivion is the Answer).

Personally, I hope there's an afterlife, even if it's half as aware and exciting as this one. My body, when threatened with danger, fights wildly to stay alive. There's obviously something it doesn't want to sink into, and I'm guessing our entire being was crafted to stay away from death and survive. If death were so great and a step forward, why is our biology engineered against it?

But if I were to put my money on something delving into death and bringing back actual data, I'd not be surprised if it were far-future technology developed by scientists.

Fist and Faith wrote: Which is not a problem, since the question is also unimportant.

This is contradicted by nearly all of humanity throughout history. I do think that when push comes to shove, you will find the question important.

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Lord Foul wrote: Didn't write it off. Merely said it's an unanswerable question and humans oh so love their order and answers, so it's merely natural that it will plague us throughout time. I don't think that means it has to have an answer, other than brain death and decomposition.

If you mean that it is unanswerable by humans on their own, I quite agree. It would take some kind of external revelation to be able to answer the question. And this is what some religions (Christianity, f.e.) claim. If one chooses not to examine the truth of those claims but simply declare them false, then he has not engaged in intellectual activity.

Lord Foul wrote: And then it dies. The fact that we wake up in the morning (or whenever you do) is a biological process. If you believe it means you'll be resurrected in the afterlife, that's completely your supposition and merely a large conclusion-jump to say waking up after sleep means existing forever after death. What comes up must come down. If there was nothingness before birth, you will return to it.

This seems a little unfair - first sleep is used to demonstrate oblivion after death, and then I point out how it illustrates a possible truth of Resurrection, and then you mix (confuse?) the sleep analogy with death to say you die anyway, so the analogy is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. High Lord Tolkien was comparing the deep stage of sleep without dreaming to the state of nothingness/death, and I merely agreed with it. Wasn't talking about the whole sleep cycle.

Ah, but therein is the rub. I point out a larger picture within the picture of sleep, and this picture is summarily dismissed. I agree that deep sleep can be seen as a kind of oblivion - in addition, we know it is not true oblivion (in the popular sense of the word). The Christian view is that Christ's Incarnation (the Creator visits the planet in person and in history!), Death and resurrection were aimed at destroying death - ending its hold on humanity and turning death into sleep, and sleep into awakening - a general resurrection (EDIT) (although the resurrection is to salvation or damnation - the shorthand would be that we are saved (passive voice) but damn ourselves (active voice) - the door of hell is locked from the inside).

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Now it's true that the sleep analogy doesn't prove resurrection. But what I am saying is that if our experiences mirror eternal truths, then it is possible.

That's a big if. There's no way or knowing what in life mirrors an afterlife, even if there is one. I could, with just as much substantive evidence, say my CPU tower's innards mirror the eternal truth of the afterlife, so heaven will be composed of wires, a cooling fan, and video cards.

It is a big 'if'. However, Christian claims, again, are not based on self-knowledge, but on special revelation. Thus, your analogy does not apply (although it would if a number of people actually witnessed a vision describing heaven as you do).

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Religion essays to answer the question. You choose to evade the question - write it off as unanswerable. That does not make your response any more scientific and proven than those of religion. We might be in agreement that science is not the instrument we can turn to in search of a correct answer.

Death is unanswerable. Religion says it knows what it is but the makers of religion were people who were still alive. Unless you've been dead for a few months and gone through some considerable decay (and are not a zombie I have to whack with a crowbar), then I'll listen.

Now you're making statements as dogmatic and mystical and unsupported as mine.

Lord Foul wrote:I'm glad you have some hope that there's an afterlife. Hope's a good thing. But there is no instrument that will ever answer death, not science or religion. I'll see death when I see it (or un-see it, if oblivion is the Answer).

Again, religion does specifically answer those questions. You may disagree with or not like the answers, but you can hardly deny that it does answer them.

Lord Foul wrote:Personally, I hope there's an afterlife, even if it's half as aware and exciting as this one. My body, when threatened with danger, fights wildly to stay alive. There's obviously something it doesn't want to sink into, and I'm guessing our entire being was crafted to stay away from death and survive. If death were so great and a step forward, why is our biology engineered against it?

This is a very good question. If you would listen to the answer that Orthodox Christianity offers, I'll say that it was not part of our original design. We were designed to live forever, without decay or disability, as a hybrid of body and spirit. But then something happened, known as "The Fall". Adam and Eve were invited to cut the umbilical cord, so to speak, with God and become their own gods, which they did. Cutting themselves off from the source of eternal life, they began to die. Human nature fundamentally changed. Death of the body meant the sundering of body and spirit. It IS a tragedy. It's not supposed to happen. But it does. We rightly draw back from it on the instinctive level, because it did mean oblivion. Thus the Incarnation. A second Adam (Christ) and a second Eve (Mary) who both submitted and said 'let Your will be done' where the first Adam and Eve said 'let my will be done'. Christ's death and resurrection enabled the reversal of death for all who would say 'yes' to Him and restore the 'umbilical cord' (or power cord) of eternal life. So death must be undergone. But for those who accept, it is not permanent, and thus need not be feared as a final end. It's still scary (when the moment comes - when we sit in our comfy chairs we can perhaps pretend to ourselves that it is not frightening), but like a big roller coaster or high dive, we can have faith that we will come through that God will restore us, or reinstall our program if you like.

Lord Foul wrote:But if I were to put my money on something delving into death and bringing back actual data, I'd not be surprised if it were far-future technology developed by scientists.

This seems to reveal a tendency toward faith in science.

Well, everybody's got to believe in something. I wouldn't believe in anything if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood ring!

Steve Martin

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: Which is not a problem, since the question is also unimportant.

This is contradicted by nearly all of humanity throughout history. I do think that when push comes to shove, you will find the question important.

Yeah, I worded that badly. What I meant is, if oblivion awaits us, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then all this debate about Which is better able to tell us what comes after death - faith or science? is irrelevant. I have no doubt that, if I'm aware I'm dying, whether in minutes or months, I'll wish it was not so. (More important, I hope I'm not aware of it. Ignorance is bliss, eh? ) No, I don't want eternal existence, but that doesn't mean I'll think a few decades is sufficient. (Of course, I can't discount the possibility that, if I'm 80+ when it happens, I won't have come to new attitudes, and won't smile at the approaching moment.) But if there's nothing but oblivion waiting for me, all of the debates about this are unimportant.

Fisty, you have no reason to believe there is nothing but oblivion when we "die" (I really don't like the word "die"), but me, oh...I believe the complete opposite. I've seen it and it is glorious. There is peace, and light, and tangible joy after we pass on from this world. The "evidence" I have is that it was shown to me. I can not bear the thought of just expiring to nothing. When it is my time to leave here and pass on to Heaven, oh I will shout out with joy. This life...is only the first part of the journey.

Yup. I know, you pain in the neck! But, of course, I can't base my beliefs on other people's experiences.

yeah yeah yeah

rusmeister wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Religion essays to answer the question. You choose to evade the question - write it off as unanswerable. That does not make your response any more scientific and proven than those of religion. We might be in agreement that science is not the instrument we can turn to in search of a correct answer.

Death is unanswerable. Religion says it knows what it is but the makers of religion were people who were still alive. Unless you've been dead for a few months and gone through some considerable decay (and are not a zombie I have to whack with a crowbar), then I'll listen.

Now you're making statements as dogmatic and mystical and unsupported as mine.

Nah, just quasi-humorous. Really, there is faith required for both atheism and theism. Agnosticism is the most logical choice. My statement merely points out there is no way of telling what death is or what it could be comparable to, so comparing it to sleep or a CPU tower has equal substance. "Special revelation", as you call it, is no more proven than whatever I believe or claim.

rusmeister wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:But if I were to put my money on something delving into death and bringing back actual data, I'd not be surprised if it were far-future technology developed by scientists.

This seems to reveal a tendency toward faith in science.

Most definitely, good sir! Science has done a few things, here and there. I will sit back and gladly watch what it does next.

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Lord Foul wrote: Death is unanswerable. Religion says it knows what it is but the makers of religion were people who were still alive. Unless you've been dead for a few months and gone through some considerable decay (and are not a zombie I have to whack with a crowbar), then I'll listen.

Now you're making statements as dogmatic and mystical and unsupported as mine.

Nah, just quasi-humorous. Really, there is faith required for both atheism and theism. Agnosticism is the most logical choice. My statement merely points out there is no way of telling what death is or what it could be comparable to, so comparing it to sleep or a CPU tower has equal substance. "Special revelation", as you call it, is no more proven than whatever I believe or claim.

Here, I would say that sleep mirrors human life in a far more total way than a CPU tower does, so the analogies are not on an equal footing.
And again, I agree that without revelation from a source that you accept as authoritative, there is no way to know.

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:But if I were to put my money on something delving into death and bringing back actual data, I'd not be surprised if it were far-future technology developed by scientists.

This seems to reveal a tendency toward faith in science.

Most definitely, good sir! Science has done a few things, here and there. I will sit back and gladly watch what it does next.

The things that science has done - or more accurately, that people have done in the name of science, like religion, are both good and bad. It is good to recognize that your faith in it may be comparable to others' acceptance of religion - that it is a dogmatic trust.

Here, my favorite Chestertonian aphorism is

We have learned to do a great many clever things. The next great thing will be to learn not to do them.

rusmeister wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

rusmeister wrote: Now you're making statements as dogmatic and mystical and unsupported as mine.

Nah, just quasi-humorous. Really, there is faith required for both atheism and theism. Agnosticism is the most logical choice. My statement merely points out there is no way of telling what death is or what it could be comparable to, so comparing it to sleep or a CPU tower has equal substance. "Special revelation", as you call it, is no more proven than whatever I believe or claim.

Here, I would say that sleep mirrors human life in a far more total way than a CPU tower does, so the analogies are not on an equal footing.
And again, I agree that without revelation from a source that you accept as authoritative, there is no way to know.

Well, a CPU is similar to human life in that its sum is greater than the parts (organs and such) and both humans and CPUs can compute and require energy and maintenance (or upgrades). Of course, now I'm just picking over odds and ends.