Heaven, Hell, Reincarnation, and other "end points"

[John Dibble]

Whether our consciousness continues to exist or not is something that really has not been determined. Humans may have simply invented the concept of an afterlife for comfort since most of us fear death to some degree. Concepts like heaven and hell where those who are seen as good are rewarded and those who are seen as evil are punished additionally satisfy us because it gives us more comfort in that no matter how cruel the world might seem we'll see those who wronged us get what's coming to them. I think this is most likely how the beliefs on our world developed, though there could still be some form of afterlife anyways. But if not I wouldn't worry about it too much, if there's no afterlife then there's no afterlife. I think this quote best sums up my feelings on that notion:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain (attributed, source unknown)

[John Dibble]

We have clearly created something for ourselves after death. We're primates who understand our own mortality and feel 'cheated' that we have to die despite everything we have done, still have to do and because of what we leave behind. So we invent a continuation. Some inventions are more 'humane' than others; becoming nothingness, reincarnation (depends to what) or the concept of eternal worship of a supreme being.

As far as I am concerened the end point is death. The best way to prepare yourself for it is to live a fulfilling life.

I agree with living a fulfilling life, but there is scientific evidence that disputes us from descending from apes. First of all, there is the missing link. I know a couple months ago I posted about how it could have been aliens who came to teach us how to use tools. I'm not going to debate my religious beliefs on this particular thread but the fact that humans have always believed in an afterlife or at least a spiritual realm could have to do with aliens.

First of all the 'link' is hypothetically there based on what we have found and know know it is a pre-supposed link. The fact that we have not yet physically found all the inhabitants of that link does not negate it's highly probably likelyhood. On the issue of the use of primative tools any external 'guide' they must also have taught chimps, ants and some birds to use basic tools. Tool-making is quite wide in the animal kingdom; ours are just better.

Our's is better and what I'm saying is that there is an argument that can be made supporting aliens teaching us and that's why we're so much better than other animals. In fact we could be descendants of aliens.

"An argument can be made" and "could be" are not evidence, and as such there's no reason for the idea to be taken seriously. Find the evidence first, then take the idea seriously.

[John Dibble]

There is plenty of evidence to support me. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks what I'm saying.

No, you don't.

[John Dibble]

You're viewing God as finite. God is not limited to what we know to be matter or anything necessary for creation.

Do you have evidence for this?

[John Dibble]

You're viewing God as finite. God is not limited to what we know to be matter or anything necessary for creation.

Do you have evidence for this?

No because I'm finite. You keep insisting that everything can be understood from the finite point of view and it just can't. We'll never know all the answers and that is part of being human. If God could be limited then by definition that would not be God and we're back to finding God.

"By definition" seems to be all you have to say, but you have no basis for that definition - where exactly did this definition come from? Some religions have defined gods as not being infinite, so why is that somehow less valid than what you're saying? Who the hell made you the final arbiter of determining what is and what isn't a god?

So do you think it matters if we're right or wrong?

You don't. That's quite clear seeing as you don't seem to give a damn about evidence.

[John Dibble]

If they have different gods who aren't infinite then that can't be a true God.

Says you. They would disagree. Neither of you can prove your view right. Why should I think your definition is any more correct than anyone else's?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You feel incorrectly. It could be some nebulous energy being or an invisible pink unicorn for all I care. My problem is that you keep making this definition based on what you'd like God to be like - for all you know there was a god but it burned itself out creating the universe. You can yell "infinite" until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. Where's the evidence that a god must be infinite?

[John Dibble]

If they have different gods who aren't infinite then that can't be a true God.

Says you. They would disagree. Neither of you can prove your view right. Why should I think your definition is any more correct than anyone else's?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You feel incorrectly. It could be some nebulous energy being or an invisible pink unicorn for all I care. My problem is that you keep making this definition based on what you'd like God to be like - for all you know there was a god but it burned itself out creating the universe. You can yell "infinite" until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. Where's the evidence that a god must be infinite?

How about this? Are you reading? You envision God as an invisible pink unicorn and I'll envision God as the first mover.

I'm reading, you clearly aren't. Your inability to comprehend even the most simply written sentences shows that.

[John Dibble]

No, what you said is a cop out. It was in no way a valid response to any of the points I made - essentially it was you giving up because you know you can't argue for crap. How about you actually respond instead?