I avoided this thread for a while because they're generally filled with ignorance and toxic. This one isn't too bad yet so I'll speak my mind. @A Haunted Army the issue of whether or not Jesus Christ existed is not up for debate, no matter your belief. Historians of all faiths accept this fact universally. In fact, before my current job I worked for two years under a pastor where I was going to become an apologist (someone who debates. William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc). I probably went to several dozen debates, read a book a week for two years, and over 1000 podcasts, sermons, and lectures easily. Not once in any debate was the topic of whether or not Jesus existed EVER a subject. It always revolves around, was he who he said he was, and did he rise from the grave. If you're interested I can send you a dozen or so podcasts on it. But don't try to argue that he didn't exist. Also, the bible is REMARKABLY historically accurate. It's depictions of wars, time frames, rulers of nations, and cultures are all spot on. You can argue the theology of the Bible but not the validity. Don't confuse the two. @a Chunk your very definition of morality means you believe in a subjective morality despite saying otherwise.
The point of infinity, the concept of god and limitlessness, is that there is no one end or beginning point to place as a peak or the otherwise to classify what is right and wrong. Touching on @a Chunk s balloon analogy, people can find pain in pleasure and pleasure in pain, with nothing more than personal feelings or instincts and the overpowering of such dictating the way they see the world. And this is all a choice. Let's assume that every "good" decision you make paints a canvas white, whilst every "bad" decision paints it black. Even if you knew that deep down inside, you knew that you had the ability to paint your entire canvas white and basically become one with the universe/god, someone else could be trying to do the same thing, but on the opposite end. I feel like if that happens on either end, that would be this true afterlife spoken about. Becoming absorbed into all that is an ever will be (also a definition of god). Assuming we "know" our souls last forever, what else would we strive for but to become everything?
Exatly my point. If for the sake of argument you suspend your disbelief, lets consider that there is an eternal afterlife. Finding out how to secure your place in this afterlife should be your #1 priorety during your finite time here on earth. If not for your own sake, than sombody else you love.
No no no, what I meant that in a world clearly embedded with free will, and assuming for arguments sake that souls are eternal, there is an infinite amount of time to make up for any bad deeds done. And in that, the deeds no longer become bad, but a stepping stone in the infinite walk to understanding (whatever that understanding may be). Also, in the free choice line of thinking, unless you can assume god is all forgiving, then it is his will that we be allowed these terrible experiences of self degradation for the sake of learning. Perhaps as a reminder when forging our hearts for the road ahead, but I digress as its merely my own speculation, and I wouldn't want to presume knowing fact from fiction in a matter so sensitive as this. My point is, while this life does matter, and you should do your best to live the **** out of it, there's no sense trying to protect loved ones or yourself from eternal damnation or anything along the lines; if that's your line of thinking, then your already lost. If you think any of the acts that you've done in this lifetime come close to anything done truly worthy of damnation in the universe, I'd like to know so I can report you to the authorities. Otherwise, live life easy knowing things will go well, or they won't. But it'll be fine either way because you would, or would not have have had a choice in the matter.
There is certainly alot we could talk about on this topic, but i'll try and keep it short. So if we are on the same page at the very least we can agree there is a creator. Is it so hard to take a look around and see that this world is not ideal? We have this objective standard of good inate in all of us. We all have a longing for this ideal utopia of pure joy, genuiness, and just infalability. You can argue that this is still subjective but the fact that as humans we all share this vision, that means somthing. We arn't just fallen human beings, we live in a fallen world. Now why would stealing a pencil from school, or saying a petty lie be deserving of eternal damnation? Well this is teaching that is consistant throughout many cultures, and is not significant to one religion. The bible, which at this point and time in my development makes the most sense in everytbing, has it's own take on the matter... God is perfect, imperfection cannot coexist with perfection. Performing one imperfect act makes you tainted. We cannot exist with god in heavan because of our sin. However, god loved us even so, that he sent and incarnation of himself to the world to live a perfect life, be cause we can't. And this is a free gift, not demanding anything from us in return. Only that we have a sencier heart. When you pray, you are asking that jesus's perfect record be put as a replacment for yours. And you have recieved salvation. The bible isn't just a book of rules, it is a love story, it is about the redemption of humanity.
Backing up the "Jesus was a real person" part here. The Bible is indeed very accurate historically - it's great mixture of a transcription of oral history, culture, and important events, and is widely accepted as a legitimate, even primary, source of what happened during the time frames it covered. The theology, of course, is not so universally accepted. And, in the interest of contributing to this thread in a productive manner (because I like civilized debate on the nature of existence, even if it meanders), I'll toss out my own beliefs. The title of the thread is: "What happens when you die?" - my answer is very close to Schnitzel's on the second page, with a dash of a Chunk's. I don't know with 100% certainty (haven't died yet), but I believe that there's nothing after you die - the brain cells quit firing and your consciousness fades. I don't believe in any sort of creator, or really any inherent purpose/value in life other than what we define. I'm what you might call a materialist, or maybe a physicalist. There's no mind/body/soul/other split for me - I believe the universe follows natural laws (of which not all have been discovered) and don't leave room for the supernatural. Also in the interest of contributing to the thread, I'm not a fan of that initial chain of reasoning you offered, Soldat... so let me take a stab at your OP and see if I can articulate my problems. I've spoilered some things to make it easier to organize myself... hope that's helpful for readability. =) Quoted from OP Spoiler 1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause 2) The universe had a beginning 3) Therefore the universe had a cause Q) Why call this "Cause" God? Scientists Say there was litteraly nothing? A) Well they call it 'Nothing' because nobody knows. However, we can make an inferance by using some basic logic. In order for our observable universe to be caused, said cause could not possibly be bound by the laws that came forth from this cause. If this was true we would have an infinite regress and that is not logical within the laws that govern our universe. So that leaves us with a Time-less, Space-less, Material-less Cause. Essentialy an Infinite existance. Now while it is true we cannot fully comprehend this concept of infinity, we can still grasp the general idea. Now in order for our SPECIFIC universe to spawn from an infinite existance, as appose to the unlimited alternitives... Now that indicates a choice, a will, a sentient being. Just not bound by our laws of course. My Simplification Spoiler Argument 1 Premise 1 - Everything that has a beginning has a cause Premise 2 - The universe had a beginning ***** Conclusion 1- The universe had a cause Argument 2 I'll concede this point because I don't think I can wrap my mind around non-linear time at this hour C2 - show that the cause of our universe could not possibly be bound by the laws that it created. (Assrumption - time in our universe is linear) Argument 3 P1 - The universe had a cause P2 - That cause was not bound by the laws of the universe as we know them. ****** C3 - So that leaves us with a Time-less, Space-less, Material-less Cause. Essentialy an Infinite existance. Argument 4 C4 - In order for our SPECIFIC universe to spawn from an infinite possibility of choices, indicates "a choice, a will, a sentient being." Just not bound by our laws of course. Counterargument #1 Spoiler As Haunted pointed out, the logic of the first argument hinges on the truth of the first premise. I don't know that you've shown the truth of this one, but that gets into non-linear time... which is way too much string theory for 2:41 in the morning. I do think you run into the same "First Cause" problem with the concept of a deity - if the universe requires a Creator to exist, then why doesn't the Creator require a Creator, and so on forever? Even if we admit that we need a "First Cause/Creator Prime" for existence to be possible, but why does that First Creator need to be a supernatural being vs. existence itself? I don't see a compelling argument in favor of either camp here, just an unresolved paradox. Same goes for Argument #2, that the "cause" of our universe wasn't bound by the laws that created it - but I'll concede it for the point of argument. Non-liner time is not something I'm well versed in. Counterargument #2 Spoiler I've got some issues with Argument #3. Just because something isn't bound by the laws of our universe doesn't mean that it is "Time-less, AND Space-less, AND Material-less." We've got no evidence here to show that it wasn't bound by a different set of laws... or even laws that were identical to ours but come from a different source. I think science has a hard time explaining what happened before the Big Bang because there's no guarantee that the rules by which we discover things still apply. Even so, the traditional interpretation of Genesis' "Let there be light" was that nothing existed before Time 0 - and that's reading between the lines at best. I'm not super familiar with the Bible beyond a basic Sunday school education, but I don't think there's anything else in there that hints at a pre-Creation reality. Therefore, I think pre-"Cause" events have no evidence going for them, and can't be used to establish the existence of (or non-existence of) a Creator. Counterargument #3 Spoiler Finally, with Argument #4 - that "out of endless possibilities our universe exists" proves that a sentient being was needed - I think this one is flat wrong. Stepping away from the earlier discussion for a moment, if I roll a 20 sided die and it comes up a perfect "20," does that mean an invisible hand was there to choose "20" from among the possibilities? The reason I don't like this one is that it seems to be: P1 - We exist P2 - We might not have existed if conditions were different ***** C1 - God exists Maybe you could elaborate on this point a bit? I feel like I'm straw-manning you on this, and having more clarification at what you were trying to say would improve the debate, methinks. Whoo, I think I had a lot of fun with that... Sorry if I talked your ears off... o.o
Infinites simply don't have beginings In the begining: That's time God created the heavens: Thats space And the earth: That's matter The first cause wouldn't be the first cause if it was just mater creating matter etc etc it could go on and on. The cosmological argument has been around long before you, and is taken seriously in the scientific world. I don't like having to keep reiteratingthe same links and information over and over again but for your convenience i will provide some referance material Essentialy my argument with a few spins and some personal bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument Note this is inductive reasoning. There is nothing wrong with this method, it is accepted in science when there is no more possible way to develop a topic. And when talking about the origions of the universe it is all inductive reasoning based off of the evidence we have currently. The big band theory works the same way, there is just more reason t beleive it was a creator and not the rediculous notion of 'Nothing' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning Again this all very basic reasoning. There is no such thing as an actual infinites in our universe, that's like saying there are actual 4th dimentions within our universe. This begining requires an infinite cause not bound by our laws. Infinites do not have beginings
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/ From a historian
You wake up in a cold sweat back in 2008 with the sun shining through the window, a faint sound of a lawn mower in the distance, and the Halo 3 menu playing on your box tv.
Neither is inherently logical or illogical. What you see as a logical conclusion, another person may not, and vice versa. I could make arguments that are perfectly logical (from my perspective) in favor of, AND against, both of those questions. But it is. It is unavoidably impacted by our individual perspectives. The truth is not subjective. However, anytime you try to discuss truth, subjectivity is involved. Because from my perspective, both are true and not true (depending upon what is meant when the word morality is used).
since we don't need to cite actual sources, i can post biased videos supporting my view as well. edit: another video, this one of bart d ehrm, the "historian" @Soldat Du Christ keeps trying to reference. he's not a historian, he's a theological scholar.
Since this thread is all over the place and has stemmed from the original question of 'what happens when you die?' I would like to share my personal views. 1. I believe in God. I do not believe in any specific religion at this point in my life my. I cannot fathom there not being divine creator and greater purpose though. 2. I have no idea what happens when we die. I don't know if there's a heaven or hell or if we're reincarnated. 3. In my opinion, science is no closer to proving how we got here than religion. Science is just based on theories at this point. Big Bang THEORY - THEORY of Evolution. There are some scientist and believers in science who need to get off their high horse. You have little to no facts just like religions. And in my opinion similarly persuasive. 4. I am tired of seeing some religious followers being scrutinized for their beliefs. Generalization is a dangerous game that is being played far too often. Not all Christians are looney. Not all Muslims are terrorist. 5. I am envious towards people with religious beliefs. I would love to know what happens when I die. I want to have faith but unfortunately I require proof. 6. Although there are the rare occasions I would like answers, for the most part I honestly never think of questions like 'what happens when we die' 'is there a God?' 'Does science have the right of it?' Simply because I ask what is the point? Some scientist say they have the answer but they cannot prove it. Some Christians say they have the answer but they can't prove it. I don't think a book has the answer, I don't think some scientist in a lab has the answer, and I sure as **** don't think any human being in general will ever be able to answer that question with 100% proof. For those reasons I don't ask questions because what is the point of asking a question that cannot be answered. 7. Last and most definitely, remember to respect each other. Too many people are judged based on their beliefs.
@Yevah quote: "3. In my opinion, science is no closer to proving how we got here than religion. Science is just based on theories at this point. Big Bang THEORY - THEORY of Evolution. There are some scientist and believers in science who need to get off their high horse. You have little to no facts just like religions. And in my opinion less persuasive." this is where i take issue, you're outright being disrespectful by desregarding all of the observable, testable facts, evidence, everything that goes into a scientific theory being a theory and not some hypothesis without evidence which is what religion falls under. you can't preach respectfulness while at the same time being incredibly disrespectful.