For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Okay, Henry. But what about experiments? Are you up for those?henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:36 pm Mannie,
First hand experience allows me to act accordingly, with a measure of confidence.
Anecdotes leave me hanging.
For Henry, I mean.
Well, one thing for sure; if an afterlife does exist it would relativize all the inconveniences, injustices, pains and sufferings of life. An infinite span of blessedness following a brief period of striving would certainly be a trade any rational person would make.This brings up an interesting question, what is good for God, is it to remain in this life with the associated suffering, or would it be better to accomplish some goal for God and then be taken home (to die)?
And then we can assume that Henry has not had the relevant experience, or has had it and discounts it somehow.
I don't assume that. I would assume he's sincerely interested in the question, until he indicates otherwise.
Really? would any sane person opt for forever in absolute boredom as opposed to oblivion. I think there is a basic misunderstanding of eternity, it doesn't really mean the same as forever. Forever is a long time in years, eternity doesn't involve time at all, it's just existence without time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:40 amWell, one thing for sure; if an afterlife does exist it would relativize all the inconveniences, injustices, pains and sufferings of life. An infinite span of blessedness following a brief period of striving would certainly be a trade any rational person would make.
Then Henry must review his own life and decide what is relevant and what is not.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:14 amI don't assume that. I would assume he's sincerely interested in the question, until he indicates otherwise.
Eh? Who said anything about "boredom"?
That is the most common atheist complaint about the afterlife, but I would be curious to see what God could come up with to keep it interesting, unless, as I have presumed, eternity does not involve time and therefore eternity happens all at once.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:27 amEh? Who said anything about "boredom"?
Why would we imagine the God who created this world and indeed, the whole universe around it, is in danger of running out of good ideas?
Well, it's got to be a different concept than time, because what we know as "time" is associated with things like entropy. I would merely suggest that a Supreme Being is unlikely to prove deficient in imagination, no matter how "long" time goes on...if that word even applies anymore.
I agree with theDoc. There is a difference between “forever” and “eternity.” In the philosophy of science, “eternity” is known as eternalism, and has nothing to do with time that “passes.”thedoc wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:20 amReally? would any sane person opt for forever in absolute boredom as opposed to oblivion. I think there is a basic misunderstanding of eternity, it doesn't really mean the same as forever. Forever is a long time in years, eternity doesn't involve time at all, it's just existence without time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:40 amWell, one thing for sure; if an afterlife does exist it would relativize all the inconveniences, injustices, pains and sufferings of life. An infinite span of blessedness following a brief period of striving would certainly be a trade any rational person would make.
Even putting aside theDoc’s point, there are a lot of problems with living forever as though human time transcribes to post-life time. Indeed, there are so many problems with this idea that I Can is so “sure” about, that a discussion of this topic alone could profitably occupy its own thread.Well, one thing for sure; if an afterlife does exist it would relativize all the inconveniences, injustices, pains and sufferings of life. An infinite span of blessedness following a brief period of striving would certainly be a trade any rational person would make.
So, you are not familiar with this literature, and its philosophical implications.
There's a lot of taking there, but most of it not very good. For example, in one of the arguments it fails to understand what Christian theology actually says, and makes non-sequiturs out of that...like that God can't take issue with "good" people, forgetting that nobody's "good" in that sense, and then suggests that God can't think otherwise....
