Since you can not create something from nothing, nor make nothing from
something, it would seem to me that if you are something now, you would
continue to be something after death. Likewise, if you die and
afterwards you are nothing then it would imply that in fact you are not
anything now.
Going a step further, if you are something, and now you have an
ability to sense things, and that ability is enhanced by the nerves and
synapses bringing you sensory data (feelings, sight, sound, etc.) then
after dying it would seem that you would not be able to sense the same
thing, but that you would still be able to sense things, but perhaps
these things would be in much closer proximity to you than the things
you sensed while alive. Sense you have great capacity to sense things
now, it would follow that you would have great capacity then, but that
the focus would be different. With the body no longer bringing you
sensory information, other awarenesses would be likely be suddenly
prevalent. Perhaps those awarenesses are things you could sense now if
you were not focused on the external world through your senses.
If on the other hand you do not exist after death, then all the
sensation coming to you now would be no more than a collection of
sensory information, gathered, filed and accessed from time to time as
needed, giving you the illusion that you are in fact something more than
human and in fact had an eternal nature to your soul.
We are all headed toward eternity. Whether we get there or become a
flat line on a monitor may depend to some extent on our behavior.
Whether others get there may depend partly on our behavior as well. When
we keep other's needs in mind as we go through our lives, we may make
things better for others. When others are having better lives there is
the potential for improvement in your own life, and in the lives of your
progeny. So keeping the needs of others in mind seems to me a good thing
to do, if you like having a pleasant life.
For this reason I advise you all to find someone and fall in love,
make that one person happy and see what comes of that. Then if we are in
fact not any thing after we are gone, at least our life here will be
more pleasant and the lives of others may be as well. If, on the other
hand when we go we remain alive and capable of sensation, perhaps we
might have some remembered glimpse of the happiness we shared, and move
into the next world knowing we did our part to make things better. If
there are others in the next world of a like mind, they might recognize
the similar trait in you and give you a little help to get a firm
footing, whether it is heaven or a new frontier we did not anticipate at
all. Then you might be there to help your loved ones along when they
come along as well.
Eternity might be around for a while. We might as well look forward to
it with a happy heart and proactive spirit.

Wow a very impressive thought. I would love to find someone to fall in
love with and have that with... If you know the secret of finding
someone please let me know.. I am tired of living the adventure of life
alone....

Hi Philosopher, I think you take philosophy very lightly for you tread
in many partial paths to get to your point. However, in the end, I
think you were simply pointing out that the simple values of a civil
society, helping, shareing, loving, caring, and learning are the best
way to ensure the continuence of our species, and to that end we all
play a key role when we abide by these simple codes and in so doing pass
them on for that would be our claim to the eternal life we all hope for.

Jendis, Victoria is just a skip away. Ever come to Houston?

Redykeulous, Thousands of philosophers, over many centuries, have
thought that they had the answers to the philosophical questions of the
day. Interestingly they did not all agree. In fact their disagreement
was a noteworthy item they had in common. Just in consideration of that
alone, I think it is better to keep philosophy light. Yes I suppose it
is a humanist message after all, but I would hardly consider myself to
follow the secular humanist perspective that is so popular today. Really
I think there is more to life than that. I do think that any religion
that is against the interests of civilization should be looked at
skeptically. Besides that, my breakfast cereal is just fine without fire
and brimstone. One more note, reading books about philosophy does not
make you a philosopher, it just makes you someone who has read books
about philosophy. Along that line I read, but I leave the deep thinking
to others. It seems I sometimes notice inconsistencies in the
philosophies of others and yet I am not so quick to say I have developed
my own personal method of interpreting life. One thing I know though is
that a little love between a man and a woman makes life better for both.
I encourage people to fall in love.

I have a slightly different view:

God made Adam from Dirt. He told Adam that when his last day came, that
he would return to 'dirt'. To this very day we celebrate this as Ash
Wednesday. What then seperated Adam from dirt? Only 1 thing - that was
the "breath God put through his nostrils".

Only that spark of life, which came from God, seperates us from dirt.
When we die, does that 'breath' dissapear? No, its from God, so its "of"
God...its "Godly". It returns to "God", as God is neither dimmished or
changed.

So what value of any "rememberence" of Earth life is useful to 'God'?
None of it. When we die, our identity dies in the grave. The essence of
Life, the breath of God, is eternal, but, there's nothing unique to us
about it.

In short, everyone has a spark of God in them, that spark is Eternal,
never corrupted, never changed, never diminshed.

um....wait... where we talking about that WW2 movie?

Yea, you guys are great. Was not dissing you
Philosopher, only looking to see if I understood your original thesis
correctly. I absolutely agree with you that there are many idea, and
theory's that have been up for major dispute, sometimes for generations.
However, I do believe that philosophy is more that just one person's
opinion. Do you consider yourself a Cartesan - Coggito ergo sum?

Mike, you are quite possibly the first Christian I have ever met that
has actually stated that when we die, we turn to dust and whatever
knowledge of this world we had, is of no more use. Let me ask you a
weird question - any of you who read this -
If exist as a pile of clay, animated by God's breath alone, than for
what purpose were we created at all? Possibly as an amusement, or maybe
we are on a mission to gather information and when our essence returns
to the maker it is gleened from us. Just questions, not a confrontation
as I like everyone am only seeking knowledge and truth.
again you guys are terrific!

Red wrote "Mike, you are quite possibly the first Christian...", and I
would say "Red, you are quite possibly one of the few ppl who ever
accused me of being a christian"

Usually I'm chased away as a heretic. Thanks for the compliment!

Mike, you a heretic? I've been expelled from so many churches I've lost
count. All for asking questions. Never once did I TRY to convert or
say someone was wrong, but asked to leave I was. Dismissed I was, even
considered anethma by the J.Witnesses. I was not even allowed in the
Christian Scientist church, even though I was invited. I had to answer
some weird questions first and they decided I did not belong. HA - this
wa all before I was 17. So who saves lost sheep, anyway?

nice thoughts! well, maybe we are here to allow this eesence of God to
flow to each other, some might think the building a church is where you
find this, when actually our bodies are the house, or the home of where
this essences lives, maybe when we come together and share our selves we
either grow or crash, depending on weither we come to give or take.

And who says dust has no feelings anyway? Did anyone ever tell you that
specifically?
Where we come from where we go to,,,to say nobody knows would be
somewhat arrogant it seems to me. It would be like saying that since I
don't know and nobody has more insight than me, then obviously nobody
else could know.
I think it remains a fact that nobody has identified a particular
location within the brain, or anywhere else within the human body, where
the essence of an person's life, spirit or the inner light, whatever,
makes any particular contact with the physical body, making it possible
for the inner spirit to have this peculiar life experience. Given that,
who is to say that death is some sort of separation of the spirit from
the body? It also raises the question of how does the spirit make the
judgment that the body is no longer viable and that it is time to
disconnect. As for gathering the experience of life and sharing the
experience with the eternal source and destination of life (not sure
there is a name that applies), it seems that if the life is not shared
during the journey through time it would be otherwise impossible to
collect all the joy, pain, hope , despair, beauty and such that make up
the life experience. In that sense perhaps we might all look towards the
bright and beautiful as much as possible in order to share and pass on
the best possible. Or the other consideration might be that we should
look to the injustice and unhappiness, pain and suffering instead as
they might provide the greatest sense of anger, and outrage, thus
generating a stronger life force and determination to improve things and
separate the wheat and chaff of good from evil.
Life is a complicated existence. There is not one simple, logical
explanation. Everywhere through the universe, from the tiniest atoms to
the greatest planets there is a persistence. If each atom had some sense
of its existence and each planet as well, then there is an interesting
connectedness as well as an interesting separateness. There is no
evidence that there is any such sense, nor specific evidence that there
is not.
Heresy is a bad word.
What if each tiny part of your body were able to see your own personal
thoughts, to observe what you were looking at, wanting, working toward,
so that there were a thousand tiny witnesses to your every thought and
deed. Would they agree with one another in their evaluation about your
actions and motives?

Red,
With the history of your past experiences I am probably not telling you
anything you have not already heard. The reason we were created was to
worship God. When Adam sinned everyone from that point forward is
separated from God. In order for these now sinful people to pay for
their sins they had to make sacrifices. Thus the reason for animal
sacrifices, grain sacrifices, sacrifices of people’s first fruits, etc.
These animals, grain, first fruits were all blemished. They were all
defective in some way so these sacrifices only covered their sins. It
did not take away their sins. Christ came to earth for one reason and
that reason was to die for the sins of humanity. Jesus was sinless,
without blemish. He was the perfect sacrifice that God wanted so that He
could have a relationship with His created beings again. When, for the
payment of their sins, someone accepts the sacrifice of Christ by faith,
they will live an eternity in the presence of God worshipping Him. Those
that choose not to accept His sacrifice will live an eternity separated
from God.

You asked, “So who saves lost sheep, anyway?” Jesus is the Shepard and
Savior of the World. Baa Baa

Forgiveness of sins is one thing, living a good life is another. I have
encountered people who had the opinion that it did not matter how you
live your life or what you did, good or bad, so long as you asked
forgiveness prior to dying. I think in the Jewish faith things were seen
differently, that a person had to live according to certain laws. If
sacrifices were to atone for Adam and Eve, that implies that people were
trying to atone for things in the past. Accepting poor behavior in the
present with the idea that it simply does not matter and can be forgiven
at all seems unacceptable by comparison, and the logic that Jesus made
such behavior acceptable I find unreasonable. Furthermore it seems that
this is an unreasonable lot to be heaped upon the shoulders of Jesus.
What would Jesus say?
Neither am I saying that forgiveness is unimportant. I do however
prefer not to be drawn into discussion of Christian doctrine. I do not
like making the point that lost sheep may sometimes eaten by wolves, or
that some people prefer wolves to sheep as pets. Why is that?
This misses the point I am wanting to make here. Forgiveness is
completely off the point. How a person lives their life directly affects
their own happiness and the happiness of others. Keeping in mind the
needs of others directly and indirectly benefits a person and the others
in their surroundings. This effect spreads to others as more people
benefit from the behavior. Consideration towards also fosters a sense of
confidence in society. Looking people in the eye and knowing that you
have dealt fairly and reasonably with others stems from a clear
conscience and an open heart. This in turn fosters good will. This is
not a matter of forgiveness. It is a matter or putting forth
considerable and earnest effort on an ongoing basis.

So what if we look at the nature of being a sentient being. How many
creatures on this planet, in this world, do we know of that are self
aware? Who ask, who am I, what am I, why am I here?

With next to no knowledge of nature, or biology or even physiology, and
a severe lack of communication in written form, would we not attempt to
answer these questions within the limited scope of our own imaginations?
Would we not create religious material that would make us feel at ease
with our presence here. To serve as answers to all the bad things we
must face in life.

And without those GREAT early philosophers who had to present their
thoughtful theory as well as to find ways to create the scientific proof
of those theories, we would still not be any further than we were 5,000
years ago.

Now, Here's the guts of this reply - Because we are ONLY, because we can
not prove or credit any other living creature within our knowledge with
sentienality, we have become complacent in thinking that we are above
all other living creatures. That we certainly have a soul, or some way
to travel from this physical form to another because what would happen
to the entire universe if we or our essence or our knowledge should
cease to exist? Now look at the majority of chatter on this web
site, look at how anxious we all are to give our opinion, to say what I
like, what I want, what I believe - is this not evidence that we believe
in our own self importance?

So what if we are simply an anomaly with an abnormally evolved brain,
and because of that brain we have survived when natural selection should
have defeated us? What if we have no soul, no light within. What if
all we have is right now, with each other and dust is nothing but dust
to which we all will return?
Any takers?

That's a tough sell. First, I have recently heard someone making a
comment that there is some other creature on earth that also is self
aware. I don't think it was an ape, but perhaps some similar creature,
baboon or gorilla or something. Can't recall at the moment. If there is
one other self-aware creature that we can point to, or even if we can
not point to any other self-aware creature, could it not be possible
that we simply have no adequate manner of evaluating this character
trait? Buddhists consider other creatures not only to be aware, but to
possibly have a common spirit with humans, so that a spirit might be
human one time and then some other creature some other time.
But the issue, do we live on afterwards or are we just here only
during the lives of our bodies is not one that we need to concern
ourselves with other than to prepare for the possibility that there may
be an afterlife in some way while we are here, in case afterlife is
something that is better to face prepared. If we have no faith or
confidence in afterlife then that issue is less important, just on an
individual basis.
I like to look at it a little differently. Suppose we could all live
forever. What sort of life would we want to have? What would our values
be? What would we like to spend our lives doing? Would we focus only on
sex, knowing that no matter what life would be continuing on? Would we
go the other direction, thinking that since we would live forever there
wouldn't be such urgency to have immediate pleasure and therefore take
more time to develop relationships? Would we prefer to live our lives
helping others or simply ignoring others and enjoying our personal
pursuits? Or would we prefer to give each other torment and trouble just
for the entertainment value? Would we strive to know ever more about
more things, or would we prefer to accept certain limitations in order
to pursue specific goals or interests.
I think that there would be a lot less pressure to perform financially
and in learning. With time all things can be developed. But if
everlasting life is not to include a body and breath, then we have to
find other values to hold to. Truth, justice, faith, compassion and such
seem to be such values as would benefit others and therefore accepting
these as desirable we set the stage for our own life in a more pleasant
environment.
What I was thinking in the first place when I posed the question was
what values are common to a life here on earth and an afterlife, if
there are such values? And if they exist then how would we go about
incorporating them into our lives now? Or does it even make sense to do
this?

Philosopher, I like your idealistic view that would provide a reason for
every individual to be good, with or without a specific religion. I'm
glad you responded because my last responce was sort of a set up for the
following.

I know that you have deep thoughts and great ideas and some wonderful
knowledger that inspire you, but I am not aware if you have ever
examined other realms of philosophy so forgive me if I sound elementary.
Einstein once belittled some of his own greatest theories because he did
not know enough, as no one did, to take into account more universal
knowledge. However, his theory of relativity has become one of the
greatest of all philisophical queries. In the end he believed that
there was one universal logical equation that could/would explain all
the universe. That has become the quest of many scientists today and
has taken many directions. Some have found that his relitivity theory
and his univrsal theory may both hold parts of the equation. Just
wanted to let you know where next my next thoughts are shaping up from.

We have been conditioned from the earliest of ages to sleep, eat, and
live all lives fascets on a linear time line. But what if the universe
is criss-crossed with vibrating strings
that affect or intersect time. What if these time strings create paths
to other or alternative universes. Remember I'm speaking about scientic
theory, currently being modeled for, even being mapped mathmatically,
not just science fiction. So what if the universe has this inate
ability to hold all of time within it - whatever "it" is. Would that
not be the answer to why some have the power of precognition, why we
feel we've lived before, why some believe they remember past lives, why
some strange or seemingly miraculous events take place, because of some
distortion to the vibrating strings? It's a really big picture to take
in, especially if you are not aware of Universal philosophy. Any
comments?

We could go one simpler and say - what if every human cell has the
memory of every human with whom it shares it's make-up. All the way
back to the source? And what if the knowledge those cells hold also
include the feeling and emotions of the knowledge we have gained through
our lives up to the point of passing on those cells. Would that not be
everlasting life - for as long as humans survive - and is that not a
good reason to see to our own survival and be "good".

Message forums are the worst places on the planet to try to have
philosophical discussions, and the best philosophies are those taken one
point at a time. :)

I certainly cannot begin at the beginning of all this, or my post would
run so long no one would read it. So, I'll jump right to the end: "What
I was thinking in the first place when I posed the question was what
values are common to a life here on earth and an afterlife, if there are
such values? And if they exist then how would we go about incorporating
them into our lives now? Or does it even make sense to do this?"

This is completely dependent on the viewpoint of the person in question.
We do not have proof of an afterlife; we can suppose and justify and
make claims, but we have no proof of an afterlife or of the existence of
God in any way. Which is good, because if there were proof, there would
be (a) no need for faith, and (b) no need for philosophers.

So, as far as the 'meaning of life', it's mostly relative. If you are
open to the existence of God, I personally believe you will be shown
what is or isn't truth - for you. Your path may be very different from
mine. There are those who insist that there is no God at all, no
afterlife, nothing. Their path is a path to God as valid as yours or
mine. We cannot make judgments on what view is correct and what view
isn't.

This brings us to the next part of your question, the bit about
incorporating and so forth. Since your 'truth' is for you, only you will
be able to answer that. Generally it's a good thing to show those around
you that whatever goals or ideals you believe await you in the afterlife
are worth exemplifying in this one, but it's too difficult a question to
answer because we don't know what those goals are; you have to make the
journey and find out for yourself.

Which I realize is not an answer. Sorry. The bill's in the mail. :P

MD -
I actually like discussing these topics in writing. Gives me time to
think before I speak. And I don't mind taking the time to read lengthy
responces.
Actually there is philosophy without religion, every theory whether
it's scientific, civil, political or even ethical (theological) begins
with a question. Most science stems from philosophic theory and the
ultimate proof to scientists is a mathmatical equation. Einstein spent
the ending part of his life trying to prove that there was a God by
creating an equation that would be the answer or code to every particle
that exists and fills the universe. He started something that others
have picked up on, some taking it in the direction of proving a God and
others taking it to a different level. So sometimes when discussing
philosophy, we are not talking about God. And sometimes I like to
address what some attribute to religion and give it a new perspective.
Maybe give that person an alternative view. For example - is there an
afterlife. I don't believe one has to bring religion into that
equation, because in my previous post, I was trying to explain that
there may be a perfectly rational explanation to believe that
continuance is possible, but not on a linear time equivalant.
I do agree with where your thougts are, however, I think my inability
to explain mine was lacking. Thanks for your patience and for your
input, anytime.

So, you are referring to an 'afterlife', without referring to a god?
I'll have to refresh my brain on that one, I'd never heard of a
philosophy that considered such a thing.

I wasn't pointing to religion, btw. Religion and God are two different
things.

Um, sorry, that post came off rather flippant.

What I meant was, when we refer to an 'afterlife', we usually mean the
continuation of our conciousness after the cessasation of our physical
bodies. Since the mind is a part of that body, it's generally assumed
we'd be carrying on in a spiritual way, and thus the assumption that God
would be part of the equation.

Still wasn't talking religion nessasarily.