Why would you want an afterlife?

[Greyn]

Timeless afterlife can make a comfortable argument for a lot of religions. It feels good to know that if you follow the rules, you will be rewarded forever. The appeal of the reward is subjective and I think that is where the OP is having conflict.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yes, that is right. The awareness or perception of one's surrounding is consciousness. Your awareness and perception (or understanding) of your surroundings change as you change (through education, maturity or possibly even death).

I agree with you there, but you still are conscious

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Then you've probably not been talking with too many Dharmic religious people.

Yes I was speaking of Heaven in the Abrahamic religions basically.

 

[Penumbra]

Timeless afterlife can make a comfortable argument for a lot of religions. It feels good to know that if you follow the rules, you will be rewarded forever. The appeal of the reward is subjective and I think that is where the OP is having conflict.

I'd give the OP a bit more credit than that.

There are a subset of religious faiths that propose the idea that people will be resurrected bodily, and then live forever. Some Muslims, some Christians, and some others promote this idea.

It's a bit more of a subjective argument to point out the undesirability of such a situation. The concept of living in a body forever would naturally require an infinite number of things to keep one entertained, and the whole show would likely become boring and eventually nightmare-ish to anyone after a few hundred years, and if not, then definitely after a few billion.

Propositions of a timeless afterlife are a bit more elegant, in that
a) They realize this problem
b) They understand that since time is part of our physical universe, it might not make sense to still be bound to it as a soul.

Some times these propositions come from those of Abrahamic faiths, and sometimes they come from depictions of Moksha or similar states being transcendental in experience- above space and time, bodiless and formless.

But the problem some of these propositions run into is that timelessness and consciousness might not even be a meaningful combination (and I'd put forth that it probably is not), and that even if it is, it barely sounds desirable due to the fact that it's so incomprehensible.

 

[Koldo]

I gave my reason: Longer than too long.

Too long? So what?

In an analogy, i am asking you why you don't want to eat lettuce, and your reply is that because it is green. So i am left wondering: So what?

 

[Greyn]

I agree with you there, but you still are conscious

Yes, but if we try to tackle comprehending infinity, we would probably go crazy! That is why to live in an infinite afterlife, we would not have the same type of consciousness as we do now.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Too long? So what?

In an analogy, i am asking you why you don't want to eat lettuce, and your reply is that because it is green. So i am left wondering: So what?

There's a difference between it is green and it is forever. Forever means no turning back, already going on and on without stopping it no matter what you do, you're always conscious.

Green, it's not infinite so it wouldn't be infinitely bad.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yes, but if we try to tackle comprehending infinity, we would probably go crazy! That is why to live in an infinite afterlife, we would not have the same type of consciousness as we do now.

If we comprehend it we will go crazy... Just imagine living in it.

 

[Greyn]

I'd give the OP a bit more credit than that.

There are a subset of religious faiths that propose the idea that people will be resurrected bodily, and then live forever. Some Muslims, some Christians, and some others promote this idea.

It's a bit more of a subjective argument to point out the undesirability of such a situation. The concept of living in a body forever would naturally require an infinite number of things to keep one entertained, and the whole show would likely become boring and eventually nightmare-ish to anyone after a few hundred years, and if not, then definitely after a few billion.

Propositions of a timeless afterlife are a bit more elegant, in that
a) They realize this problem
b) They understand that since time is part of our physical universe, it might not make sense to still be bound to it as a soul.

Some times these propositions come from those of Abrahamic faiths, and sometimes they come from depictions of Moksha or similar states being transcendental in experience- above space and time, bodiless and formless.

But the problem some of these propositions run into is that timelessness and consciousness might not even be a meaningful combination (and I'd put forth that it probably is not), and that even if it is, it barely sounds desirable due to the fact that it's so incomprehensible.

Your first paragraph reminded me of the Johnny Cash song, Aint No Grave.

What your saying is true and that is why we can not be in the same state of consciousness in the afterlife, as we are now. Now, what I think the OP is responding to is the sanitized version of Heaven (harps, angels and friends/family greeting you at the pearly gates for eternity) that is promoted by the more vocal members of some Christian churches. And I can appreciate that, I had to get over those hurdles before I could move on my own spiritual path.

In the end, time resides as a force in this present creation of the universe. You take time out of the equation and the formula changes. That is something that is very hard to comprehend and no amount of harps or angels will help me in wrapping my mind around the possibility.

 

[Koldo]

There's a difference between it is green and it is forever. Forever means no turning back, already going on and on without stopping it no matter what you do, you're always conscious.

Green, it's not infinite so it wouldn't be infinitely bad.

What about a happy afterlife?
An afterlife that can't be bad at all.

 

[Koldo]

In the end, time resides as a force in this present creation of the universe. You take time out of the equation and the formula changes. That is something that is very hard to comprehend and no amount of harps or angels will help me in wrapping my mind around the possibility.

I would like you to explain this to me.
As i see it, if i take the time out of the equation it is as if i were multiplying the formula by 0. There will be nothing left.

 

[Kathryn]

You are trying to impose your human understanding on a scenario which will not be limited by humanity's grasp of reality. That's why it sounds so awful. It's a dimension that we can only barely begin to comprehend from our human perspective.

A baby in the womb is fully human and has five senses. But prior to birth, that infant has no idea or concept of human life outside that womb. It has hints - it can hear, taste, feel, smell, and touch - and occasionally life outside that womb can be just barely sensed, but the baby's understanding is very limited and that is due to it's scope of understanding.

That doesn't make life outside the womb any less real, or any less rewarding or any less to be desired. I am sure if you were able to ask that baby if it would rather be born, or stay right where it is, it would probably say "Stay right here," because that's the only reality it can grasp.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What about a happy afterlife?
An afterlife that can't be bad at all.

Still, the time period makes it bad, no matter what.

Just think how old the earth is... Then think of that *googol amount of centuries. That's not even half!

999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 to the 3 billionth power times 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 to the 78 billionth power + 1 trillion MILLENNIUMS will not even be half of your life there. And do you know how long 1 millennium is?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You are trying to impose your human understanding on a scenario which will not be limited by humanity's grasp of reality. That's why it sounds so awful. It's a dimension that we can only barely begin to comprehend from our human perspective.

A baby in the womb is fully human and has five senses. But prior to birth, that infant has no idea or concept of human life outside that womb. It has hints - it can hear, taste, feel, smell, and touch - and occasionally life outside that womb can be just barely sensed, but the baby's understanding is very limited and that is due to it's scope of understanding.

That doesn't make life outside the womb any less real, or any less rewarding or any less to be desired. I am sure if you were able to ask that baby if it would rather be born, or stay right where it is, it would probably say "Stay right here," because that's the only reality it can grasp.

But foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

 

[Koldo]

Still, the time period makes it bad, no matter what.

Just think how old the earth is... Then think of that *googol amount of centuries. That's not even half!

999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 to the 3 billionth power times 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 to the 78 billionth power + 1 trillion MILLENNIUMS will not even be half of your life there. And do you know how long 1 millennium is?

That is the problem of your reasoning.
You assume that it gets bad at a certain point.
Many people seek an afterlife that NEVER gets bad; it remains happy forever.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That is the problem of your reasoning.
You assume that it gets bad at a certain point.
Many people seek an afterlife that NEVER gets bad; it remains happy forever.

It doesn't have to be bad. It can be 100% full of good things... But just living that long makes it bad.

 

[Penumbra]

That is the problem of your reasoning.
You assume that it gets bad at a certain point.
Many people seek an afterlife that NEVER gets bad; it remains happy forever.

There is of course a difference between perception and reality.

If I really like cake, I could imagine that I'd love to eat a whole cake. Prior to eating the cake, if I am inexperienced, I may think eating a whole cake will be wonderful, and define it as a happy experience. Somewhere around two slices in, however, I'm going to not want to eat cake anymore, and realize that my initial perception was incorrect. As surprising as it may be, there's such a thing as too much cake.

When it comes to afterlives of infinite duration (rather than afterlives of timelessness), this is basically the problem that's occurring. An overly simplified and usually poorly defined promise is being made- life that never ends, and many people think that sounds great. But much like the cake, there's a difference between perception and reality.

Arguments like the one the OP is making point out that, logically, a lifetime of infinite duration should eventually become unbearable. Just because it is defined as forever happy doesn't mean the idea itself has enough substance to support such a claim.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

living that long

Well... Living while dead.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There is of course a difference between perception and reality.

If I really like cake, I could imagine that I'd love to eat a whole cake. Prior to eating the cake, if I am inexperienced, I may think eating a whole cake will be wonderful, and define it as a happy experience. Somewhere around two slices in, however, I'm going to not want to eat cake anymore, and realize that my initial perception was incorrect. As surprising as it may be, there's such a thing as too much cake.

When it comes to afterlives of infinite duration (rather than afterlives of timelessness), this is basically the problem that's occurring. An overly simplified and usually poorly defined promise is being made- life that never ends, and many people think that sounds great. But much like the cake, there's a difference between perception and reality.

Arguments like the one the OP is making point out that, logically, a lifetime of infinite duration should eventually become unbearable. Just because it is defined as forever happy doesn't mean the idea itself has enough substance to support such a claim.

This ^

 

[Koldo]

It doesn't have to be bad. It can be 100% full of good things... But just living that long makes it bad.

Let us make this simple : Prove it. Show evidence that living too long in an afterlife is inherently a bad thing, and then we can continue our conversation.