• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why would you want an afterlife?

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
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.

Penumbra has the proof.

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.

Basically, like the cake. It looks so delicious, tastes so delicious, you would love to eat 10 of those things... But the fact is you'll get sick of it.

You'll get sick of existing.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's not quite proof and more like common sense or evidence.

It's a matter of pointing out why claims regarding a life of infinite duration are eventually hellish and ultimately nonsensical, and basically devoid of substance (like an initial understanding of what eating a whole cake would be like).

More elegant afterlife approaches typically propose the timeless route instead.
 
Last edited:

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
But you can't know that "too much eternity" is "too much of a good thing." Not from your limited perspective. Any more than the unborn child can know whether or not he will enjoy his senses outside the womb. He may not even KNOW he can see, for instance. He may not yet know he can taste either, because his senses are so limited at this point.

He is going to be blown away by reality in just a few weeks, and yet at best he can only fathom the slightest hints of that fuller reality.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
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.

The problem with the OP is the fact that the main argument is also being made PRIOR to eating even a slice of the 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.

However, it does not present a logical contradiction. If we are to consider the existence of an afterlife as true, which lacks substance to support the claim of its existence, then there is nothing wrong with assuming that a happy eternal afterlife is possible.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Penumbra has the proof.

Basically, like the cake. It looks so delicious, tastes so delicious, you would love to eat 10 of those things... But the fact is you'll get sick of it.

You'll get sick of existing.

I would get sick of eating cake because that is how my physical body works. If those physical restrains wouldn't exist anymore, as in my afterlife, i could stand eating cakes forever. Simple.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The problem with the OP is the fact that the main argument is also being made PRIOR to eating even a slice of the cake.
Usually identifying mistakes before making them is the wiser path.

Someone reasonable and with a fair knowledge of nutrition would realize the folly of eating a whole cake before actually trying it out. The volume, the number of calories, and the horrid number of grams of processed carbs and sugar alone should tell us not to eat a whole cake.

If the OP is making a mistake, it's that he assumed his argument applied to all religions rather than merely a small subset. But the fact is, there are afterlives that literally proposed such that believers will live in physical bodies for an infinite duration of linear time. I've even discussed it with some of them. One guy said that in heaven, he'll be studying scriptures continuously for a few hundred years, and then when the new earth is made, he'll be reconstructed in physical form for an infinite duration and live forever as a human body.

Basically what the OP is doing is pointing out the folly of desiring a state of linear consciousness that never, ever ends, even after billions of years.

However, it does not present a logical contradiction. If we are to consider the existence of an afterlife as true, which lacks substance to support the claim of its existence, then there is nothing wrong with assuming that a happy eternal afterlife is possible.
I didn't say it presented a logical contradiction, I said these ideas of an afterlife of infinite duration completely lack substance and are comparable to wanting to eat a whole cake without fully thinking it through.

And be careful of your use of the word "eternal" as it can either mean a time of infinite duration or a timeless state, and arguments here are only directed to one of those rather than both.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It's not quite proof and more like common sense or evidence.

It's a matter of pointing out why claims regarding a life of infinite duration are eventually hellish and ultimately nonsensical, and basically devoid of substance (like an initial understanding of what eating a whole cake would be like).

Do you really think that applying what we regard as common sense for our current human lives will be effective when used to understand the afterlife?
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you really think that applying what we regard as common sense for our current human lives will be effective when used to understand the afterlife?
It does when people provide the details in such mundane terms, yes.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
But you can't know that "too much eternity" is "too much of a good thing." Not from your limited perspective. Any more than the unborn child can know whether or not he will enjoy his senses outside the womb. He may not even KNOW he can see, for instance. He may not yet know he can taste either, because his senses are so limited at this point.

He is going to be blown away by reality in just a few weeks, and yet at best he can only fathom the slightest hints of that fuller reality.

But this life isn't eternal, so there wouldn't be too big of a deal. In here, if you are sick of it, you can simply rid it. Unlike the afterlife.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Usually identifying mistakes before making them is the wiser path.

Someone reasonable and with a fair knowledge of nutrition would realize the folly of eating a whole cake before actually trying it out. The volume, the number of calories, and the horrid number of grams of processed carbs and sugar alone should tell us not to eat a whole cake.

Which is troublesome in this situation, as none of us can actually see nor touch the cake of afterlife.

If the OP is making a mistake, it's that he assumed his argument applied to all religions rather than merely a small subset. But the fact is, there are afterlives that literally proposed such that believers will live in physical bodies for an infinite duration of linear time. I've even discussed it with some of them. One guy said that in heaven, he'll be studying scriptures continuously for a few hundred years, and then when the new earth is made, he'll be reconstructed in physical form for an infinite duration and live forever as a human body.

Even so, it is not actually impossible to remain happy forever.
However, i do know that we would only remain happy if what we regard as common sense existed no more.

Basically what the OP is doing is pointing out the folly of desiring a state of linear consciousness that never, ever ends, even after billions of years.

And he has yet to show how it is impossible to have an happy eternal afterlife.

I didn't say it presented a logical contradiction, I said these ideas of an afterlife of infinite duration completely lack substance and are comparable to wanting to eat a whole cake without fully thinking it through.

And be careful of your use of the word "eternal" as it can either mean a time of infinite duration or a timeless state, and arguments here are only directed to one of those rather than both.

I am using the word 'eternal' as in infinite duration.
I have not said your argument pointed out a logical contradiction. I was merely showing that considering the lack of a logical contradiction the idea of an happy eternal life is viable.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I would get sick of eating cake because that is how my physical body works. If those physical restrains wouldn't exist anymore, as in my afterlife, i could stand eating cakes forever. Simple.

But what makes you enjoy living? Your mind. So in the afterlife, your mind would get sick of it.

Wouldn't you still have a mind? If not than how would there be an afterlife if the mind is in charge of the consciousness? If so, wouldn't you eventually get sick of eternity just like getting sick of eating too much cake.

I'm not talking about the sick meaning ill, I'm talking about getting bored of...
 

Greyn

South of Providence
Basically what the OP is doing is pointing out the folly of desiring a state of linear consciousness that never, ever ends, even after billions of years.

The folly is desiring a state of linear consciousness that has not changed from our present state. If your present understanding of reality does not change and your environment does not change, then you will eventually go insane from repetition.

But, very few religions believe you will maintain the same state of consciousness or reality will maintain the same natural laws as they are in the present state. I am one of "those guys" that believe eventually we will all be bodily resurrected to live in a completely remade reality. We will not be the same, once resurrected, but made different and perfect, free of death. Time wont matter, but (I suspect) neither will the things we find important in the this present creation matter.

If you think religions that profess a physical resurrection mean we will all be some sort of undead that spend their time hanging out on earth for all of time mulling about in the same routines as we did when we were "living", well, I think that is a bit misguided.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Even so, it is not actually impossible to remain happy forever.
However, i do know that we would only remain happy if what we regard as common sense existed no more.

Can you prove we can be happy forever?

Do you know that when someone is happy, they have a lot more to lose than an unhappy person, thus anything that an unhappy person would find happy that is not much happy at all would make the happy person unhappy.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
But this life isn't eternal, so there wouldn't be too big of a deal. In here, if you are sick of it, you can simply rid it. Unlike the afterlife.

I guess I'm not making myself clear.

Forget for a moment the concept of eternal vs temporary life. What I'm trying to get across with the unborn child analogy is the fact that we simply cannot grasp the reality of eternal life from our limited perspective, any more than the unborn child can truly understand the five senses with his limited perspective.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I guess I'm not making myself clear.

Forget for a moment the concept of eternal vs temporary life. What I'm trying to get across with the unborn child analogy is the fact that we simply cannot grasp the reality of eternal life from our limited perspective, any more than the unborn child can truly understand the five senses with his limited perspective.

I see your point, if they somehow were conscious without the five senses then they wouldn't understand what it is like.

But that doesn't really matter, even if there were an extra-sense thing in the afterlife that made us feel tingly and happy, would you want that for a googol of years?

Googol is 1 plus a hundred 0's.
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
But what makes you enjoy living? Your mind. So in the afterlife, your mind would get sick of it.

Prove it.
You are using parameters that apply to our current lives and assuming they are the same in the afterlife. You have to prove this is the case.

Wouldn't you still have a mind? If not than how would there be an afterlife if the mind is in charge of the consciousness? If so, wouldn't you eventually get sick of eternity just like getting sick of eating too much cake.

A mind? Yes.
Would it get sick of eating too much cake? No.

Just because our mind remains it doesn't mean it remains in the same state as before.

I'm not talking about the sick meaning ill, I'm talking about getting bored of...

You assume we can get bored in the afterlife, but can you prove it?
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Which is troublesome in this situation, as none of us can actually see nor touch the cake of afterlife.
And that is why criticisms must be made in regards to specific claims rather than in the enormously broad concept of "the afterlife".

Even so, it is not actually impossible to remain happy forever.
However, i do know that we would only remain happy if what we regard as common sense existed no more.

And he has yet to show how it is impossible to have an happy eternal afterlife.

I am using the word 'eternal' as in infinite duration.
I have not said your argument pointed out a logical contradiction. I was merely showing that considering the lack of a logical contradiction the idea of an happy eternal life is viable.
Viable only in the sense of extreme agnosticism and not in the sense that a substantive argument has been made to support the notion.

I have yet to see details being provided.
Fortunately or unfortunately, none of the theists that dogmatically promote the concept of an infinite bodily existence have yet to share their thoughts in this thread. The theists that have been in here have gone with a more elegant route.

Nonetheless, I have provided some of the details. For instance, I said:
But the fact is, there are afterlives that literally proposed such that believers will live in physical bodies for an infinite duration of linear time. I've even discussed it with some of them. One guy said that in heaven, he'll be studying scriptures continuously for a few hundred years, and then when the new earth is made, he'll be reconstructed in physical form for an infinite duration and live forever as a human body.

Many humans have a very strong urge to take things or concepts and wish for them to be permanent. As some people and traditions have pointed out, this often leads to great suffering. All of nature, and all of the universe, goes through impermanent periods of behavior. Nothing has been shown to be permanent- stars are born and die, planets come and go, creatures live, age, and die, and life goes on. Even the universe itself is understood to have only existed in its currently recognizable state for a finite period of time.

And yet, for whatever reason, there's the urge to wish that this consciousness, and sometimes even this body, will be permanent. It defies all of nature.

The concept of existing as a human in physical bodily form, happily enjoying various pleasures and achievements, is like the cake example. It's proposed to be a state of happiness and yet there is a very apparent lack of substance put forward.

Even going one step further and assuming that instead of being stuck with a physical body, people will get spiritual bodies that allow them to do more, still eventually suffers from the same problems of confronting the issue that this style of existence can't reasonably be enjoyable for eons.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The folly is desiring a state of linear consciousness that has not changed from our present state. If your present understanding of reality does not change and your environment does not change, then you will eventually go insane from repetition.

But, very few religions believe you will maintain the same state of consciousness or reality will maintain the same natural laws as they are in the present state. I am one of "those guys" that believe eventually we will all be bodily resurrected to live in a completely remade reality. We will not be the same, once resurrected, but made different and perfect, free of death. Time wont matter, but (I suspect) neither will the things we find important in the this present creation matter.

If you think religions that profess a physical resurrection mean we will all be some sort of undead that spend their time hanging out on earth for all of time mulling about in the same routines as we did when we were "living", well, I think that is a bit misguided.
Since you believe in a bodily resurrection of infinite duration, can you go over in some detail what these beings will be doing for the billions, trillions, and quadrillions of years of their existence?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Can you prove we can be happy forever?

I don't have to. This is the funny part.
I have never said an eternal sad life is impossible.
In the other hand, so far you have been saying that an eternal life MUST get bad at some point. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Do you know that when someone is happy, they have a lot more to lose than an unhappy person, thus anything that an unhappy person would find happy that is not much happy at all would make the happy person unhappy.

What is your point here?
 
Top