Suppose It Was Revealed To Mankind There Is In Fact An After Life, What Then?

[maquiscat]

and the idea doesn't have to be a new sort of life after death. Just because we didn't know it existed, that doesn't mean it didn't. America existed before Columbus discovered it, in fact, even before the first mammoth hunters discovered it.

See now this is the point that I make with just about anything we've not proven or disproved yet. It works for God, and aliens and unicorns (don't get me started on them!), and even the source of sexual orientation. How's that for shotgunning?

 

[Dittohead not!]

See now this is the point that I make with just about anything we've not proven or disproved yet. It works for God, and aliens and unicorns (don't get me started on them!), and even the source of sexual orientation. How's that for shotgunning?

Yes, I believe it does at that. Just because we don't know about something, or would rather pretend it doesn't exist, (homosexuality) that doesn't mean it doesn't.

Unicorns? I'm not so sure we want to go there......

 

[Paschendale]

If we knew there was an immortal afterlife, then why place any importance on this one? I'm assuming that this afterlife isn't a universally horrible experience, but at least neutral compared with our current one. Though even then, it would be substantially difference, since we wouldn't be mortal. All of our physical fears would disappear. We wouldn't need to eat or keep warm, or fear injury or sickness. So, it would pretty automatically be better than this one. So why bother with this one?

 

[rathi]

I acknowledge that that is a possibility especially if the soul is a "recorder" of the person. But that is not necessarily the result if the body was the I/O interface of the soul with the corporeal world. Damage to the interface (the stroke in this example) while making it harder for the soul to interact properly with the world wouldn't necessarily cause any major alteration of the personality.

Reality is not governed by vague analogies, its governed by specific physical interactions. If neural activity is what can interact with souls, then neural activity is what will determine the souls properties. Brain damage simply alter neurological output just like any other shift in personality. There is no physical mechanism that can determine between the changes to a personality we humans consider good and those we consider bad. The primary reason for gods is that we seek an entity who responds to human emotional desire rather than the arbitrary nature of the universe.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If we knew there was an immortal afterlife, then why place any importance on this one? I'm assuming that this afterlife isn't a universally horrible experience, but at least neutral compared with our current one. Though even then, it would be substantially difference, since we wouldn't be mortal. All of our physical fears would disappear. We wouldn't need to eat or keep warm, or fear injury or sickness. So, it would pretty automatically be better than this one. So why bother with this one?

Perhaps because this life is for the purpose of learning so that we will be more successful in the next. Maybe this world is just a sort of Kindergarten where we learn things like how to get along with each other, how to be responsible for ourselves, things like that.

 

[rhinefire]

Just because the counter to this has to be done.

Pretty much the same situation. Something reveals, complete with irrefutable proof that we can verify, that an afterlife exists. Now we don't get the details, such as whether Heaven and Hell are separate destinations or it's more like Hades's realm or it's the Summerlands. Nor are we given any details as to whether or not there is a supreme being or what it's nature is. Simply revealed that when you terminate this mortal form, your move on to another form/life afterwards.

Why do so many relate the afterlife as heaven and hell? What if it is neither rather existence in another dimension?

 

[Paschendale]

Perhaps because this life is for the purpose of learning so that we will be more successful in the next. Maybe this world is just a sort of Kindergarten where we learn things like how to get along with each other, how to be responsible for ourselves, things like that.

The OP specifically says that we know nothing about this afterlife. I think it might be very dangerous to assume anything about it. Besides, what could we learn here that we couldn't learn there? This world is full of terror and danger. It teaches us to fear and mistrust. Imagine shaping a mind from birth without those things? It would be an infinitely superior existence to never be here in the physical world at all.

The same quandary is actually true of specific afterlives from religions, too. At best, the physical world is a worse existence, at worst, it is essentially a deathtrap, where one can lose that much more important immortal existence at any moment. The entire notion of an afterlife renders the physical world kind of silly. As a training ground, as a test, as pretty much anything but an inferior version of an otherwise successful spiritual realm, there is no need nor purpose for a physical world. That's why it really can only be interpreted as a comforting dream. As real thing, a non-physical afterlife is pretty nonsensical.

 

[Risky Thicket]

As with the previous thread, my thoughts are that in addition to having to believe this revelation, one would first of all have to believe in revealed wisdom. I know that's not a stretch for followers of Abrahamic religions, but for the rest of us that would be a step too far. I couldn't believe in a message if I don't believe in any kind of messenger.

What Andy said!

My answer to the question posed in the OP is that it doesn't matter. What if there wasn't a big bang? What if the world was created in 7 day? What if the world is or isn't 6,000 years old? In terms of how you live and how you wish to be treated and how you treat others, it doesn't matter. When you hit your thumb with a hammer is it critically important for you to know how pain is processed within the body? Do you need this information in order for you not to hit your thumb with a hammer again?

There is no afterlife because there is nothing but the present. No alpha, no omega. Afterlife is always today.

Hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer and it will hurt in the present and the thumb hurting present will last for longer than you want. We cannot change the past. It doesn't exist. Nor does the future. All we have is now. We can affect the future only by how we think and act in the present. If your thumb doesn't hurt now in the present that is because you didn't hit it with a hammer in the past.

Only the present matters today.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The OP specifically says that we know nothing about this afterlife. I think it might be very dangerous to assume anything about it. Besides, what could we learn here that we couldn't learn there? This world is full of terror and danger. It teaches us to fear and mistrust. Imagine shaping a mind from birth without those things? It would be an infinitely superior existence to never be here in the physical world at all.

The same quandary is actually true of specific afterlives from religions, too. At best, the physical world is a worse existence, at worst, it is essentially a deathtrap, where one can lose that much more important immortal existence at any moment. The entire notion of an afterlife renders the physical world kind of silly. As a training ground, as a test, as pretty much anything but an inferior version of an otherwise successful spiritual realm, there is no need nor purpose for a physical world. That's why it really can only be interpreted as a comforting dream. As real thing, a non-physical afterlife is pretty nonsensical.

Actually, I was speculating not on the details of the afterlife, but on the purpose of this one.

How could the immortal existence be lost due to events in the physical world? An unfortunate accident can end this mortal life prematurely, but the physical body will eventually die anyway.

Another thought: If we knew for sure that there there was an afterlife, but did not know what it might be like, then people would still fear death as it would still be an unknown.

 

[maquiscat]

Why do so many relate the afterlife as heaven and hell? What if it is neither rather existence in another dimension?

You did note that I didn't do that, yes? I purposefully left it vague as to what the details of the afterlife were. The what if scenario merely holds that it is proven that you go on to some kind of "life" after this life.

If we knew there was an immortal afterlife, then why place any importance on this one? I'm assuming that this afterlife isn't a universally horrible experience, but at least neutral compared with our current one. Though even then, it would be substantially difference, since we wouldn't be mortal. All of our physical fears would disappear. We wouldn't need to eat or keep warm, or fear injury or sickness. So, it would pretty automatically be better than this one. So why bother with this one?

Do you know that or are you just assuming that because that is what the most popular variations on the after-life are? Remember the premise is that you don't receive the details on what occurs in the after-life or even if you are immortal. You merely receive some kind of irrefutable evidence that there is indeed life after what we call death.

The OP specifically says that we know nothing about this afterlife. I think it might be very dangerous to assume anything about it. Besides, what could we learn here that we couldn't learn there? This world is full of terror and danger. It teaches us to fear and mistrust. Imagine shaping a mind from birth without those things? It would be an infinitely superior existence to never be here in the physical world at all.

The same quandary is actually true of specific afterlives from religions, too. At best, the physical world is a worse existence, at worst, it is essentially a deathtrap, where one can lose that much more important immortal existence at any moment. The entire notion of an afterlife renders the physical world kind of silly. As a training ground, as a test, as pretty much anything but an inferior version of an otherwise successful spiritual realm, there is no need nor purpose for a physical world. That's why it really can only be interpreted as a comforting dream. As real thing, a non-physical afterlife is pretty nonsensical.

Maybe we learn survival techniques here in order to thrive in the next one. As you said it is dangerous to assume anything about it. It may be more dangerous and anyone that dies too early will have a harder time than those who lived longer. Maybe the longer life you have here the more power (in any sense you wish to think) you have there. The OP doesn't automatically assume better or worse. We might find out that there is a God and that he's actually very cruel, setting us up here to expect something better and then breaking us down with something worse.

Because the possibilities are so vast it's foolish to assume that "It would be an infinitely superior existence to never be here in the physical world at all."

 

[Paschendale]

Maybe we learn survival techniques here in order to thrive in the next one. As you said it is dangerous to assume anything about it. It may be more dangerous and anyone that dies too early will have a harder time than those who lived longer. Maybe the longer life you have here the more power (in any sense you wish to think) you have there. The OP doesn't automatically assume better or worse.

The OP suggested to me an immortal spiritual afterlife. Maybe it's not that, but then we're likely getting into reincarnation, not an afterlife. If it is an immortal existence, then there would be no pain, no fear, pretty much nothing that defines our struggle for survival on Earth.

We might find out that there is a God and that he's actually very cruel, setting us up here to expect something better and then breaking us down with something worse.

Well, this is essentially how it would be if any of the major religions were correct. Not just the modern monotheists, but a lot of older pantheons, too. Imagine if Norse myths were true and literally everyone who didn't die in battle is condemned to a horrific eternity. (I think the Norse Hel is mainly a frozen wasteland.) Either way, they're all pretty horrific and very very tribal. Basically anyone who isn't part of the specific culture that the myth originates from is automatically evil.

Because the possibilities are so vast it's foolish to assume that "It would be an infinitely superior existence to never be here in the physical world at all."

I just extrapolated off of "immortal" and "spiritual", which are pretty much automatic to any conception of an afterlife. Anything even less specific simply wouldn't be worth worrying about, unless we actually could discover more, but I assume from the OP that we can't.

 

[Paralogic]

"Just because..."

There is no life after death. That much is true. Hypothetical statements that are false by definition can result in all kinds of meaningless and worthless results.

 

[Juanita]

It still comes down to faith. Faith can't be proven.

Depends on how you view faith...There are those who communicate with spirit and rely on the words of channeled spirit, which is faith based on experience...

 

[Juanita]

As with the previous thread, my thoughts are that in addition to having to believe this revelation, one would first of all have to believe in revealed wisdom. I know that's not a stretch for followers of Abrahamic religions, but for the rest of us that would be a step too far. I couldn't believe in a message if I don't believe in any kind of messenger.

Messengers don't have to be Abrhamic types, but simply loved ones on the Other side...

 

[Juanita]

Which part of the irrefutable proof that can be verified did you not understand? The faith would come in the details and the "story" behind the afterlife. The proof only shows that there is an existence beyond what we call death, not which faith details it follows. Remember that this is a what if scenario.

It is much more than a "what if" scenario...

 

[Juanita]

As an empiricist, I find both of threads terrible. Irrefutable proof isn't "revealed" by mysterious sources, it is gained through testable repeatable observations. If there were evidence an afterlife, that evidence would contain a mountain of nit-picky details that go beyond what people are comfortable with. For example, what actually ends up in the afterlife? It it only humans or does it include all animals? Does it include animals without a functioning nervous system like sponges? Given that the difference between one organism and another is merely the arrangement of atoms, what molecular structure determines the creation of a soul?

We are all spiritual Beings temporarily in a physical body, and this is not our true Home... The spiritual world we go back to is the same place that we came from...

 

[Juanita]

I'm not. I am pointing that if humans have souls and a tree doesn't, that means the specific combination of molecules in a human somehow have special properties that allow us to interact with souls. That implies we could manipulate a persons interaction with a soul by manipulating said molecules.

Lets posit a hypothetical mechanism. A "soul" is actually a specific form of particles which binds to dense neural activity you see in a human brain. Over time, the neural activity in the brain causes the soul particles to create distinct patterns which contain a persons personality. Upon death, the neural activity ceases, releasing the soul but allowing the pattern of the person's mind to remain. Such a scenario explains why humans have souls and trees don't.

The problem with my scenario is that it causes problems with the real reason souls were invented: quelling fears about human mortality. If the soul is based on neural activity, that means it could altered or even removed by brain damage. Having your eternal self be mentally ill is obviously horrifying. Perhaps the biggest flaw of religion is not even the claims it makes, but rather that it doesn't consider the implications of said claims.

Conscienceness/soul/spirit is not the human brain...

 

[Juanita]

I'd want to know how it occurred, why, how it relates to the rest of science, etc.
I would be thrilled for a second at the idea of something that huge being known.
I would be terrified a moment later know that the notion of eternal suffering or pain, or being trapped for eternity somewhere, is a reality that I cannot avoid.

Ever read Stephen King's the Jaunt?

No such thing as an everlasting hell...

 

[Juanita]

First off, despite religious assertions to the contrary, we don't know if trees or animals have souls or not. If we posit that the soul is some kind of coherent energy field, one we have yet to learn to detect, it would be logical to guess that it would be affected by the neuro-electrical properties of the brain. Or conversely, if the soul is in reality a energy based life-form, then its field may be affecting the brain's neuro-electrical properties. This energy field may also be a basis behind psionics, assuming one believes in them.
W
As to the issues you bright up, the interface between the body and soul could be as if the soul were a recording device or it could the equivalent of camera/microphone/sensors/whatever. In other words, damage to the brain results in improper input/output, but doesn't result in the soul itself becoming damaged.

The varity of potentials is vast especially when we review how much we have discovered that exists, that we were never aware of before. So then how much more is out there, affecting the universe around us, that we haven't even discovered, yet alone learn how to measure and/or manipulate.



By the OP, you wouldn't know that. For all you know there is no life after the next one, and/or the next one has a limited span like the current one does. You don't even know that you get to carry memories over from one life to the next, or maybe you do but you can't access them consciously. There is a wide range of potentials available by the way the OP is written.

Certainly animals have souls as do all of God's creations.. What do you think that the Source used to create the universe and everything in it...?

 

[Juanita]

How could such a thing be revealed?

We already have people who have died and returned, and told us that there is a life after death. That's not enough.
Scientific proof? Would that be enough? It isn't enough for evolution or for global warming.
Would God have to appear in the sky and tell the world, "Sure, there's life after death."?
People will believe what they want to believe regardless.

It is usually revealed by Spirit, but yes people will believe whatever they want, especially if it comes out of the book...

 

[Juanita]

We've also had many people who have died and returned and tell us there was nothing there. So which is it? An after life for some but not for others? Possible but somehow I feel rather unlikely.

You know sometimes I don't think people have enough imagination to truly answer a "what if" type of scenario, and to cover it up they have to come up with every reason why the situation could not happen. This isn't a direct shot at you Ditto. You're just the latest in a line.

A person's belief system has much to do with what a person sees when they transition or have an NDE.......

 

[Juanita]

As an empiricist, I find both of threads terrible. Irrefutable proof isn't "revealed" by mysterious sources, it is gained through testable repeatable observations. If there were evidence an afterlife, that evidence would contain a mountain of nit-picky details that go beyond what people are comfortable with. For example, what actually ends up in the afterlife? It it only humans or does it include all animals? Does it include animals without a functioning nervous system like sponges? Given that the difference between one organism and another is merely the arrangement of atoms, what molecular structure determines the creation of a soul?

As above, so below... Everything that is here was already there...

 

[Juanita]

It had creationism, evolution and not sure.... so it wasn't either or.

The problem with ID is it has to throw out every failure in evolution and only look at the successes. It also has to ignore some very flawed methods of reproduction and anatomy.

ID would have had our wisdom teeth long gone, and ID can't deal with the examples that show predation/prey cycles driving a great deal of evolution. Blood types and genetic disorders are not intelligent. The very fact some genetic disorders come from mutations during reproduction seems counter to intelligent anything and certainly no guiding hand.

There is a reason for everything and everything happens for a reason....

 

[Juanita]

That's a valid possibility given the OP, thanks for pointing out that it was broader than I judged it to be. Yet I'd still be terrified of the potential unknown of me being forced to be alive in some other aspect that I have no knowledge about. That particular interpretation is logically contradictory and can be discarded. Compare to this: "you move on to another form/life afterwards." If I don't have my memories, I'm not me, and I wouldn't logically be "moving on" to anything in a reasonable context.

You retain your memories and your personality..it is the ego that is discarded along with the physical body...

 

[Juanita]

You're right. This is supposed to be a "what if" sort of speculation.

OK, then, I'll play along. Suppose that the dead actually came back and walked among us for a time, we could see them, talk to them, and know beyond any doubt that there is life after death. How would that change things?

First, some people still wouldn't believe it, as humans are too invested in believing what they want to believe, but most of us would lose our fear of death. People wouldn't fight so hard to survive cancer, for example, and would be more likely to risk their lives in other ways as well.

Soldiers would be easier to recruit, and wars more likely and bloodier.

The lonely and depressed would become even more depressed with the idea that suicide just leads to a different life, perhaps with all of the same problems.

Most Spiritualists have no fear of death...