The Afterlife

[Chad]

One thing to me sticks out in many religions: A supposed afterlife. However, how exactly is this afterlife supposed to work? Are people thinking that they will be judged by a supreme being that will have final say over if they were good or bad? Upon judgment is your “soul” thrown in an infinitely large room or something, free to roam and do what you wish for all eternity? I guess all of this is rather dependent on your chosen religion. Doesn't this seem rather needlessly complicated, selfish (In a certain respect) and very wishful?

It would seem much more logical for me to think that when we die we just plain cease to exist. Why do many feel that other animals just die while we ascend to some afterlife? When I read about other animals, I'm often amazed at some of their abilities. Granted, humans do have some unique features, but does this really make us so much more deserving of an eternal life? Why is there a need for an eternal life? Is there a reason why we should have a “soul” that lives on?

[Random Thought]

The more I read and think about it, the more I think this is a great trick that the religion memeplex pulls. Nearly every religion proposes an afterlife. This afterlife guarantees a great existence after death. The afterlife is not able to be proven, so it remains in question, untestable for the most part. The positive side effect to believing in this afterlife I guess would be people obeying set rules and guidelines, according to the religion in question. While it may not seem like an obvious positive side effect, many religions seem to promote some common good ideas. Such as not lying, stealing and murdering. There's much more, but I don't feel like digging around for more specific examples at the moment Of course, those who follow these practices will be at a slightly better advantage for survival, which in turn will pass on their religious ideas to their children or others who think highly of them. Not to mention the fear of an bad afterlife to keep people in line and make them strive to follow the rules and guidelines that much closer. Ok, I trailed off a little...there's much more I would like to relate, but I'll try to get to my point! I just felt like I would share where I stand on the issue.

[/Random Thought]

I guess my main questions would be this: How do you suppose an afterlife to actually work (Supposing you believe in an afterlife to begin with)? Do you feel at all like the idea of an afterlife is wishful thinking from a fear of one day your existence might come to a complete end? Or does the belief in an afterlife come solely from the teachings of the religion that you learned?

For those that don't believe in an afterlife: What do you think drives the need for people to suppose an afterlife, along with what do you think continues to propagate it?

These are all genuine questions, I don't mean to sound rude if any of my post came off that way...I have a bad tendency make that happen...lol.

(Btw - I was unsure what sub-forum to put this under...so feel free to move it if you think it's better off in a different sub-forum )

[harvey1]

We pinch ourselves and see that we're living in the here and now, enjoying the land air and sea. That's what life's about. It's fragile and highly dependent on all the chemistry around us. Given the finite amount of time (determined by the rules of evolution -- anyone wanting an explanation of why evolution makes us mortal please ask) we have to enjoy here, it's just plain potty to assume that God has some sort of plan B for when it all goes pear-shaped. A dreadful bit of logic. That's what the hoopla's all about.

Your reasoning is based on false premises, QED. Here is your logic:

1. Life exists only in material form
2. Life is entirely and solely dependent on the chemistry of the earth and the structure of the material universe
3. Objects that perish never return in the exact form given all our observations
4. Mainly random-directed evolutionary processes completely determine the nature of life

...5C. It is illogical to believe in an afterlife given (1)-(4)

Of course, even if we accepted your premises, your conclusion does not follow. For example, I might create a cellular automata program where I give "dead" automatons a new life in a new cyberspace just for the hell of it. There's no logic of the universe that's violated if I do that.

However, I do dispute your premises. In fact, I dispute all of those premises. (1) is incorrect because we don't know that all there is to life is material form. For example, quantum cosmology suggests that the universe and everything in it is composed of wavefunctions. Are wavefunctions material? Not in the classic sense, certainly. (2) is invalid because there must be prescriptive laws that we are heavily dependent on, and as I've harped on many times, there is no such thing as material causation, so it may not even be true that we are at all dependent on material things. Rather, we might be dependent on laws which allow material things to exist. (3) is obviously wrong since quantum mechanics already allows for particles to disappear and reappear by tunneling through barriers. (4) is an atheistic assumption which is what theism rejects. You are only preaching to your choir by stating it.

Once the teeth of your premises have been grinded away, we don't see much in the way of logical proof, or for that matter, much in the way of strong indication that you have accurately described the universe.

[QED]

You are trying to pull a fast-one Harvey. You list some premises that you attribute to me then you show me where you think they're wrong. I don't think any reasonable observer would find those premises anything like as controversial as you claim them to be anyway, but that's simply not the point...

If the life we have here in the material world is, as theists have it, God-given then why is it so short? Why do we get to enjoy things in the material realm for a limited time only? After all, God, it is assumed, wishes us to continue our existence. The answer that you already know is that evolution (God's construction algorithm if you wish) cannot produce organic entities that last forever. It's not just a cellular repair problem, it's population vs resources and a whole raft of other psychological and practical issues. So having already implemented his best possible construction algorithm to provide us with our existence you wish me to believe that God then puts in place a plan B to allow all his poor souls to continue enjoying their existence when that algorithm inevitably fails us?

If only I wasn't so darn pragmatic. I could suspend my observations of what life is, how it comes about and why it expires shortly afterwards and join-in with you and billions of others in a fantasy that fulfills our ernest wishes

[harvey1]

If the life we have here in the material world is, as theists have it, God-given then why is it so short?

I would think the answer has something to do with this being a natural world where nature functions at a minimum.

Why do we get to enjoy things in the material realm for a limited time only? After all, God, it is assumed, wishes us to continue our existence.

Our continued existence at this time is not the highest priority. Even our happiness and our welfare are not the highest priority. This being a natural world is a higher priority.

The answer that you already know is that evolution (God's construction algorithm if you wish) cannot produce organic entities that last forever.

I think it could in principle, but it doesn't because nature does not select for this trait in her creations.

So having already implemented his best possible construction algorithm to provide us with our existence you wish me to believe that God then puts in place a plan B to allow all his poor souls to continue enjoying their existence when that algorithm inevitably fails us?

Yes. The reason is that I expect you to come to the realization that this material world is an illusion. I think you should have already come to this conclusion a long time ago, and I'm disappointed in you that you haven't come to that conclusion. Had you have come to the right conclusions after our discussions to this point, then I think you would have concluded that the illusion of this material world is not the right path to decide issues surrounding our ultimate fate.

If only I wasn't so darn pragmatic. I could suspend my observations of what life is, how it comes about and why it expires shortly afterwards and join-in with you and billions of others in a fantasy that fulfills our ernest wishes

Well, you are like the crowd that believes what the magician is doing is not an illusion. The material world perspective, in this case, is an illusion, and you've accepted that illusion hook, line, and sinker. You've been duped. Unfortunately, there seems to be a certain comfort value for those who are duped, so it is natural for there to be resistance in rejecting the material illusion before your eyes. However, if you would just force yourself to give an account for the things you cannot explain (e.g., material causation), then you would be forced to give up on this illusion. Unfortunately, though, you won't accept your role in giving account for those things, instead you sweep this under the rug and pretend it's not there. This only reinforces the illusion before your eyes.

[Chad]

How does not holding religious faith or not believing in a God(s) taint my perspective on the world? I would think that it’s the other way around. A theistic viewpoint taints your perspective on what the world is. Why postulate a God when there is no reasonable evidence for it’s existence? I know I hear many that shout, “What about the laws of physics and nature, surely they couldn’t have developed by themselves.” A conclusion like that seems to come from a lack of evidence to show how it could have came about, rather than evidence of God’s existence. This seems to happen quite often when something is hard to grasp, a quick “God did it” answer seems to be a far too easy route.

But a "multiverse did it" is a reasonable response? Your answer just strikes me as, "we certainly don't want to believe in God, so let's just say God doesn't exist and say that the evidence is not evidence since we a priori already believe God doesn't exist."

The statement “Multiverse did it” is worded odd. The multiverse theory isn’t an end all question, like the “God did it” statement is. I notice you mention evidence of God’s existence, are you referring to the laws of physics and nature and how accurate they must be to sustain the universe we live in? If so, why is this obvious sign of evidence towards God’s existence? Just because we don’t understand how it could have come about yet, we should assume a God in the mean time? I wish more people would put the idea of God aside for a while and try to solve some of these very interesting situations which we observe. Take evolution for example. When no one knew of genes or how life evolved, they would find the variety of life and all it’s complexity near impossible to come about by some way other than God. Yet, here we are with a very clear view of how evolution takes life from something very simple to something much more complex and adaptive.

Notice, though, that a brute fact multiverse conception (or brute fact universe conception) cannot just repeat this by saying "ditto." The reason is that there is only a few axioms that must be true for a principle of causality (e.g., identity) whereas there must be hundreds, thousands, or millions of brute facts needed for a multiverse (e.g., space, time, energy- matter conversion, quantum-mechanical behavior, etc., etc.). So, parsimony requires us to eliminate the option that has way too many brute facts. As I've said before, why not just assume the brute fact is a universe having stocked memories up to 5 minutes ago? There's really little reason, I think, for the atheist to refute this if they accept a brute fact multiverse of such sufficient complexity to bring about a universe such as our own.

You keep brining up the principle of causality. Is God somehow immune to this principle in your eyes? What was the cause of God?

If so, where did that God come from?

Where did logic come from? Why is there causality in the world? The answer is that if there wasn't logic, or if there wasn't causality, then this world would just be a different kind of logical world, or a different kind of causality. As it is, there appears to be only one kind of logico-causal world possible, and that's the one that actually exists. This kind of world requires for there to be a God by the intrinsic nature of causality and logic.

All very interesting questions. Yet, it seems very presumptuous to jump to the conclusion that this sort of logic-causal world is the only one possible. Are you saying God designed causality and logic? That seems like a nice quick answer, except under what logic and causality was God designed and how did he just happen to be able to “create” the universe? Do you believe that God just existed or that God evolved in some way? I would be interested to hear your answer to that.

If you assume that a God just existed, then why not assume that matter just existed, along with the physical constants that you mentioned?

Because of Occam's razor. The world existing with the many variables needed to account for the complexity of our world is way too complex to account for by brute fact. If you want to use brute fact, then you should use it sparingly, not to postulate something complex (e.g., a Looney Tune universe). If we compare the complexity of a material universe (with singularity theorems threatening it along with material causation paradoxes that appear to forbid it), then it just makes no sense to give this possibility any real consideration.

And God wouldn’t be complex? Wouldn’t a God that creates a universe and the laws and constants which we observe would have to be more complex to even pull off such a feet in the first place.

I’m sure it would make more sense for something less “complex” to just exist in the first place, or at least come about through a logical means of progression.

Yes, very important key phrase: "logical means of progression." It is very important to base the universe on some logical basis (i.e., God basis) versus some willy nilly material basis.

This is where I somewhat agree with you…up to the point where you name God as a logical basis Ex. It is very important to base the universe on some logical basis (i.e., a simple material basis) versus some God figure.

I think it’s far from logical. How can one begin to fathom who deserves a good or bad afterlife?

Well, this is not for us to know anymore than it is for us to know about the nature of an afterlife. We can certainly provide schemes which might give reasons to an afterlife and the judgements that must be made, but that doesn't mean that we know. We don't know, and our lack of knowledge doesn't mean it is illogical.

What is that supposed to mean? Schemes of an afterlife based on what evidence and logic? Since it's quite apparent that humans evolved to this state, are you saying that God will continue to judge us based on our evolutionary state, or did he expect us to arrive at this point and already have the ground work laid out? Do you think God's observing what our ever changing culture deems is right or not and basing it off that?

Why is it logical that one should live on after death? I think with all the evidence concerning much of human origins our progression (I mean progression in a sense of adaptation and change, not assuming that we are heading in any chosen direction) along with the Theory of Evolution, why even assume that there was a God that sought to bring about intelligent life? I noticed you did say “if there is a God”, in which case it might not sound as illogical if you believe that notion in the first place.

Again, we don't know. Our knowledge of anything about the real nature of reality is unverifiable in principle. All we can do is work with the information available to our senses, and this information should lead us to believe that there is a God and that the world before us is overall an illusion.

I'm sorry, I will be open minded to a point, but not so open minded that my brain falls out. What do you mean by the real nature of reality? This seems like a rather vague sentence. We certainly are working with the information we have available, and science has been making some tremendous leaps. Religion attempts to fill in the gaps with an evasion response such as “God did it”. When is the last time that someone has shown that “God did it”? It seems that as science progresses and we become more knowledgeable, these gaps become less and less.

[Arya]

It would seem much more logical for me to think that when we die we just plain cease to exist.

That would seem logical. But I would like to introduce one aspect or subject that I have not seen mentioned yet.

There have been thousands of reports from different people who have had near death experiences. Most of these people did not know each other or heard of each other's experiences, and yet the stories that they report of meeting others from the "other side" (or the afterlife) are too similar and numerous for me to ignore the possibility that there is a connection. A connection that there is an afterlife, and that these people who either died or nearly died had experiences, meetings, or conversations with others who have already passed on.

The reports have been that they meet a familiar figure; a relative that they were close to that has alredy passed on, a religious figure, or someone seemingly familiar but they just couldn't place who exactly it was. But in all cases whether familar or not, there were many reports of communicating with these figures. There are lesser reports of meeting unfamiliar people from the other side also.

If all of those reports from strangers from different sections of the globe are true, then there is some continuation of ourselves when we do die. What or where that is seems to be less clear. But I do find it very interesting that there have been so many documented reports of meeting other beings, or souls, who have already died.

Is there a reason why we should have a “soul” that lives on?

If what I have previously mentioned is true (near death experience) then obviously there is some purpose to our soul and it's continuance after the body expires. Exactly why that should be seems very mysterious.

Going back to the premise that there is an afterlife, and souls continue on-there could be several reasons or purposes for a soul after death.

I have heard many reports of the belief of "guardian angels" or the spirits of familiar or non familiar souls who seemingly look over, guide, or protect a living person. Perhaps certain souls return to watch over a specifiic person who is currently living.

I've heard many reports of reincarnation, where a soul will return to earth in a different body to experience life all over again. This pattern continues over and over again, lifetime to lifetime, until a specific goal, or enlightenment is achieved.

I've also heard several reports of ghosts; those souls who somehow get lost or held to a particular destination. Houses that are haunted by a prior owner (or someone murdered in that house or location) are common themes. If ghosts do exist-then this is further evidence that there is at least some aspect of truth to the afterlife for apparently their soul has continued to exist after the body no longer functions.

I realize, Chad, that I haven't given definite answers to the segments of your post that I chose to focus on. But I wanted to mention these different possibilities that souls may continue on, and the possibility of an afterlife.

[Chad]

It would seem much more logical for me to think that when we die we just plain cease to exist.

That would seem logical. But I would like to introduce one aspect or subject that I have not seen mentioned yet.

There have been thousands of reports from different people who have had near death experiences. Most of these people did not know each other or heard of each other's experiences, and yet the stories that they report of meeting others from the "other side" (or the afterlife) are too similar and numerous for me to ignore the possibility that there is a connection. A connection that there is an afterlife, and that these people who either died or nearly died had experiences, meetings, or conversations with others who have already passed on.

The reports have been that they meet a familiar figure; a relative that they were close to that has alredy passed on, a religious figure, or someone seemingly familiar but they just couldn't place who exactly it was. But in all cases whether familar or not, there were many reports of communicating with these figures. There are lesser reports of meeting unfamiliar people from the other side also.

If all of those reports from strangers from different sections of the globe are true, then there is some continuation of ourselves when we do die. What or where that is seems to be less clear. But I do find it very interesting that there have been so many documented reports of meeting other beings, or souls, who have already died.

Near death experiences are an interesting subject. Isn't it weird that nearly every near death experience which is occured will say to see a God from their religion? A Christian doesn't see Vishnu appear before them in a near death experience. This would lead me to believe that a near death experience is a composed thought taking place in the brain just before death which seems to have a dramatic effect on the chemicals released by the brain. Thoughts which they believe, not thoughts that may actually happen. Which makes me very curious what my near death experience would be like, hehe.

This article has some real great ideas and explanations in regard to near death experiences. It's really an interesting read.

I don't believe in Ghosts, Angels, Spirits or Reincarnation, but I did find them very intriguing at one point in my life. I was always fascinated by the prospects that something such as the above may exist or happen. I no longer find this prospect as intriguing. I simply can find no evidence for any of it, there always seems to be an easier explanation in my head. I would have to think about the above topics a bit more to give a better response, I'm currently about ready to fall asleep on my keyboard

[Arya]

Near death experiences are an interesting subject. Isn't it weird that nearly every near death experience which is occured will say to see a God from their religion? A Christian doesn't see Vishnu appear before them in a near death experience. This would lead me to believe that a near death experience is a composed thought taking place in the brain just before death which seems to have a dramatic effect on the chemicals released by the brain. Thoughts which they believe, not thoughts that may actually happen. Which makes me very curious what my near death experience would be like, hehe.

Yes, that is an interesting angle. It could be argued that the reason for all those people who only saw a religious figure or god that is specifically related to their specific religion is more from a chemical reaction in the brain pre-death. If hallucinations occur, why can't these just be hallucinations? Good point.

But some people also see figures that are unfamiliar to them. Well, I guess it could be argued that their specific hallucination (or brain chemicals) was a bit "off" and instead of visualizing someone familiar, they got a stranger.

But I do find it strange that this many people, who are all strangers, are reporting similar stories. Perhaps the "beings" appear to them as someone familiar to them so that they don't "freak out" or get very upset or confused as to what is happening to them.

This article has some real great ideas and explanations in regard to near death experiences. It's really an interesting read.

That does have some interesting viewpoints. I have read similar webpages, and the ones that are documented stories from different "survivors" of near death experience are interesting reads also.

I don't believe in Ghosts, Angels, Spirits or Reincarnation, but I did find them very intriguing at one point in my life. I was always fascinated by the prospects that something such as the above may exist or happen. I no longer find this prospect as intriguing. I simply can find no evidence for any of it, there always seems to be an easier explanation in my head. I would have to think about the above topics a bit more to give a better response, I'm currently about ready to fall asleep on my keyboard

I'm getting pretty tired myself, so I'll leave it at this point. Goodnight!

[harvey1]

The statement “Multiverse did it” is worded odd. The multiverse theory isn’t an end all question, like the “God did it” statement is.

What do you mean? You need a brute fact where everything starts off. If atheism doesn't accept a multiverse, then it has no explanation for the enormous unlikelihood for a universe fine-tuned for sophisticated structures. Anything akin to a pantheist or theist solution is advocating a God, so what other choice is there for the atheist other than a brute fact metauniverse?

I notice you mention evidence of God’s existence, are you referring to the laws of physics and nature and how accurate they must be to sustain the universe we live in?

This is one set of evidence for God's existence.

If so, why is this obvious sign of evidence towards God’s existence? Just because we don’t understand how it could have come about yet, we should assume a God in the mean time?

No, nothing like that. The word "God" should definitely be one of the top explanans for this feature of the universe. The fact that atheists don't even want to consider it evidence is evidence that atheists just don't want to consider a God at all, and that makes it a personal or psychological issue. I'm not really interested in getting involved in someone's personal issue for rejecting God (e.g., their puppy was run over at the age of six), so I can only address the physical reasons for believing that there is a God.

I wish more people would put the idea of God aside for a while and try to solve some of these very interesting situations which we observe.

Well, first, I thought you were an atheist? If so, then it isn't that you wish to put aside an idea that you don't like, you think there is evidence against that idea such that it is not reasonable. That's what atheists believe. If I am correct that you are an atheist, then this position here is more conducive of an agnostic position.

Take evolution for example. When no one knew of genes or how life evolved, they would find the variety of life and all it’s complexity near impossible to come about by some way other than God. Yet, here we are with a very clear view of how evolution takes life from something very simple to something much more complex and adaptive.

Not every theist was like that. For example, a theist whom I greatly admire and feel actually shocked that he is not better known was Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis who in 1744 formulated what is famously known as the principle of least action. Not only did he formulate this principle, he strongly advocated a path integral formulation of theism as being a general principle of nature. Add to that, Maupertuis was one of the first documented cases of a scientist advocating natural selection a century before Darwin:

"Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness which are able to subsist, it is not to be wondered at that this fitness is present in all the species that are currently in existence? Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in another infinitely greater number, there was neither fitness nor order: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced..."

So, it wasn't that there were not any theists who weren't cued into how nature operates, it's just that here is a clear case of one being ignored. It's unfortunate since the path integral formulation was later found by the late Professor Feynman to be a fundamental formulation of quantum theory, and it still grows in popularity with Jim Hartle and Stephen Hawking advocating a path integral prescriptive law that caused the material world into existence. Maupertuis' spirit lives on.

You keep brining up the principle of causality. Is God somehow immune to this principle in your eyes? What was the cause of God?

God is not immune to the principle of causality, God exists interwoven with this principle. To ask what was the cause of God is to ask what caused cause. It's a meaningless question since to ask what caused cause is to assume cause. Similarly, to ask what caused God is to already assume God exists when you ask that question.

All very interesting questions. Yet, it seems very presumptuous to jump to the conclusion that this sort of logic-causal world is the only one possible. Are you saying God designed causality and logic?

No, at the root level of causality and logic, God exists interwoven with these concepts. However, beyond the root level, God I believe determines what is a logical theorem and what is a mathematical theorem. Also with causality, God determines what causal relations exist in the world. God is restricted to some considerable extent by causality, logic, and math, but God also restricts causal relations, logical theorems, and mathematical theorems.

That seems like a nice quick answer, except under what logic and causality was God designed and how did he just happen to be able to “create” the universe?

God wasn't designed anymore than the principle of causality was designed. The existence of this principle exists, and in fact, it is needed to define what we mean by something existing or have something happen. God could create the universe by choosing to create the universe based on what God saw as a divine reason to do so.

Do you believe that God just existed or that God evolved in some way? I would be interested to hear your answer to that.

God and causality and truth are one. There is no real separation. We can, of course, refer to different aspects of ultimate reality (e.g., we can refer to solely the causal aspects), but to talk about causality with any extensiveness requires us to talk about God, or talk about truth.

And God wouldn’t be complex? Wouldn’t a God that creates a universe and the laws and constants which we observe would have to be more complex to even pull off such a feet in the first place.

No. God is very simple. God is just an aspect of ultimate reality. It's that part of reality which requires that things cohere and correspond to truth. For example, let us say that it is a truth that the world should conform to some principle of parsimony, then God is that aspect of ultimate reality that confirms and instantiates the needed processes that the principle of parsimony is not violated. In a complex universe such as ours, this looks like God is complex (so much to consider, so little time to do it), but its really overall simple. Reality does not allow paradoxes to occur. So, we call that aspect of reality that has these rules and forbids certain paradoxial actions as God (e.g., forbids time travellers who go back in the past and stop their grandfather from meeting their grandmothers to not let that happen). In simple cases, there's really nothing to marvel at, but on complex levels (e.g., the bringing forth of life via Maurertuis' theistic natural selection principle--introduced before Darwin), and whola, we have our Omniscient Being being as discrete as ever.

It is very important to base the universe on some logical basis (i.e., a simple material basis) versus some God figure.

I'm afraid you'll have to pick which one, Chad. You can't serve two masters here. Either you will have to serve a simple material basis of the Universe, or you'll have to serve a view that Truth exists and is the cause of all material facts in the world. The material basis is not fully logical. It doesn't even have to conform to logic. In fact, a universe that is at root based on material brute facts can conceivably change its behavior tomorrow (goodbye universe). By the mere fact that the universe doesn't suddenly play by different "logical" rules should be indication that we do not live in a world having some material brute fact as its basis.

What is that supposed to mean? Schemes of an afterlife based on what evidence and logic? Since it's quite apparent that humans evolved to this state, are you saying that God will continue to judge us based on our evolutionary state, or did he expect us to arrive at this point and already have the ground work laid out? Do you think God's observing what our ever changing culture deems is right or not and basing it off that?

God allows the world to evolve naturally. However, God acts minimally in this world to coax it toward whatever goal that the divine will has for it. These things naturally derive themselves without God having to violate the natural principles on which it is founded. This, though, is all done for a reason. The reason, I suspect, is that the universe is a continuation of the logical world and mathematical world where we see theorems being produced. Once the theorems are derived, the theorems are proved for their truthfulness. If the theorems are judged unprovable (i.e., after they have been derived), then they stay in a certain limbo of unproven theorems. If the universe is a derived theorem as I suggest, then there is yet to be a proving session for the universe. Except I don't think the proving session is limited to the universe as a whole. I think it involves every entity in the universe. If an entity is consistent with whatever language L exists before it, then that entity will be "saved" and kept as a saved theorem proved "true." This, I think, is the essence of Christianity. So, in that sense, I see Christianity as having a very logical basis.

Religion attempts to fill in the gaps with an evasion response such as “God did it”. When is the last time that someone has shown that “God did it”? It seems that as science progresses and we become more knowledgeable, these gaps become less and less.

I see the exact opposite conclusion. In my view, science is relying more and more on God, and less and less on a brute fact material world which became very popular at the time of LaPlace. Now, we see principles (God) take on extreme importance in science. Even now, the new quantum gravity theories being batted around don't even make much reference to material concepts anymore. We now need certain laws to "exist" in order for there to be material things. So, I see science moving closer and closer to pantheism, which is I think very close to the truth.

[QED]

If the life we have here in the material world is, as theists have it, God-given then why is it so short?

I would think the answer has something to do with this being a natural world where nature functions at a minimum.

Very good. In other words it's the most practical way of providing consciousness in the material world.

Why do we get to enjoy things in the material realm for a limited time only? After all, God, it is assumed, wishes us to continue our existence.

Our continued existence at this time is not the highest priority. Even our happiness and our welfare are not the highest priority. This being a natural world is a higher priority.

Quite so. Expedience is to be expected.

The answer that you already know is that evolution (God's construction algorithm if you wish) cannot produce organic entities that last forever.

I think it could in principle, but it doesn't because nature does not select for this trait in her creations.

Once again a fine demonstration of minimal path.

So having already implemented his best possible construction algorithm to provide us with our existence you wish me to believe that God then puts in place a plan B to allow all his poor souls to continue enjoying their existence when that algorithm inevitably fails us?

Yes. The reason is that I expect you to come to the realization that this material world is an illusion.

And then it all goes to rats. We've just been talking about what goes on in the material world. What the heck's it there for? BTW Can I have your permission to use this as my signature line?

"Harvey expects you to come to the realization that this material world is an illusion."

Alright, I'm sort of kidding (although I quite like the idea of doing this) because I do understand that this can be a defendable statement at some levels and is an essential plank in furthering our understanding of the world in general. But I suspect you are referring to the spiritual world which is not at all pragmatic. It will not get us where we want to go with what we've got.

I think you should have already come to this conclusion a long time ago, and I'm disappointed in you that you haven't come to that conclusion. Had you have come to the right conclusions after our discussions to this point, then I think you would have concluded that the illusion of this material world is not the right path to decide issues surrounding our ultimate fate.

Too bad. Call me an idiot, but I find the perspective of the material world to be one that makes sense when dealing with all the important things in life.

If only I wasn't so darn pragmatic. I could suspend my observations of what life is, how it comes about and why it expires shortly afterwards and join-in with you and billions of others in a fantasy that fulfills our ernest wishes

Well, you are like the crowd that believes what the magician is doing is not an illusion.

Tell me, do you remain dead-pan when you type things like this or can't you resist a wry smile?

The material world perspective, in this case, is an illusion, and you've accepted that illusion hook, line, and sinker. You've been duped.

Funny coincidence here, last evening I watched a Horizon science program all about Hawkings 'information paradox' that threatened material causality. After 30 years Hawking has now conceded that there is no problem for causality after all.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a certain comfort value for those who are duped, so it is natural for there to be resistance in rejecting the material illusion before your eyes. However, if you would just force yourself to give an account for the things you cannot explain (e.g., material causation), then you would be forced to give up on this illusion. Unfortunately, though, you won't accept your role in giving account for those things, instead you sweep this under the rug and pretend it's not there. This only reinforces the illusion before your eyes.

How is that debate going with Curious? When you can find one other person that shares your view that nothing can account for material causation I'll be interested. It might be that they could explain it to me; because so far you've failed to manage this.

But let's say for the sake of argument that I come around to accepting a need for a mind to satisfy the relations, an OI to interpret the laws etc. What about the subject of this debate -- where do I hook-up to the assumption that everything has been put together primarily for us? If not just for us - then why all the comings and goings of Christianity that you are so wedded to? Did a saviour show up for each species? Why given that we agree evolution is the minimum path to life do we then go on to assume that there is a backup strategy for when this inevitably fails each and every living thing? I want to know where this powerful compulsion comes from if it is not simply form the most obvious alternative explanation -- a deeply held wish that we never let go of our existence.

[harvey1]

And then it all goes to rats. We've just been talking about what goes on in the material world. What the heck's it there for?

Well, that would be the purpose for the universe then, wouldn't it? I don't know. Perhaps it is because of a super-path integral that exists, and the evolution of the universe is a probable path (or a path that is yet to be cancelled out...).

BTW Can I have your permission to use this as my signature line?

Sure, but somehow I don't think you understand what it means. I don't think the material universe doesn't exist in some non-reduced form. It exists as material like any object exists. We can reduce the object to its components which are not the object. For example, chairs exist, but chairs are made of atoms, and in principle we can talk about the atoms of the chair without having to have a concept of a chair (just give dimensions that the atoms fill the space of). However, the chair is an illusionary concept in that there are no chairs which are fundamental objects in the world. Similarly, there is nothing fundamental about matter, and if we were to reduce it far enough to its root, we would see that a quantum theory of some sort can explain the existence of matter from nothing at all. This is what I mean by material causation as being an illusion. Matter doesn't literally cause anything, just like the chair doesn't literally allow you to sit on it. There's atoms, for example, which are better candidates to explain why it is we can sit on a chair without it collapsing into fragments. (Although, even atoms don't give us a good explanation since we have elementary particles, exchange of force carrying bosons, etc., which are better at describing why atoms chairs can keep us firmly seated.)

But I suspect you are referring to the spiritual world which is not at all pragmatic. It will not get us where we want to go with what we've got.

No, I'm not referring to a spiritual world. I'm referring to a quantum world ruled by quantum laws which are logical based. In my view, a spiritual world is ultimately reducible to a logical world (just like a material world is ultimately reducible to a logical world).

...I find the perspective of the material world to be one that makes sense when dealing with all the important things in life.

I don't understand how you can defend a material world given all the things we know about entanglement, teleportation, quantum ghost imaging, quantum gravity, etc.. To me, the "material world" is a LaPlacian idea that is about to be firmly thrown in the junk yard. Einstein himself started this revolution in 1905 by showing the equivalence of energy and matter. The situation for a material world has gone down hill ever since.

Tell me, do you remain dead-pan when you type things like this or can't you resist a wry smile?

Oh, I enjoy at times a perspective that is revolutionalizing the way we see the world. The materialists have had their way since LaPlace, so it is enjoyable to watch their world be ripped away. My only regret is that LaPlace is not alive to watch his vision be completely obliterated.

Funny coincidence here, last evening I watched a Horizon science program all about Hawkings 'information paradox' that threatened material causality. After 30 years Hawking has now conceded that there is no problem for causality after all.

Causality is a major concern for a logical view of the laws. My understanding is that t'Hooft and Susskind (who are mentioned in your article) are strong supporters of the laws of physics as being a result of information due to the Holographic Principle, so you could see why a loss of causality might be a concern to a logical view of nature. In any case, the Holographic Principle is a discrete view, and that contradicts material causation as we already discussed.

How is that debate going with Curious? When you can find one other person that shares your view that nothing can account for material causation I'll be interested. It might be that they could explain it to me; because so far you've failed to manage this.

I would prefer if you just addressed the argument that I provided and show me which line item in my argument was in error. I don't see the importance of getting other people to agree. Sad to say, but the state of the human mind is that they are not generally influenced by logical argument. I think that I am convinced by logical argument, but I have to be stumped in my reply.

But let's say for the sake of argument that I come around to accepting a need for a mind to satisfy the relations, an OI to interpret the laws etc. What about the subject of this debate -- where do I hook-up to the assumption that everything has been put together primarily for us?

Well, I certainly don't think everything is for us, although I suppose that it is possible that it might be. However, I think it is clear that there is much more complexity available for the universe if intelligent life evolves. As an example, just in the last ten or so years, the technology on earth has roughly doubled. If such trends were to continue, then conceivably a billion years could see humans scattered throughout the galaxy and constituting a vast majority of the complexity in the galaxy. In fact, it's conceivable that whole cyber worlds could be constructed by humans in the not too distant future. It would seem to me that this reasonable expectation cannot be overlooked by an Omniscient Interpreter that is intent on information generation (e.g., adding theorems to the long list of known truths).

If not just for us - then why all the comings and goings of Christianity that you are so wedded to? Did a saviour show up for each species?

I think the savior is an instantiation of the mind of the Logos in human form. So, as Krishna said:

He who sees me in everything and everything in me, to him I am never lost; nor he is lost to me (B.Gita 6:30)

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me (B.Gita 10:8 )

Everything is born of me. I am the original source of all. No one is above me. (B.Gita 12:6,7)

This Logos keeps reaching out to human beings. It never stops. The more we can comprehend, the more it keeps trying to communicate with us. It does so all over the planet through different names and religions, but it is humans that try and interpret the meaning of this contact, so it requires interpretation. These interpretations eventually evolve and consolidate themselves over time, and then gradually a super-religion develops. The Logos leads this evolutionary process according to God's will, and over time humans reach an evolutionary plateau which is what God intends for human beings. I see no reason why it must stop with humans, though. It could be happening over and over all over the universe, and as we join the united federation of planets (to use a Star Trek term), the process of unification continues.

Why given that we agree evolution is the minimum path to life do we then go on to assume that there is a backup strategy for when this inevitably fails each and every living thing? I want to know where this powerful compulsion comes from if it is not simply form the most obvious alternative explanation -- a deeply held wish that we never let go of our existence.

Well, we should assume consistency on the part of the Omniscient Interpreter (OI). This OI would be theorem building from the very logical beginning (i.e., at the root of a causality principle in force in the world), and this theorem building would become an enormous structure that contains a great deal of information about truth. Our universe would be consistent with this approach. Start off simple, with some small set of axioms (which are caused by some other theorem(universe) preceding ours), and then our universe would naturally derive under God's supervision based on the rules that are set-up (in our case: natural evolutionary rules). Once the end of time has been reached (e.g., infinite-expansion such that causality or laws breakdown in some kind of singularity), the proof (judgement) of the theorem (universe) would begin. After each object is judged to be a proof of some principle, those objects would be saved in a context that shows the proof. So, with an afterlife, the proof might be that love is superior to hate, or that faith is a valid concept, etc., and the objects that exemplify these truths, would find themselves in the comfortable setting that exemplifies the rewards of love, or exemplifies the rewards of faith, etc.. This would be heaven, and it would be timeless and eternal.