A Reminder

[Lord J Esq]

This point I make is a very subtle one, but profound. The belief in anything beyond this life, diminishes one's immersion into this life. Such a belief is a coping mechanism against loss, suffering, and mortality, but it is extraordinarily costly, for it wounds people's ability to appreciate this world and our own short time in it.

That much is straightforward. Agree with it or not, you probably understand the idea. Or at least you think you do. The word "appreciate" is given here in two senses; these being the sense of "value" and the sense of "understanding"; you must comprehend this in order to fathom what I am trying to say. The incredible subtlety--the part that I have found few people to truly recognize--is that all things, both real and conceived, are fundamentally less significant to a person who is overcome with the illusion of eternity. Even the illusion itself is a flimsier form of what it could be if it were not actually believed. As it is, one who resorts by belief to contrasting this world with whatever they believe lies beyond it, is inherently less capable of valuing and understanding the universe laid before them. That is what I call a cosmic irony.

On a related note, it strikes me as so intellectually cheap that people think they can pick what they want to believe, as if their preference makes any difference at all as to the truth. You can pick your favorite color. You can't pick the way the cosmos operates. Something which continually surprises and amuses me is that most people are far more egotistical than I am, because they are so incredibly unaware of their egotism in nearly all matters.

Magus was right. Nothing can live forever. Everything about us that is a part of our identity, exists in the human brain. When that brain stops, the wonders inside stop as surely as do the wonders in the other organs. All that we are, depends on our brains. There is no immortal soul to preserve this information, and no divine and everlasting entity to know us as we know ourselves. These are the dreams of an imaginative but vulnerable species that has not yet come to terms with the realities of this universe. There are no secret brain waves outside the detection of any mortal instrument. There are no second chances once a brain rots. Our brains, and by extension our whole bodies, are everything to us. They are the vessels of our dreams and the creators of our civilization. There is nothing supernatural or magical about our brains or our bodies. Wondrous though they are, they are absolutely mundane, and knowable. Human nature itself is just as mundane. All meaning, value, and significance, comes from us, ourselves.

That's why I've always been against the indiscriminate use of healing potions and spells in storytelling; these very ideas cheapen what it means to be alive, as surely as visions of eternity do. But at least with storytelling nobody is making any cosmic claims; the offense is purely artistic. When it comes to religion, and spirituality, the offense of ignoring our true nature in favor of some eternal dream is philosophical. It offends in a way that is difficult to describe, not provoking anger or malice, but a sense of wrongness, pity, and disappointment.

If somebody needs to believe in an afterlife to soothe their existence in this life, I can sympathize. But many of us choose these illusions unknowingly and without need, because we are too lazy or too frightened to put our brains to a stronger use. I loved it when ZeaLitY posted those two particular pictures; they're absolutely spot-on here. You'll never realize, let alone achieve, your full potential...if you're not willing to distinguish between desire and truth.

[Uboa]

We're all just protons, neutrons, electrons

[Ramsus]

Depends on what you consider the self -- the actual physical material or simply the processes and patterns that come about due to their interactions.

[FaustWolf]

J and others, I'm curious -- do you feel life would be cheapened if made eternal through scientific means? It seems to me that eternal life could broaden our horizons infinitely; there's not enough time to explore every culture, experience every natural wonder, and fulfill every creative dream over the course of a single lifespan. If we didn't want more time in this world, we wouldn't have modern medical technology and life saving procedures.

Maybe I'm just drunk on what Uboa calls the "ingrained desire to overcome nature;" I am also interested in the potential of artificial wombs after all. But if the history of scientific advancement has shown us anything, it's that terrific things will one day come to pass if we can just keep from annihilating one another.

[Uboa]

Depends on what you consider the self -- the actual physical material or simply the processes and patterns that come about due to their interactions.

Well, the whole of life consists of layers upon layers of interaction.  Truly turtles all the way down, if you're familiar with that metaphor.

[Lord J Esq]

J and others, I'm curious -- do you feel life would be cheapened if made eternal through scientific means?

There are three things I want to say in response to that.

First, there is no such thing as "eternity," unless you're talking about a big null sign. Unless the laws of thermodynamics are inaccurate and the universe possesses the means to be rejuvenated from within, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the lifespan of the universe as infinite. Even protons and neutrons themselves are not eternal. Medicine, diet, and engineering may well extend the human lifespan, or reconfigure the human condition so that life is naturally longer. I fully expect those things to happen if our civilization does not collapse first. But it is sheer folly to think that extending our few decades on the Earth into the realm of centuries or even geological eons is in any way comparable to achieving immortality.

Second, life as we know it is defined in large part by its ephemeral quality. The human mind (in many though not all of us) has a hard enough time coping even with our current long lifespans. The experience of life is dynamic; as we go through our days, the passage of time affects our perceptions. What would happen to a human psyche exposed to hundreds of years of life? I am reminded at once of two kinds of people: those who waste their days because they feel they have all the time in the world, and those who are worn down by the passage of time and by their experiences. Both of these sizable groups of people would become the walking damned if human life were extended greatly beyond its currently-evolved capacity. This bit of conjecture is not me making an argument against the prolonging of life; rather, I offer it as a follow-up to my first point, which is to say that it is another disagreement with your conceptualization. Not only is eternity invalid as a realistic timescale, but the premise of attempting to approach indefinite if not infinite life is one that must be questioned, yet you present it uncritically.

Third, and here I will actually answer your question, now that I have aired my objections to the concept you have presented: No. The extension of life does not inherently cheapen it, because, unlike the illusions of eternity and immortality, what you're talking about is the actual extension of our ongoing experiences. Those are as tangible and accessible as our present real lives are; the objective timescale is only modestly relevant to the equation, specifically insofar as it affects our psychology.

Maybe I'm just drunk on what Uboa calls the "ingrained desire to overcome nature"...

I'm with you on that, one hundred percent, but there is a clear and significant difference between surpassing our animal nature and redefining the laws of physics.

[ZaichikArky]

J and others, I'm curious -- do you feel life would be cheapened if made eternal through scientific means? It seems to me that eternal life could broaden our horizons infinitely; there's not enough time to explore every culture, experience every natural wonder, and fulfill every creative dream over the course of a single lifespan. If we didn't want more time in this world, we wouldn't have modern medical technology and life saving procedures.

Maybe I'm just drunk on what Uboa calls the "ingrained desire to overcome nature;" I am also interested in the potential of artificial wombs after all. But if the history of scientific advancement has shown us anything, it's that terrific things will one day come to pass if we can just keep from annihilating one another.

Interesting question. I'm really into it. I wonder if some day in the future it will be possible. In the only Ben Bova book I read, Venus, everyone has eternal life except for one character- a professor. For some reason, he wasn't into the whole eternal life thing. I don't remember if there was a reason or not for that. In the end of the book, he ended up dying. The main character seemed to really respect him, even though aging kind of disturbed him because he'd never really seen old people before.

Yeah, I don't think that eternal life is anywhere in our near future. Right now, I think the good thing to do is to try to extend life as best as we can. We can do this by investing things such as cancer-fighting and heart disease research. But if we want to extend life, we also have to do something about population growth. Actually curbing population growth is more important.

[GenesisOne]

1. When it comes to religion/spirituality, what do you believe, if anything?
I am a believing, practicing Christian.  I’ve seen such for as long as I can remember.  This does not make me any less tolerant, any less understanding, or any less capable of deductive reasoning as to how I came to this position.  From the evidence I found, the data supports my worldview of a divine being who exists beyond the bounds of this universe.

2. How did you come to believe it?
This was the result of me wanting to find some evidence of God’s existence, and what do you know?  I found it.  I am now adamantly working to do away with the stereotypes, myths, and misconceptions about Christians that do such a persistent job at being perpetuated.  I’d be happy to answer any questions any one here may have.

3. Do your parents (or did they when alive) believe the same?
Yes, they do.

[Thought]

1. When it comes to religion/spirituality, what do you believe, if anything?

What do I believe? Ask me again in a year and chances are the specifics will be different. My “faith” is constantly evolving, as it were. While I am Christian, I am not the same sort of Christian that I was when I was 18 (which is starting to be a disturbingly long time in the past). A great many concepts that are generally seen as being important to Christian belief (as these often separate one sect from another) are probably totally uninteresting to the general public, so I won’t go into those (do many people even know the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation?). Therefore let me be broad. My general stance can best be described with the following common saying:

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

For what I consider essential, that is nicely summed up in the Nicene Creed. However, I also tend to believe that an essential quality of Christian belief is a dedication to truth and a rejection of any non-essential belief that becomes a hindrance to belief in others. This means that I have an interesting position in religious debates as I am about as likely to attack “religious” stances as I might be to defend others, depending on how the debate goes. Additionally, while I generally accept the Christian belief that Jesus is the only means of salvation, I also reject the notion that only those exposed to one of the gospels (or in general someone who has heard the name “Jesus”) will make it to heaven. Likewise, I reject the reward/punishment nature of heaven and hell as traditionally portrayed.

To elaborate a little bit on non-essential beliefs that become a hindrance to belief in others, this includes the idea of God as a universal busy-body/helicopter parent, God as a vending machine (insert prayer, receive desired outcome), or God as a cudgel (political or otherwise).

Perhaps curiously to some atheists, I also have no problems accepting evolution, I admit the universe doesn’t need a god/God, I acknowledge that theism is not a perfectly logical or reasonable stance, and I do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible (or any text, for that matter). Yet at the same time I generally value logic and reason very highly, and attempt to conform my various thoughts and arguments to such parameters.

But you now know what essentials I believe in. Non-essentials is a much more varied field, comprised of an eclectic collection of random bits of wanderings, philosophy, science, etc that I have come across. As I can’t paint a picture of those with broad strokes, or at least not better than I already have, I’ll refrain for now from further discussion in that topic.

I am, however, rather hypocritical in that I generally have an instinctual dislike of “spiritualism” and neo-paganism (the Asatru in particular).

2. How did you come to believe it?

A combination of being born into a Christian family and my own research/thinking. I grew up in a Baptist church (note, just Baptist, not Southern Baptist), yet I definitely was an Arian heretic for awhile, rejecting both the trinity and the homoousios nature of Christ. As I investigated the matter further, I came to be agnostic on that particular stance, leaning towards trinitarianism but generally not finding this essential enough to be worthy of schism. Likewise, I used to be a young-earther creationist, yet my own investigations into the matter changed my stance first to being an old-earther, then eventually to being an evolutionist.

Part of my reason for continuing belief in the divine is the result of my studies in academia. History is a messy, twisted field, requiring a great deal of due diligence and awareness to navigate its waters successfully. Study of history has provided me with two tools that have been most instrumental in my intellectual and religious development. Foremost, it taught me about logical fallacies. Seriously, it is amazing that these things aren’t a required part of everyone’s education. I’m not as familiar with them as I’d like, I certainly fall into their use at times myself, and I’m not as skilled at identifying them as I’d like to be, but this knowledge has been terribly useful. Secondly, History has provided me with valuable perspective. Anachronism abounds in debate about religion, but with a historical background I am better able to identify these trends and evaluate them properly. I thus find the dread with which some view particular aspects of religion to be almost comical in their unimportance or in the held misunderstanding.

As I mentioned before, my faith is always evolving. My support of homosexual rights (including same-sex marriage), for example, if a fairly recent development, resulting primarily from religious considerations. Likewise, the argument that essentially kicked me off the fence in regards to abortion (and subsequently made me “pro-choice”) came from G.K. Chesterton in the form of a book of his that I read… oh, probably about a year ago now. Before that I was undecided with pro-life leanings (oddly enough, most my reasoning is still the same, just with a slight additional that totally changes those I’d be grouped with).

A lot of change has resulted, actually, from the tension of growing up religious. I’m a cautious, conservative fellow. I am quite happy to “move forward,” but I tend to be very sure that forward is a good direction to head and that where I am isn’t actually the better place to be. Which means that even as I was rejecting parts of religion, I investigated enough to find parts to keep.

3. Do your parents (or did they when alive) believe the same?

On some levels, yes. However, there is a very real possibility that if they knew the fullness of my particular beliefs, then they’d think I am no longer Christian. I know my brother-in-law questions my religion.

4. Do you believe in an afterlife? And if so, what is it like?

Aye, I do believe in an afterlife. Far from being comforting, it is a bit terrifying. I find it much nicer to think our bodies just rot in the ground (or our ashes float on the swami river, or the vultures consume our flesh and poop it out, depending on one’s chosen means of eternal repose). Maybe I’ve just read too much science fiction/fantasy where eternal life is depicted as being full of despair. But then, who is to say that the afterlife will be government by linear time?

As for what it will be like. The best description I have heard of “hell” is mentioned in C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce (if he said it or if he quoted someone, I can’t say). Specifically, “the gates of hell are locked from the inside.”

Heaven, on the other hand… that is a bit harder to describe. I just got back from taking my dog to the vet with my wife. My dog chipped a tooth and it has to come out. However, just being there with my wife made the entire situation so much better. I suspect heaven might be something like that; it couldn’t matter less what everything else about it is like, as long as the big G is there.

And of course, the particularly insightful individual might notice that my depiction of hell is essentially the great ostracization from the community while heaven is the great embracement of community. How very much like a fundamentally-social-animal for humans to conceive of heaven and hell in those terms.

I do sometimes get a nice warm and fuzzy feeling while worshipping in my own way, but the most likely explanation is that it's the result of my own mind/body interaction aroused by the idea of doing something spiritual.

True, but just because there is a neurological explanation for an experience doesn't mean that experience isn't real. There is a neurological explanation for why food tastes good, but that doesn't mean that the food doesn't really taste good, or that the food itself isn't real. Doesn't mean it is real, either, of course.

You cannot judge a religion based on sick practices.

To note, this is particularly true of most neo-pagan religions, as they tend to lack any unifying doctrines or traditions. A wiccan in Texas could very well share absolutely no beliefs with a Wiccan in Wales.

I mean...you don't remember a time before you were born, right?

No, but that seems to be a bit non-sequitur. I also don't remember anything from when I was one year old, or all the dreams I had last night. Yet, logically, I know that I was around and experiencing things. There seems to be little to distinguish being dead and having a bad memory.

I'm not sure whether my father is atheist. I don't think he believes in god(s), but I recalled he claimed that he saw a ghost when he was a small child. I think that is what is called "fake memory", like many of us has.

Interesting. If he claimed to have seen President Kennedy (notably, prior to Kennedy’s assassination), would you suppose that it was a “fake memory”?

I find it very curious that we readily accept things that we find believable without much consideration but, when the same quality of evidence is presented for things we find unbelievable, we reject it. Now I’m not saying your father did really see a ghost; I just find it interesting that on this particular topic you choose to doubt him.

This point I make is a very subtle one, but profound. The belief in anything beyond this life, diminishes one's immersion into this life.

Quite true. I believe that there is more to life than my day job, and so I certainly don’t throw myself into my day job as I might if that was the whole of my existence. If this is a good or bad thing, however, is a different issue.

Now you go on to note that belief in eternal life (specifically, life after death, as it seems like you are discarding the possibility of artificially extending one’s “earthly” life indefinitely) fundamentally and undesirably taints one’s current perceptions of the world. Now I am curious; let us suppose for a moment that I did not now nor ever believed in the afterlife. However, I do like to perceive the world “as it should be” in order to guide my own conceptions of how things currently are and how I might best attempt to bring about that utopia. It would seem that this process is very similar to what you are describing, and so under your hypothesis would I still be “inherently less capable of valuing and understanding the universe laid before” me?

If I am understanding you correctly, it would seem that since I do not claim that this imaginary utopia is a real thing or place, it is fine. However, because I “believe” in it, I would be working in the real world to best fit those perceptions, just as someone who did believe in the afterlife would regarding that, so it would still seem to fall into your general diagnosis.

Nothing can live forever.

Why? If consciousness is nothing more than random firings of the brain, it should be transferable between mediums, yes? And if the multiverse is real and travel between universes is possible (two admittedly large but plausible states of existence), then a single consciousness could continue to jump between universes in order to avoid heat death/ a big crunch. And if the multiverse is the result of cyclical brane collisions, rather than one-shot collisions, such an individual should be able to live quite literally forever.

If such a being would choose to live forever is a different matter, but if we have the ability to transfer awareness between mediums, it should be a small thing to adjust one of those mediums to be quite happy with it.

[Sajainta]

I mean...you don't remember a time before you were born, right?

No, but that seems to be a bit non-sequitur. I also don't remember anything from when I was one year old, or all the dreams I had last night. Yet, logically, I know that I was around and experiencing things. There seems to be little to distinguish being dead and having a bad memory.

I wrote that as a potential defense against the "But aren't you scared of just not existing?", not really as an argument.

Perhaps curiously to some atheists, I also have no problems accepting evolution

What I don't think many people know is how recent the young-Earth movement is.  I mean...Ussher's chronology is only a few hundred years old, correct?

[Lord J Esq]

Study of history has provided me with two tools that have been most instrumental in my intellectual and religious development. Foremost, it taught me about logical fallacies. Seriously, it is amazing that these things aren’t a required part of everyone’s education. I’m not as familiar with them as I’d like, I certainly fall into their use at times myself, and I’m not as skilled at identifying them as I’d like to be, but this knowledge has been terribly useful.

Yes indeed. For what it's worth, it was a part of my mandatory education, in AP English, 11th grade. I still have the copy of every major logical fallacy that she gave us, with my handwritten notes covering the paper. The logical fallacies are absolutely critical to critical thought, and I'm with you that they should be mandatory. The fact that I learned them formally in an AP English class toward the end of my K-12 education is dispiriting. All students should have a mandatory logic class somewhere between 6th and 12th grade...perhaps two classes, a comprehensive survey at middle school level and a more rigorous compositional examination at high school level.

Logical fallacies are everywhere. I notice them all the time here and elsewhere. I try to avoid their unintentional use in my own writing, but I'm sure I fall short on occasion. Sometimes I "fall short" on purpose: The use of specific logical fallacies--namely the fallacious appeals--can be very persuasive, given how illogically most people tend to reason. Among the respectable, however, I take great pains to avoid fallacy, and I appreciate when the gesture is returned. Indeed, being able to identify and avoid logical fallacies is one of many criteria by which I develop respect for people in the first place. There's another thread floating around here, a leftover from years ago, back in the days when I still held out hope for sophisticated intellectual discourse on this site. Maybe with the current crop of Compendiumites we can get some more of that. I'd like that.

Nothing can live forever.

Why? If consciousness is nothing more than random firings of the brain, it should be transferable between mediums, yes? And if the multiverse is real and travel between universes is possible (two admittedly large but plausible states of existence), then a single consciousness could continue to jump between universes in order to avoid heat death/ a big crunch. And if the multiverse is the result of cyclical brane collisions, rather than one-shot collisions, such an individual should be able to live quite literally forever.

See, my problem with your reasoning here is that it isn't logical. =)

In science, even the most fervent desire does not ever make a premise true. The "multiverse" is a wild-eyed proposition; there is no data which provides for its existence. Further, on what grounds do you assume that, in a multiverse, there would be a permeable boundary between constituent universes?

This is an example of why I have such distaste for the common practice of bringing cosmology and quantum physics into ideological, or philosophical discussions. Science is immiscible with philosophy; the former is in the business of generating data; the latter is in the business of generating concepts. Science is about approaching the truth and philosophy is about building perspective. The two have far less overlap than people like to believe.

More to the point, however, not you, not I, and not anyone else here is qualified to invoke this highly theoretical and excruciatingly mathematical science, even to merely try and explain it, let alone to use it as support in a discussion of philosophy. That's disrespectful and anti-intellectual, if you would bear with my reasoning. I made a reference to this upthread, when I wrote about people who think they can pick the truth when it comes to the fundamental operation of the universe and the hypothetical existence of anything "outside" the universe. That's preposterous, and no less preposterous is using pseudo-science to justify dubious claims.

Nothing can live forever because the function of the universe precludes it. Now, maybe our understanding of the function of the universe, or of factors beyond the universe, is inaccurate in such a way that "nothing can live forever" is false. But, there is a similar statement that I could offer in lieu of "nothing can live forever," one which not you or anyone else can knock down: "We know of no way by which a thing can live forever." This phrasing leaves open the possibility that there is such a way and that we simply aren't aware of it. Yet, in science, one of the hardest concepts for people to understand and accept is that the open-ended phrasing by which scientists avoid statements of metaphysical certainty does not in itself make any implications about what might exist outside our current understanding. In the statement "We know of no way by which a thing can live forever," the intuitive conclusion to draw from the statement is "There is an unknown way by which a thing can live forever," but the cold truth of the matter is that such a conclusion is unsupportable, because there is absolutely no data to support it.

No data, no deal.

[FaustWolf]

Unless the laws of thermodynamics are inaccurate and the universe possesses the means to be rejuvenated from within, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the lifespan of the universe as infinite.

J, could you elaborate on this? I think it's the Heat Death of the Universe you're referring to, but I'm not sure, and I'm curious. Do you worry that supporting a linear model of the universe's lifespan (as opposed to an infinite cyclic model) risks encouraging a singular Big Bang's potential theological implications?  At least one atheist seems cornered into arguing for an infinite universe, so you deserve major kudos for not being swayed by a preconceived goal in your cosmological view.

True, but just because there is a neurological explanation for an experience doesn't mean that experience isn't real. There is a neurological explanation for why food tastes good, but that doesn't mean that the food doesn't really taste good, or that the food itself isn't real. Doesn't mean it is real, either, of course.

Agreed. It sounds a bit like I might have been devaluing what the experience of prayer means to the individual, but I didn't have that intention. I guess my curiosity is just tickled more by the neurological factors and mind/body processes underlying some religious experiences since I imagine they can be observed and studied with our crude implements, and perhaps put to some practical use. Taking the stigmata as an example: If a person's fervent belief in Jesus' imminent presence causes their palms to slit open and blood to spill out, something fantastic is happening regardless of the source, and if it's exploited it could represent an advancement in medical science. Assuming the person isn't just gouging him or herself, of course.

It sounds ludicrous on its face, but there were some tests done on a few children experiencing Marian apparitions back in the 30s, weren't there? With needles poked into their eyes and stuff, and they didn't flinch? I'm trying to find a Youtube video of this; I remember seeing a documentary. While that's a crude way of testing, if true, it suggests massive production of natural painkillers due to the powerful subjective experience these children were going through. When I think of these things, I get so wrapped up in the natural mechanisms involved for some reason.

If consciousness is nothing more than random firings of the brain, it should be transferable between mediums, yes? And if the multiverse is real and travel between universes is possible (two admittedly large but plausible states of existence), then a single consciousness could continue to jump between universes in order to avoid heat death/ a big crunch. And if the multiverse is the result of cyclical brane collisions, rather than one-shot collisions, such an individual should be able to live quite literally forever.

If such a being would choose to live forever is a different matter, but if we have the ability to transfer awareness between mediums, it should be a small thing to adjust one of those mediums to be quite happy with it.

Do we necessarily need cross dimensional travel, or would linear time travel suffice? I was thinking you'd just hop into H.G. Wells' time machine and hit the rewind button to escape the heat death of the universe, the big crunch, or whatever else is in store. Either that, or you could fast forward to a time after the big crunch and the associated Re-Big Bang has occurred.

From the evidence I found, the data supports my worldview of a divine being who exists beyond the bounds of this universe.

Genesis, I'm curious about this. Would you mind elaborating a bit?

EDIT: Can't find video evidence of the pin pricks I claimed about the Marian apparition earlier; I'm pretty sure the episode I had in mind was in Garabandal, Spain, in 1965. I can only find video evidence of doctors testing for their response to lighting, which is of course a far less dramatic demonstration of mind/body interaction. The video quality is so poor it's really impossible to objectively tell what the reaction is; one would have to rely completely on written medical testimony.

[Uboa]

See, my problem with your reasoning here is that it isn't logical. =)

In science, even the most fervent desire does not ever make a premise true. The "multiverse" is a wild-eyed proposition; there is no data which provides for its existence. Further, on what grounds do you assume that, in a multiverse, there would be a permeable boundary between constituent universes?

This is an example of why I have such distaste for the common practice of bringing cosmology and quantum physics into ideological, or philosophical discussions. Science is immiscible with philosophy; the former is in the business of generating data; the latter is in the business of generating concepts. Science is about approaching the truth and philosophy is about building perspective. The two have far less overlap than people like to believe.

More to the point, however, not you, not I, and not anyone else here is qualified to invoke this highly theoretical and excruciatingly mathematical science, even to merely try and explain it, let alone to use it as support in a discussion of philosophy. That's disrespectful and anti-intellectual, if you would bear with my reasoning. I made a reference to this upthread, when I wrote about people who think they can pick the truth when it comes to the fundamental operation of the universe and the hypothetical existence of anything "outside" the universe. That's preposterous, and no less preposterous is using pseudo-science to justify dubious claims.

Nothing can live forever because the function of the universe precludes it.

J, I agree that tossing quantum-mechanical arguments around in philosophical debates or discussions about the possibility of the afterlife, or eternal life, usually amounts to nothing productive and typically lacks respect for the rigor of investigation into quantum phenomena.

However, your distaste for such bandying about of scientific theories makes me wonder about your insight into the problems of dark energy and the as-of-yet unexplained increasing rate of universal expansion.  You use the "function of the universe" to support your repeated assertions that nothing can live forever, yet even astrophysicists today are agnostic as to the actual function of the universe.  This is far from a cut-and-dried matter.

Additionally, while I generally accept the Christian belief that Jesus is the only means of salvation, I also reject the notion that only those exposed to one of the gospels (or in general someone who has heard the name “Jesus”) will make it to heaven.

Admittedly I am little surprised that you believe Jesus is the only means to salvation, in some form or another.  Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

[Lord J Esq]

However, your distaste for such bandying about of scientific theories makes me wonder about your insight into the problems of dark energy and the as-of-yet unexplained increasing rate of universal expansion.  You use the "function of the universe" to support your repeated assertions that nothing can live forever, yet even astrophysicists today are agnostic as to the actual function of the universe.  This is far from a cut-and-dried matter.

Ultimately, you're right. It's very hard to make statements as to the nature of the universe with absolute certainty. However, science has no such taboo on high confidence. Just as surely as it is poor form to bring highfalutin pseudo-science into a discussion to support claims as to the universe's nature, so too is is good form to understand and embrace and work with the considerable data and tested theory that we do possess. I must concede the point that I used "function of the universe" too cavalierly for scientific scruple, but we very much indeed have a considerable ability to verifiably explain the behavior of many observable phenomena in our world and out there among the stars. In this instance I was speaking of the entropy effect, the progression of energy in a closed system to be less available to perform work, which is a well understood and easily understandable physical trend that is measurable and predictable. For anything to live forever, the entropy effect (and specifically the second law of thermodynamics) would have to be inaccurate or false. That's certainly possible, but possibility by itself does not equal actuality.

It pains me to have to point out to the gallery that we must be wary of the most complex and theoretical areas of sciences, because I am one of those who likes for science to be accessible to everyone, and for everyone to care about science and to use science in their deliberations. Thankfully, most of us have at least a basic understanding of simple science. Thermodynamics is a comapratively maturer branch of physics than cosmology, and, at the risk of being dismissed as a fool by history, it is pretty clear to me that nothing can live forever, because the universe doesn't provide for eternal rejuvenation. Eventually all the stars will burn out; all elements are approaching iron through fission or fusion; the galaxies are moving apart as the universe's expansion accelerates, permanently separating vast quantities of matter and energy (so long as the unknown agency of the universe's expansion remains in effect); matter itself finally breaks down to the subatomic level. Ultimately there will simply be nothing left: Everything will be a dark mess at near-absolute-zero temperatures and utterly untransformable by any known process. Life on this planet has thrived for as long as it has because it is an open system, provided with continuous energy from the sun. Some of that energy is absorbed on the dayside and released on the nightside. Some of it gets caught up in the biological web of life on Earth and fuels life processes. Without the sun, the party's over.

There are many processes in the universe besides nuclear fusion through which energy can be transferred (thus enabling, for instance, life), but all of these processes are dependent upon "fuel" of some variety or another. In stars, that fuel is the light elements from hydrogen to iron. Above iron, fusion consumes energy rather than releases it. (And the reverse is true for fission, which is why fission reactors require heavy elements and fusion reactors require light ones.) The output of a star process requires an abundance of light elements to persist, but the process itself uses up the universe's supply! Light elements can be replenished by the breakdown of heavy elements, it's true, but eventually all the elements that can break down, will, due to radioactive decay, and what then? As it goes with stars, so it goes with every other energy transfer process that we know about. Eventually, all the fuel will run out. There is no phenomenon out there that we know about, no process, that contradicts the curve of entropy. So what happens in the end? Everything fades out. Everything points to the conclusion that, unless there is some huge X quantity out there that goes against what is observable, this universe may well continue to exist forever, but will be unable to support activity beyond a finite period.

Those who want to assert that we can live in some form forever, need to explain how that would work, and they need to do so in a credible way. The burden of proof is on them to describe what set of processes would be necessary, without resorting to pseudo-scientific mysticism and wishful thinking such as "the multiverse." You know that old canard about easy money?

1. Put kittens together in a room.
2. Add ninjas.
3. ???
4. PROFIT !!

Well, here we are. The live forever crowd has figured out Step 4 just fine, but what about Steps 1, 2, and 3? Those are kind of important.

Far be it from me to knock anyone down when the unknown prevails, but in this case there're a lot of knowns that have to be accounted for in order to theorize eternal life in any form. It might be a more productive conversation for people to ask how we can live forever, and develop a workable answer...OR DIE TRYING!!

J, could you elaborate on this? I think it's the Heat Death of the Universe you're referring to, but I'm not sure, and I'm curious. Do you worry that supporting a linear model of the universe's lifespan (as opposed to an infinite cyclic model) risks encouraging a singular Big Bang's potential theological implications?  At least one atheist seems cornered into arguing for an infinite universe, so you deserve major kudos for not being swayed by a preconceived goal in your cosmological view.

I'm not immediately aware of the specific "theological implication" to which you are referring. To the extent I understand the subject, I am under the impression that the cyclical model has been disproved by observation, leaving us with an undoubtedly expanding universe. Of course, here I am getting into cosmology when I'm not qualified to do so, but, to the best of my amateur understanding, I don't see why one Big Bang should in any way require the agency of a deity in a way that more than one Big Bang should not.

[Truthordeal]

So...gathering ninjas and kittens in a room is how you live forever?