Conquer Club

Well, I'm not looking to start another discussion about these two subjects, but which do you often wonder about/argue about more: the beginning (as in evolution vs creationism) or the end (possibility or absence of the afterlife)?

Bothish.

I wonder more about our destiny after death, since, well, like our beginning, there's no way to prove what happens, but death will have much more of an effect on me, y'know?

Hitman079 wrote:I wonder more about our destiny after death, since, well, like our beginning, there's no way to prove what happens, but death will have much more of an effect on me, y'know?

I work on the scale of imaginary time, so I'm not so worried about it.

We have some ideas on our origins already (evolution etc.) yet we have virtually no idea about what happens once we die other than that proposed by various religions, so i definatly think more about the afterlife.

Secretly i find them to be some of the most absurd questions to spend so much energy on. Sometimes i get a little sad when i think about how much has been spent in the course of human history to try and solve these puzzles so to speak.

god is the creator, the afterlife is a satanic myth.

got tonkaed wrote:Secretly i find them to be some of the most absurd questions to spend so much energy on. Sometimes i get a little sad when i think about how much has been spent in the course of human history to try and solve these puzzles so to speak.

But, sir, could it not be argued that the contemplation of these basic concepts are integral to the motivation for inspection of all other observable phenomena? Indeed, without the existence of these pre- and post-life circumstances, wouldn't that render the intermediate circumstances rather meaningless? At the very least, one would consider our origins of particular importance, since our final destination is so painfully obvious. And if we are reluctant to inquire into the frayed edges of existence, reason, and understanding, what right do we have to dive headlong into quests for the more superficially attainable comprehensions? Should we even bother, if our hearts are not fully in it? I would opine that to cower away (perhaps too strong a phrase, "mitigate our efforts," maybe?) from such endeavors would show an unwillingness, nay, an ineptness in our capabilities, to discover and enlighten.

Also, there are so many people who are wrong. Surely this, in itself, is reason to focus on the issue?

all I can say is:
we only know if there's afterlife or not after we die...
so I would argue about the beginning more...

Joodoo wrote:all I can say is:
we only know if there's afterlife or not after we die...
so I would argue about the beginning more...

Not necessarily. If there isn't one, we won't know.

got tonkaed wrote:Secretly i find them to be some of the most absurd questions to spend so much energy on. Sometimes i get a little sad when i think about how much has been spent in the course of human history to try and solve these puzzles so to speak.

The bizzare thing is how close you come to my thinking: I'm more concerned with day-to-day troubles of living in this world.

That, a living a life in said world that is true to Scripture and is pleasing to God, but that is for me part and parcel of the above task.

I could care less how old the earth is and I have far to much to do, both spiritually and materially, to worry about the afterlife (seeing as if I take care of what is on my plate now, what comes after is a positive consequence of that, "reaping what you sow" and all that).

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:Secretly i find them to be some of the most absurd questions to spend so much energy on. Sometimes i get a little sad when i think about how much has been spent in the course of human history to try and solve these puzzles so to speak.

But, sir, could it not be argued that the contemplation of these basic concepts are integral to the motivation for inspection of all other observable phenomena? Indeed, without the existence of these pre- and post-life circumstances, wouldn't that render the intermediate circumstances rather meaningless? At the very least, one would consider our origins of particular importance, since our final destination is so painfully obvious. And if we are reluctant to inquire into the frayed edges of existence, reason, and understanding, what right do we have to dive headlong into quests for the more superficially attainable comprehensions? Should we even bother, if our hearts are not fully in it? I would opine that to cower away (perhaps too strong a phrase, "mitigate our efforts," maybe?) from such endeavors would show an unwillingness, nay, an ineptness in our capabilities, to discover and enlighten.

Also, there are so many people who are wrong. Surely this, in itself, is reason to focus on the issue?

I have a hard time understanding why things that are already worth knowing would become less so if you couldnt trace the origins of existence which at this point are going to be so far removed from the immediate phenomona in question, that you have to do an extra bit of work just to bring it all back into focus.

I think our hearts are too often simply in the wrong place.

My vote is for origins. Mainly because I'm fascinated by the search itself and not really curious about the answer.

Afterlife isn't gonna happen...just by the way...

what's funny is as I'm reading this thread, "The Man Comes Around" is playing on my iTunes.

even funnier is that this song is about the end, and I chose Origins, because if you learn exactly where we came from, that probably will shed a lot of light on where we are going. Or at least eliminate some of the possibilities of where we are going.

also, I tend to have an OCD about doing everything in order and thinking chronologically, I'd have to think of the origins first.

got tonkaed wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:Secretly i find them to be some of the most absurd questions to spend so much energy on. Sometimes i get a little sad when i think about how much has been spent in the course of human history to try and solve these puzzles so to speak.

But, sir, could it not be argued that the contemplation of these basic concepts are integral to the motivation for inspection of all other observable phenomena? Indeed, without the existence of these pre- and post-life circumstances, wouldn't that render the intermediate circumstances rather meaningless? At the very least, one would consider our origins of particular importance, since our final destination is so painfully obvious. And if we are reluctant to inquire into the frayed edges of existence, reason, and understanding, what right do we have to dive headlong into quests for the more superficially attainable comprehensions? Should we even bother, if our hearts are not fully in it? I would opine that to cower away (perhaps too strong a phrase, "mitigate our efforts," maybe?) from such endeavors would show an unwillingness, nay, an ineptness in our capabilities, to discover and enlighten.

Also, there are so many people who are wrong. Surely this, in itself, is reason to focus on the issue?

I have a hard time understanding why things that are already worth knowing would become less so if you couldnt trace the origins of existence which at this point are going to be so far removed from the immediate phenomona in question, that you have to do an extra bit of work just to bring it all back into focus.

I think our hearts are too often simply in the wrong place.

I'm basically saying, if we aren't going to push ourselves all the way to the limit, what's the point?

it seems rather intellectually childish to assume that the limits are simply going as far as you can historically in one direction or the other (even with the best of methodology). If there is such thing as quality over quantity, it would seem there are many more human things of more immediate import that could be better barometers for what the limits of human understanding could be.

So you found out that the universe was created (in pick your answer here). Aside from being a very profound revelation that will likely have some impact on a variety of human social institutions, do we really think that would be the apex of human understanding? I should hope it is not.

Of course its all rather subjective.

got tonkaed wrote:it seems rather intellectually childish to assume that the limits are simply going as far as you can historically in one direction or the other (even with the best of methodology). If there is such thing as quality over quantity, it would seem there are many more human things of more immediate import that could be better barometers for what the limits of human understanding could be.

So you found out that the universe was created (in pick your answer here). Aside from being a very profound revelation that will likely have some impact on a variety of human social institutions, do we really think that would be the apex of human understanding? I should hope it is not.

Of course its all rather subjective.

Of course. Are the boundaries of our existence not limiting enough for you? I completely doubt that the solutions to the things of import you allude to are really localized that proximal to the limits of human effort. I sincerely feel that the greater representatives of us have come very close to divining out the necessary means of social justice, understanding, and love; the concepts have just not actualized themselves in the whole. And if that's the case, and we achieve a unified understanding of these concepts, should we stop at the limit you have set for us? There is much work to be done, but there is no reason it can't all be attacked with the same vigor. The sun is a practically boundless source of energy for us.

Origins for me, I've already considered the afterlife and decided on my opinion. Although I do agree with evolution it's still a very young theory, and is far from perfect. That and the idea that all life is in the end connected is fascinating.