Are we all really gonna die ?

[Cyrus]

Sklansky, George W Bush, Rove, Kerry, the White House cleaning lady, every soldier fighting in Iraq, every insurgent fighting in Iraq, the Russians, the Chinese, the good poker players, the bad poker players, the main players, the other players, the extras, the help, everybody is gonna die. In a hundred years there will be no one reading this still alive. Not even the memory he even existed maybe.

Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[IronDragon1]

http://zoloft-information.pisem.net/images/zoloftPic.gif

[spanshcastlemagc]

horrible maybe, unavoidable - definately

carpe diem

[amirite]

It happens.

[Prodigy54321]

I hear Christ is coming back before that happens /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MidGe]

Yes, we will all die. We will die in different circumstances though. Some will die in their sleep, that is they simply will not wake up. Some will die in terrifying , horrible and painful circumstances. Some will die with a sense of relief, perhaps in dignity thru euthanasia, having had enough of life. Some will be desperate to delay death by another instant. But at the end we will all be dead, then forgotten, and our lives will soon become totally inconsequential to humanity or even the universe.

"ave, munde, morituri te salutant"

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]That's why kids were invented.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]That's why kids were invented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean they were invented to make death a relief instead of something horrible? I thought that was wives.

[bunny]

I dont understand why this is horrible. Life is amazing for its own sake - it doesnt matter how long it lasts. (Or if anyone remembers it).

Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today /images/graemlins/tongue.gif So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Ask Ray Kurzweil (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549543/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/002-8347200-0344864?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today /images/graemlins/tongue.gif So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to prefer either model over the other a priori . However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness.

Since I have never read of any verifiable instances of anyone remembering "former lives", the "existence, non-existence, existence" (the "ENE") model doesnt gain much traction with me.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask Ray Kurzweil (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549543/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/002-8347200-0344864?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

[/ QUOTE ]Even the computer that Ray Kurzweil has uploaded himself onto will eventually run out of power as the universe decomposes into complete entropy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today /images/graemlins/tongue.gif So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to prefer either model over the other a priori . However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness.

Since I have never read of any verifiable instances of anyone remembering "former lives", the "existence, non-existence, existence" (the "ENE") model doesnt gain much traction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure that I agree with the following: "However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness."--because, what memory do you have of events that occurred around the first year of your life? Probably none whatsoever. Yet it was/is still you...so it seems to me that past memory is not necessarily required for continuity.

[PastorDavidDD]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky, George W Bush, Rove, Kerry, the White House cleaning lady, every soldier fighting in Iraq, every insurgent fighting in Iraq, the Russians, the Chinese, the good poker players, the bad poker players, the main players, the other players, the extras, the help, everybody is gonna die. In a hundred years there will be no one reading this still alive. Not even the memory he even existed maybe.

Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really believe that everyone living now, old enough to log on and read your post, will be dead in one hundred years? I don't! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[billygrippo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]That's why kids were invented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean they were invented to make death a relief instead of something horrible? I thought that was wives.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO!

[bisonbison]

Yes

[spoohunter]

Perhaps you read this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236) article.

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask Ray Kurzweil (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549543/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/002-8347200-0344864?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Ray. Future advancements in technology may make effective immortality possible in my lifetime. I believe that it is very likely everyone I know will die, but I don't think that it is absolutely inevitable. Immortality will be here eventually (assuming no nuclear war, asteroid strike, etc.), its just a question of when.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today /images/graemlins/tongue.gif So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to prefer either model over the other a priori . However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness.

Since I have never read of any verifiable instances of anyone remembering "former lives", the "existence, non-existence, existence" (the "ENE") model doesnt gain much traction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure that I agree with the following: "However, if one "consciousness or sense of self-awareness" is incapable of remembering the other, then I don't think the models are distinguishable. One existence is the reappearance of another only if there is continuity of self-awareness."--because, what memory do you have of events that occurred around the first year of your life? Probably none whatsoever. Yet it was/is still you...so it seems to me that past memory is not necessarily required for continuity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's still "you" but that doesn't mean anything without the memory of who "you" were. I realize I'm saying that as a baby you were not really "you" as you understand yourself. For all meaningul purposes, though, you weren't "you." So even if reincarnation exists, "you" will never live again, so it's inconsequential to anything meaninful in our existence.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we will all die. We will die in different circumstances though. Some will die in their sleep, that is they simply will not wake up. Some will die in terrifying , horrible and painful circumstances. Some will die with a sense of relief, perhaps in dignity thru euthanasia, having had enough of life. Some will be desperate to delay death by another instant. But at the end we will all be dead, then forgotten, and our lives will soon become totally inconsequential to humanity or even the universe.

"ave, munde, morituri te salutant"

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Mid, I can't let your subtle plug for euthanasia slip in there without response. I argue there is zero dignity in the act. My reasoning stems from the below, which is what the Catholic Church teaches:

[ QUOTE ]
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgement into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over-zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bigdaddydvo]

John Paul the Great's take on death is fantastic:

[ QUOTE ]
Christ Conquers the Evil of Death
by Pope John Paul II

It is the same when we deal with death. It is often awaited even as a liberation from the suffering of this life. At the same time, it is not possible to ignore the fact that it constitutes as it were a definitive summing-up of the destructive work both in the bodily organism and in the psyche. But death primarily involves the dissolution of the entire psychophysical personality of man. The soul survives and subsists separated from the body, while the body is subjected to gradual decomposition according to the words of the Lord God, pronounced after the sin committed by man at the beginning of his earthly history: "You are dust and to dust you shall return." Therefore, even if death is not a form of suffering in the temporal sense of the word, even if in a certain way it is beyond all forms of suffering, at the same time the evil which the human being experiences in death has a definitive and total character. By His salvific work, the only-begotten Son liberates man from sin and death. First of all He blots out from human history the dominion of sin, which took root under the influence of the evil spirit beginning with original sin, and then He gives man the possibility of living in sanctifying grace. In the wake of His victory over sin, He also takes away the dominion of death, by His resurrection beginning the process of the future resurrection of the body. Both are essential conditions of "eternal life," that is, of man's definitive happiness in union with God; this means, for the saved, that in the eschatological perspective suffering is totally blotted out.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From section 15. of John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris, 11 February 1984.

Electronic text (c) Copyright EWTN 1997. All rights reserved.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

[/ QUOTE ]Come on. I've heard stronger arguments by the freaks at the roulette table.

[MidGe]

Heya bigdaddydvo,

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Mid, I can't let your subtle plug for euthanasia slip in there without response. I argue there is zero dignity in the act. My reasoning stems from the below, which is what the Catholic Church teaches:

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept that as your and your church opinion without any difficulty. And I accept your right not to take the choice of voluntary euthanasia. What I do not accept is for you to try to take my right away away, and will fight for it.. My close ones know my views and the conditions under which this will happen and I am sure they will not stand in the way. We do speak about it every so often, to ensure that everyone is clear about my intentions. Where I live it is not quite legal. However there is information available on how to go about it in a dignified way. I have purchased the appropriate books, and euthanasia is planned for me altough it is not expected for a few years yet.

We are back to staying in our own lanes and respecting each other choices. I respect yours and wish you the best.

[TomBrooks]

Why is it horrible? You don't even know what happens to people that die, do you? You are sweating what is essentially a fantasy image of the future.

You are correct that everyone will die someday, but you have no idea what day that will be. It might be 100 years from now or it might be in the next few minutes. In the meantime, you are not enjoying your life as much as you could because you are worried about death. At least when it comes you won't be feeling that anxiety anymore.

Alternatively, you could experience the present and enjoy yourself right now. Good luck.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
George W Bush, Rove . . . everybody is gonna die. In a hundred years there will be no one reading this still alive. Not even the memory he even existed maybe.

Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not THAT horrible.

Yes, I know.
I expect a visit from the Secret Service any time now. It's a joke, people!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

[/ QUOTE ]Come on. I've heard stronger arguments by the freaks at the roulette table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing FOR something, Cyrus; rather, I'm pointing out that some of your presumptions just might be wrong, and I'm basing that on established precedent.

[bisonbison]

Guys, we all have the heat-death of the universe to look forward to.

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, we all have the heat-death of the universe to look forward to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a Big Bang created the universe, perhaps out of "nothing", why couldn't something similar create or re-create a universe after the heat-death? The fact that the universe exists now carries some weight--just as the fact that consciousness exists now carries some weight. A pattern of indefinite nothingness followed by relatively brief existence and consciousness, followed by eternal nothingness, does not appear a more likely pattern than a pattern of some sort of recurrence or a pattern of continuity albeit with transformations included. The latter too would seem to fit with the principle that energy cannot be lost, it can only be transformed.

[spanshcastlemagc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guys, we all have the heat-death of the universe to look forward to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a Big Bang created the universe, perhaps out of "nothing", why couldn't something similar create or re-create a universe after the heat-death? The fact that the universe exists now carries some weight--just as the fact that consciousness exists now carries some weight. A pattern of indefinite nothingness followed by relatively brief existence and consciousness, followed by eternal nothingness, does not appear a more likely pattern than a pattern of some sort of recurrence or a pattern of continuity albeit with transformations included. The latter too would seem to fit with the principle that energy cannot be lost, it can only be transformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps nothingness does not/has not ever existed.

[moorobot]

Haven't you seen futurama? People will exist as heads within a glass container, if they are infamous or famous to be worthy.

BTW-ted Williams is frozen right? Why hasn't Steinbrenner brought him back yet? His OPS is way higher than Matsui's, right Nate?

[cambraceres]

Steinbrenner isn't made of money! he can only pay so many players.....uhh........right?

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
George W Bush, Rove . . . everybody is gonna die. In a hundred years there will be no one reading this still alive. Not even the memory he even existed maybe.

Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not THAT horrible.

Yes, I know.
I expect a visit from the Secret Service any time now. It's a joke, people!

[/ QUOTE ]


For the people not familiar, the Secret Service takes all threats to persons in their care seriously. You don't joke about it. They will visit you.

If you're just remorseless at the idea of one of the people in their care dying, I don't think there's much they can do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guys, we all have the heat-death of the universe to look forward to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a Big Bang created the universe, perhaps out of "nothing", why couldn't something similar create or re-create a universe after the heat-death? The fact that the universe exists now carries some weight--just as the fact that consciousness exists now carries some weight. A pattern of indefinite nothingness followed by relatively brief existence and consciousness, followed by eternal nothingness, does not appear a more likely pattern than a pattern of some sort of recurrence or a pattern of continuity albeit with transformations included. The latter too would seem to fit with the principle that energy cannot be lost, it can only be transformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps nothingness does not/has not ever existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and that is sort of my point, with a different angle of looking at it.

[spanshcastlemagc]

I think it's quite plausable, with what we know it's almost pure speculation, but I think it's very possible.

[jman220]

Conscious beings, from their own perspective, cannot cease to exist.

See:

Quantum Suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide)

And

Quantum Immortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality)

I choose to believe these two theories because they mean that I cannot die.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky, George W Bush, Rove, Kerry, the White House cleaning lady, every soldier fighting in Iraq, every insurgent fighting in Iraq, the Russians, the Chinese, the good poker players, the bad poker players, the main players, the other players, the extras, the help, everybody is gonna die. In a hundred years there will be no one reading this still alive. Not even the memory he even existed maybe.

Isn't there something that can be done? This is too horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear the world's supply of deodorant is supposed to run out in 2087 according to current projections, so maybe it's a good beat after all.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today /images/graemlins/tongue.gif So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you know the universe came from nothing? no such precedent has been established. the only precendent that exists is that all causes have effects and all effects were caused.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus when you die you return to the state you were in before you were conceived. Is that no-state? Well it might be. Is it absolute nothingness? Well maybe. Yet YOU, a frisky little Cyrus, somehow popped out of that state of absolute nothingness or no-state or whatever it was, and eventually became the Cyrus of today /images/graemlins/tongue.gif So, here's the question for ya: if you can somehow emerge from non-existence once, what makes you think you can't do it again? Would a scenario of non-existence, brief existence, then non-existence forever after, make more sense than a scenario of non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence, existence, non-.......why should the first pattern make more sense than the second pattern? You did not exist and then you existed. If you (or your consciousness or sense of self-awareness, to look at it another way) can emerge from non-existence to existence once, why couldn't it happen again?

I'm not claiming that it WILL happen again, but look at the precedent established, and wonder and think. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you know the universe came from nothing? no such precedent has been established. the only precendent that exists is that all causes have effects and all effects were caused.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to claim that the universe (or your consciousness) came from nothing. I'm saying that if it did, then a precedent has been established, and that therefore worries about "nothingness forever" might be barking up the wrong tree.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
the only precendent that exists is that all causes have effects and all effects were caused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even that has been established.

[MidGe]

What has really been established is that you are a troll and that for a relatively copious poster you signal to noise ratio is one of the lowest on the forum.