The Logistics of Heaven

[Raziek]

Link to original post: [drupal=3231]The Logistics of Heaven[/drupal]



I will first preface this by saying I am an atheist. I do not believe it is possible for a god to exist, based on logical circumstances. That said, I am intrigued by the discussion revolving around them, and I'll be taking a course on mythic gods in third year. I intend for this post to be a thought provoking piece, not designed to offend anyone, nor push atheism or any religion on anyone who reads it.

(End Preface)

One of the concepts I see come up a lot with just about any religion is the promise of an afterlife that follows death. (I will use the term "heaven" to refer to this concept from this point on.) In most cases, this heaven is professed as being an original, specific place designed to cater to the every whim and comfort of the individual person experiencing it.

This is where I begin to run into logical issues. There are several concepts I intend to address here, including multiple instances of heaven, the capacity and extent of which people are included in your heaven, and multiple other things I'm sure I'll think of as I ramble.

Firstly, one issue I have stems from this: who is included in your heaven?

In a hypothetical situation, say I hate Bob Q. Everyman. Therefore, he is not included in my heaven. Therefore, when he dies, or even if he's already dead, if he goes to heaven (hell is another matter entirely), he can't possibly be included in MY heaven, because then it wouldn't by a heaven for me.

Immediately we run into a huge logical conflict. Multiple heavens, each specific to each individual who in habits it. If this is the case, then it could reasonably be assumed that those included in your heaven are tailored specifically to your wants and desires, and presumably you can change these things at any time simply by either knowingly or subconsciously willing it to happen.

But surely any "God" (using this term for a non-specific deity who governs your particular afterlife, and acquisition thereof) would not permit one to simply toy with the free consciousness of another being.

Ergo, by this logic, those included in your heaven cannot possibly be the actual consciousnesses of those you desire to inhabit it. Furthermore, if we can conceive that the heaven of each individual is tailored to their own whims, then if they have a physical presence in their heaven, it would be that which they most enjoy from their lifetime. This principle similarly extends to any who inhabit your heaven. Their appearance would be that which is most pleasing to you, which MAY VERY WELL not be what is most pleasing to them.

Once again, God couldn't possibly have someone suffering in your heaven, so there must be multiple offshoot heavens.

The issue I have HERE is this: if there are multiple heavens, we can safely dismiss the idea of split consciousness allowing one person to actively inhabit multiple heavens, because if they did, they would have to be restricted based on what fits that individual's heaven.

Restricting free will is something God has been professed not to do in heaven, so at the VERY least, those who inhabit your heaven are hollow, simulated shells of the person you want to interact with at any point in their state of being.

To add on to this concept, what is deemed as acceptable conduct in one's heaven? For some individuals, their concept of heaven may be repeatedly killing those who plagued their existence in life. Would God allow this perversion of "morals" we come to think about?

If not, then I think you could hardly call that a heaven for that person. It's entirely impossible to create a heaven that does not violate some of the moral codes we have set out for ourselves through religion, in this case: the classic "Thou Shalt not Kill."

On the topic of hollow shells: What happens if the person wants their heaven to have conflict? A world with no conflict would surely become torturous after a while. If we can presume we have an active consciousness, then evidently one would get "bored". You can then say, "But there's tons of things to do, and we could even conceive new things!"

But, human imagination has it's limitations and if we assume heaven is forever, eventually, we would have to run out of new things to conceive and do, leading to an eternal boredom, which would surely be hell indeed.

If heaven is not forever, avoiding the inevitability of boredom, at which point does your heaven end? And what, pray tell, happens then?

Reincarnation, doomed to relive the "hells" of mortal life once more, with no memories of what has happened? Surely such a structure would be cruel and unusual torture for those involved.

There cannot be anything BEYOND heaven, because heaven is perfect... so what does that say when we encounter the boredom inevitability? We can't say we'll never get bored, because that would be restricting free will. Some might ENJOY eternal boredom, making that their heaven.

I can't offer an explanation for what happens after death, and to think about the possibility of eternal nothingness is terrifying to me. I cannot possibly fathom what could happen to one's consciousness.

I will end on this closing point. This is not intended to dissuade anyone from their beliefs, it is merely a brain-stream of my thoughts on heaven from a logical standpoint. If you made it this far and read the whole thing, I thank you for taking the time to do so, and I hope it provokes some thought and discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Link to original post: [drupal=3231]The Logistics of Heaven[/drupal]

I will first preface this by saying I am an atheist. I do not believe it is possible for a god to exist, based on logical circumstances. That said, I am intrigued by the discussion revolving around them, and I'll be taking a course on mythic gods in third year. I intend for this post to be a thought provoking piece, not designed to offend anyone, nor push atheism or any religion on anyone who reads it.

(End Preface)

Fair enough. I just wanted to address your preface to let you know that I recognize this and that I don't want to attack you personally in any way. I hope that we'll continue to be civil toward each other. =D As my own disclaimer, I will be addressing the issue from the Christian viewpoint. I am Christian, so I know more about the Old and New Testament Bible than I do about the Koran for instance. I'm not saying everyone who follows must argue Atheism v. Christianity, especially considering that is not your intention.

One of the concepts I see come up a lot with just about any religion is the promise of an afterlife that follows death. (I will use the term "heaven" to refer to this concept from this point on.) In most cases, this heaven is professed as being an original, specific place designed to cater to the every whim and comfort of the individual person experiencing it.

This is where I begin to run into logical issues. There are several concepts I intend to address here, including multiple instances of heaven, the capacity and extent of which people are included in your heaven, and multiple other things I'm sure I'll think of as I ramble.

Ah. I see how you would find logical issues with this. It starts with your assumption that heaven is designed to cater to every comfort of every individual. I think most people tend to assume that because it is the easiest way to think of Heaven (and the most reassuring).

However, from the Christian viewpoint, Heaven is more of a state of being then a place, as is Hell. Heaven is where you are eternally in God's presence, whereas Hell is being an eternal absence from God. So it's not your personal party house, so to say.

Firstly, one issue I have stems from this: who is included in your heaven?

In a hypothetical situation, say I hate Bob Q. Everyman. Therefore, he is not included in my heaven. Therefore, when he dies, or even if he's already dead, if he goes to heaven (hell is another matter entirely), he can't possibly be included in MY heaven, because then it wouldn't by a heaven for me.

Immediately we run into a huge logical conflict. Multiple heavens, each specific to each individual who in habits it. If this is the case, then it could reasonably be assumed that those included in your heaven are tailored specifically to your wants and desires, and presumably you can change these things at any time simply by either knowingly or subconsciously willing it to happen.

But surely any "God" (using this term for a non-specific deity who governs your particular afterlife, and acquisition thereof) would not permit one to simply toy with the free consciousness of another being.

Right. Not much to say here considering I addressed your basic assumption. Only one Heaven and one Hell.

Ergo, by this logic, those included in your heaven cannot possibly be the actual consciousnesses of those you desire to inhabit it. Furthermore, if we can conceive that the heaven of each individual is tailored to their own whims, then if they have a physical presence in their heaven, it would be that which they most enjoy from their lifetime. This principle similarly extends to any who inhabit your heaven. Their appearance would be that which is most pleasing to you, which MAY VERY WELL not be what is most pleasing to them.

Once again, God couldn't possibly have someone suffering in your heaven, so there must be multiple offshoot heavens.

This is a good place to make a point about Heaven and Hell. God can't have anyone suffering in Heaven (or, if you want to say, in his presence), so those who have decided that they want to be with God go to Heaven because they will be at peace there and they would suffer at God's absence. Likewise, people who have decided they do not want to be in God's presence go to Hell because they would be suffering in God's presence.

The issue I have HERE is this: if there are multiple heavens, we can safely dismiss the idea of split consciousness allowing one person to actively inhabit multiple heavens, because if they did, they would have to be restricted based on what fits that individual's heaven.

Restricting free will is something God has been professed not to do in heaven, so at the VERY least, those who inhabit your heaven are hollow, simulated shells of the person you want to interact with at any point in their state of being.

To add on to this concept, what is deemed as acceptable conduct in one's heaven? For some individuals, their concept of heaven may be repeatedly killing those who plagued their existence in life. Would God allow this perversion of "morals" we come to think about?

If not, then I think you could hardly call that a heaven for that person. It's entirely impossible to create a heaven that does not violate some of the moral codes we have set out for ourselves through religion, in this case: the classic "Thou Shalt not Kill."

In Heaven you don't exactly get to do everything. Things like lust, lying, cheating, murdering, etc won't be in Heaven. They go against God's nature and simply can't happen in Heaven. However, those in Heaven don't exactly lose that part of their free will, because they chose to give it up before going to Heaven.

Again, it's not a personal heaven, which is the assumption you based your argument off of. Well, the Heaven of the God of the Bible (Jacob, Isaac, Abraham) is not a personal heaven anyway. Other beliefs may say differently.

On the topic of hollow shells: What happens if the person wants their heaven to have conflict? A world with no conflict would surely become torturous after a while. If we can presume we have an active consciousness, then evidently one would get "bored". You can then say, "But there's tons of things to do, and we could even conceive new things!"

But, human imagination has it's limitations and if we assume heaven is forever, eventually, we would have to run out of new things to conceive and do, leading to an eternal boredom, which would surely be hell indeed.

You're assuming here that we are exactly the same as we are when we were alive, which might be the case in Hell but is not the case in Heaven. In Heaven God cleanses you of sin (sin being disobedience to God) because that is what you wanted, so you wouldn't desire conflict in Heaven.

If heaven is not forever, avoiding the inevitability of boredom, at which point does your heaven end? And what, pray tell, happens then?

Reincarnation, doomed to relive the "hells" of mortal life once more, with no memories of what has happened? Surely such a structure would be cruel and unusual torture for those involved.

There cannot be anything BEYOND heaven, because heaven is perfect... so what does that say when we encounter the boredom inevitability? We can't say we'll never get bored, because that would be restricting free will. Some might ENJOY eternal boredom, making that their heaven.

I can't offer an explanation for what happens after death, and to think about the possibility of eternal nothingness is terrifying to me. I cannot possibly fathom what could happen to one's consciousness.

I will end on this closing point. This is not intended to dissuade anyone from their beliefs, it is merely a brain-stream of my thoughts on heaven from a logical standpoint. If you made it this far and read the whole thing, I thank you for taking the time to do so, and I hope it provokes some thought and discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

I enjoyed the read. It was a bit repetitive, but only because many of the points did not apply to my beliefs. You brought up good points. I'll keep checking in, at least until the thread gets derailed and screwed over.

 

[Sucumbio]

In most cases, this heaven is professed as being an original, specific place designed to cater to the every whim and comfort of the individual person experiencing it.

We should stop here for a moment actually, because people don't go to Heaven, Souls do, and this distinction is actually VERY important in following the rest of your logical standpoint, and in general discussions such as this. There is reportedly only ONE person in the history of people that ascended to Heaven AS A HUMAN, and that is the mother Mary.

who is included in your heaven?

Well for sake of my own argument I will assume we're talking the Christian concept of Heaven. Who is there, you say? All Souls that are granted entrance. Remember these aren't the people they once were, they are the disembodied pure-energy forms that used to inhabit their human shells while on earth. This concept is not explicitly detailed in the bible, this is imho.

In a hypothetical situation, say I hate Bob Q. Everyman. Therefore, he is not included in my heaven.

Your assumption here is that you'll still be capable of the Human Emotion "hate" while in soul-form. In fact your next several logical assumptions first assume existence in Heaven is anything like existence on Earth. Heaven is a concept, one that is so abstract that to dumb it down into a 3-dimensional "place" with "rules" of (human) conduct is going to lead to plenty of logical fallacies, you've barely scratched the surface, really. This would be why one normally does not consider Heaven in this fashion. It's a nice way to look at it when you're young, but as you get older you should begin to realize that Heaven isn't some puffy white clouded area with all your loved ones walking around. It's a state of existence, the likes of which you'll have literally no way of understanding on -any- level until you're actually there. Some would say this is reason enough to not even bother trying to understand it, and to simply accept that it's a good thing to look forward to, a reward for living a good life.

But, human imagination has it's limitations and if we assume heaven is forever, eventually, we would have to run out of new things to conceive and do, leading to an eternal boredom, which would surely be hell indeed.

Once again, human. Human. Heaven is not for humans, it's for souls. So... do souls get bored? Are souls even aware of the passage of time?? THAT's a key question, and in fact my guess is no, they are not.

Now based on what I've said so far, we are to believe that the mother Mary is in fact in human form, and in heaven. So technically she'd be the prime example of what your blog is referring to as anyone, she'd experience the passage of time, she'd feel emotions, etc etc. But she's the only one! So she won't ever have conflict, except with herself... and this conflict actually does manifest itself here on Earth in her various appearances now and again. Supposedly, I mean I've never seen it happen, I won't discount the possibility.

 

[Ganonsburg]

There is reportedly only ONE person in the history of people that ascended to Heaven AS A HUMAN, and that is the mother Mary.

If you're talking Biblical records, Mary is reported doing no such thing. Elijah and Jesus, however, do ascend to Heaven as a human as reported by the Bible.

 

[Raziek]

Fair enough. I just wanted to address your preface to let you know that I recognize this and that I don't want to attack you personally in any way. I hope that we'll continue to be civil toward each other. =D As my own disclaimer, I will be addressing the issue from the Christian viewpoint. I am Christian, so I know more about the Old and New Testament Bible than I do about the Koran for instance. I'm not saying everyone who follows must argue Atheism v. Christianity, especially considering that is not your intention.

Alright, good to get some differing viewpoints here. I'll do my best to address each point in a civil manner, though I apologize in advance if I come off as a bit scathing at times.

Ah. I see how you would find logical issues with this. It starts with your assumption that heaven is designed to cater to every comfort of every individual. I think most people tend to assume that because it is the easiest way to think of Heaven (and the most reassuring).

However, from the Christian viewpoint, Heaven is more of a state of being then a place, as is Hell. Heaven is where you are eternally in God's presence, whereas Hell is being an eternal absence from God. So it's not your personal party house, so to say.

This is a good place to make a point about Heaven and Hell. God can't have anyone suffering in Heaven (or, if you want to say, in his presence), so those who have decided that they want to be with God go to Heaven because they will be at peace there and they would suffer at God's absence. Likewise, people who have decided they do not want to be in God's presence go to Hell because they would be suffering in God's presence.

I guess I'll start here. I'll work with the Christian viewpoint that Heaven is a state, not a place. In this case, I would be inclined to ask what sensations and feelings one is capable of while in the Christian Heaven. Because this cannot be answered.... we would reach a standstill.

So then, if Heaven is the Eternal presence of God, and Hell is his absence, based on the stigma associated with heaven and hell, we can assume that the presence of God is a good thing. (Correct me if you feel differently) At this point I would ask, what happens to those who are caught in the middle, and cannot be sent to either Heaven or Hell, because they are drawn to both equally? This is hypothetical, so we'll assume this is exactly the middle.

Does the Christian belief account for purgatory? I can't say I'm too knowledgeable on ALL of the individual sects and beliefs, but my general impression is that there is belief in a purgatory, but that it is a place of suffering while one must WAIT to get into either Heaven or Hell. In that case, if it is the true middle, is it truly suffering? Would one remain in purgatory if they were caught in the middle indefinitely?

Since purgatory is eternal nothingness, as I understand it. (Kinda like a big, blank, white space of nothing), it is in effect, the same as hell, because God cannot be present in Eternal nothingness.

Another issue I have is the concept of being at peace in Heaven. The criteria you provided to determine whether someone goes to Heaven or Hell is whether or not they suffer in the presence of God. Is this criteria to assume a net view of things? I find it difficult to conceive of someone with no suffering or no pleasure in the presence of God.

If it IS a net view, how does it deal with people who lean slightly to one side or the other? If they receive some pleasure in Heaven, but some suffering (since they are not polarized), does this contradict the concept of heaven envisioned?

If this is the case, what happens to this person then? If God cannot allow suffering in his presence, does he remove the person, placing them in Hell (where they would suffer more), or do they go to a purgatory? (Which would also be suffering more)

If neither of these options are possible due to God not wanting us to suffer, and being unable to allow suffering in Heaven, does he restrict the free will and concepts of consciousness that cause suffering?

Many of the arguments I find always wind down to issues with the concept of free will. To me, existing without free will would be the purest sense of torture possible, and living with only enjoyment would become boring, and I have outlined in my OP. I believe conflict is necessary for interaction, be it spiritual, or physical.

In Heaven you don't exactly get to do everything. Things like lust, lying, cheating, murdering, etc won't be in Heaven. They go against God's nature and simply can't happen in Heaven. However, those in Heaven don't exactly lose that part of their free will, because they chose to give it up before going to Heaven.

Again, it's not a personal heaven, which is the assumption you based your argument off of. Well, the Heaven of the God of the Bible (Jacob, Isaac, Abraham) is not a personal heaven anyway. Other beliefs may say differently.

I run into the same problem here, where placing restrictions on free will would ultimately pervert or destroy the concept of contentment intended in the idea of Heaven. My above paragraphs cover most of what I want to say here.

You're assuming here that we are exactly the same as we are when we were alive, which might be the case in Hell but is not the case in Heaven. In Heaven God cleanses you of sin (sin being disobedience to God) because that is what you wanted, so you wouldn't desire conflict in Heaven.

Another subjectivity issue. Is all conflict sin? Surely a simple disagreement with someone else (or their consciousness) in Heaven is not a sin.

If we exist solely with God, and no other people (or their consciousness, this is now implied), does this contradict the vision of heaven? Seems eternal isolation with God is logically impossible, if that is what Heaven is.... and since you specifically stated that there is One heaven and one hell, that means we must share it with the others who inhabit it. How does God divide his attention?

If it is merely his presence that is Heaven, there must be something else to do in Heaven as well. (At this point, I'm picturing a bunch of people sitting (or hovering, or existing in a non-physical form if you prefer) watching God's existence (be it physical or spiritual) doing nothing.) Seems to me there has to be something to do, or we get into the boredom is torture thing again, unless boredom is a sin, in which case we're restricting free will.

I'm interested to hear your elaborations on your personal beliefs, as it helps me understand each individual picture better.

 

[Raziek]

We should stop here for a moment actually, because people don't go to Heaven, Souls do, and this distinction is actually VERY important in following the rest of your logical standpoint, and in general discussions such as this. There is reportedly only ONE person in the history of people that ascended to Heaven AS A HUMAN, and that is the mother Mary.

Might I add that this is your personal belief. I feel that if there is a Heaven, I imagine it be be one such where we would retain some physical form by which we can communicate which each other, especially through physical contact. I'd also be interested in where you are coming with the idea that people DON'T go to heaven as people. How would you know, exactly? Maybe they do.

Well for sake of my own argument I will assume we're talking the Christian concept of Heaven. Who is there, you say? All Souls that are granted entrance. Remember these aren't the people they once were, they are the disembodied pure-energy forms that used to inhabit their human shells while on earth. This concept is not explicitly detailed in the bible, this is imho.

Ok, so this is your personal belief. It doesn't disprove any of my points from the logical standpoint by which I make my case. If you're going to play ball, you've gotta follow park rules. In this case, I'll play by your rules, but I do expect the same respect in return.

Your assumption here is that you'll still be capable of the Human Emotion "hate" while in soul-form. In fact your next several logical assumptions first assume existence in Heaven is anything like existence on Earth. Heaven is a concept, one that is so abstract that to dumb it down into a 3-dimensional "place" with "rules" of (human) conduct is going to lead to plenty of logical fallacies, you've barely scratched the surface, really. This would be why one normally does not consider Heaven in this fashion. It's a nice way to look at it when you're young, but as you get older you should begin to realize that Heaven isn't some puffy white clouded area with all your loved ones walking around. It's a state of existence, the likes of which you'll have literally no way of understanding on -any- level until you're actually there. Some would say this is reason enough to not even bother trying to understand it, and to simply accept that it's a good thing to look forward to, a reward for living a good life.

Call me an *** if you want, but this paragraph is basically a cop out. I know we can't fully understand it. I can, however, attempt to do so.

You also assume that you have to live a "good" life in order to get into heaven. Many religions believe this isn't always the case, and good is a matter of subjectivity. However, since you argued that this is the Christian viewpoint you'd like to examine, we'll allow this.

Once again, human. Human. Heaven is not for humans, it's for souls. So... do souls get bored? Are souls even aware of the passage of time?? THAT's a key question, and in fact my guess is no, they are not.

Now based on what I've said so far, we are to believe that the mother Mary is in fact in human form, and in heaven. So technically she'd be the prime example of what your blog is referring to as anyone, she'd experience the passage of time, she'd feel emotions, etc etc. But she's the only one! So she won't ever have conflict, except with herself... and this conflict actually does manifest itself here on Earth in her various appearances now and again. Supposedly, I mean I've never seen it happen, I won't discount the possibility.

So souls exist without emotion or awareness? Then that's hardly an afterlife anyone should desire. I can't see any reason why you would ever want to exist without either of those.

As for Mother Mary, I believe you've already been contradicted on this point, so conflict is still valid. On top of that, my boredom point still stands if we have consciousness.

As for manifesting on Earth..... I think that's quite a bit of a stretch, but at least you admitted that you've never seen it.

I think my biggest issue with the "soul-form" idea is that it completely strips the physical experience out of things. If I cannot hug my loved ones in heaven, it is not heaven. The physical experience is crucial in my eyes.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

I'm sure once in hevan you wouldn't harbor any deep-seated resentment for "Bob Q. Everyman"

 

[Sucumbio]

If you're talking Biblical records, Mary is reported doing no such thing. Elijah and Jesus, however, do ascend to Heaven as a human as reported by the Bible.

"The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her." -source

To be fair I'd forgotten about Elijah so you're right there, and technically speaking "assumption" is far more accurate than "ascension." My point still stands, however that there are extremely few that retain physical human form.

Might I add that this is your personal belief. I feel that if there is a Heaven, I imagine it be be one such where we would retain some physical form by which we can communicate which each other, especially through physical contact.

This part isn't actually just a belief, I was trying to stress the importance of the word "person" when used in context to afterlife. When someone dies, they cease being a person in the strictest sense of the word. A person is alive, in other words. I know it's just semantics but I find that first understanding this distinction yields better results further on down the line when one starts asking questions like "well how can such n such happen.."

I'd also be interested in where you are coming with the idea that people DON'T go to heaven as people. How would you know, exactly? Maybe they do.

Well after attending several funerals, wakes, and witnessing death first hand, I can tell you at none of those instances did the corpse vanish before my eyes, float into the skies, or do anything other than just lie there, dead. Now if YOU'RE suggesting that there's some split-second faster-than-the-eye-can-see transference, or maybe a duplicate copy or something just shows up in Heaven, cool... but I didn't think that's what you were suggesting so that's why I again stressed the importance on -people-. For me anyway, I mean it's true there are those who may think that when you die you go to heaven -as the person you were- and there are in fact 2 of you now, one a corpse and one chillin' in heaven, but I find this to be unlikely. People need air to breath, water to drink, food to eat, they age, etc etc. With this, if you then assume any of those things aren't true for inhabitants of heaven (like, you're a person but you don't have to eat cause you never get hungry), is the moment you can no longer classify them as people, but as person-like. And I have nothing to suggest unfortunately in regards to a heaven populated by people-like beings, it's just not what I believe, though I would not discount the possibility.

Ok, so this is your personal belief. It doesn't disprove any of my points from the logical standpoint by which I make my case.

You are correct, it does not disprove your points, nor was I trying to. It precludes your points. See your original point was "who will be in -my- heaven" ... and then the problems associated with multi-heavens and the conflicts arising from several people trying to wish for different things simultaneously... I'm not at all disagreeing with your logic, as I said you actually barely scratched the surface, with all that you've pointed out there's a lot more problems that exist when considering heaven as you do. My point was to first step back and not consider heaven in this fashion.

Call me an *** if you want, but this paragraph is basically a cop out. I know we can't fully understand it. I can, however, attempt to do so.

Not the whole paragraph, just the last bit. But that's your prerogative of course, if you choose to try to understand something. But the first part was the important part, really. The part where I illustrate the importance of considering heaven and earth as totally different. Different to the point that concepts such as "hate" don't necessarily exist in heaven. Your examples in other words requires one to assume too much. Rather than this, I prefer making no assumptions about heaven, but one: that it is beyond our comprehension.

So souls exist without emotion or awareness? Then that's hardly an afterlife anyone should desire. I can't see any reason why you would ever want to exist without either of those.

You can't see any reason why a person would ever want to exist without either of those. A soul ... who knows what it's like to be all soul, lol There's no way to know until you are that way. Being all soul ... pure energy, I'm sure it's magnificent, I'm also sure it's nothing like what it's like to be the happiest human on earth.

my boredom point still stands if we have consciousness.

No doubt, if we were to exist as humans in heaven we'd not only go stark raving mad with boredom (eventually) we'd run into all kinds of other problems. Many of which you've outlined. But again this is why I go back to the original thesis. To be in heaven, is not to be human. And to not be human, is to not necessarily be capable of things that humans are (though technically I have no proof otherwise, so we could still exist as souls only and have human-like traits also, I just personally find that unlikely).

I think my biggest issue with the "soul-form" idea is that it completely strips the physical experience out of things. If I cannot hug my loved ones in heaven, it is not heaven. The physical experience is crucial in my eyes.

Yes, it's quite depressing to think about, actually. Death is so ... final. And if heaven is NOT some place where you can continue to exist in a meaningful way (e.g. meaningful in human terms) then what's the point? To leave a legacy that will turn to dust 10,000 years later? Such questions have plagued thinkers and scholars for eons... they still do! It's a highly personal question, really. For me, there's adventure to be had. The last great adventure. Death. Wow... I mean really, you can "do it all" here on Earth, or even hop rocks on the Moon, dive deep into the sea, but you can still do it and come back to tell about it. But death? Nope... once you die, you're dead. You can no longer directly effect the living world. Only through memory and reaction can the shadow of effect be gauged. So what is death? Is it -only- the absence of life? Or is it a gateway into a new realm of existence? The answer to that question lies in wait for me, one of these days. But I neither fear the answer, nor assign it any expectation. I will not be disappointed if I simply blink into nothingness. Or maybe it's highly scientific, all about energy and magnetic impulse and whatnot.Maybe I go back to Gaia. Whatever it is to be, will be. I have no expectations, and I do not question the logic of its existence, this thing called after-life. It is after all, inevitable that we die, and so it is inevitable that there should be something after the moment of our death, including the possibility of nothingness.

 

[Insetick]

Logic and religion don't mix, yo

I'm pro-faith, however. I think it's much better for someone to have faith than to live in doubt and confusion over issues like morality and what happens after death.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I think it's much better for someone to have faith than to live in doubt and confusion over issues like morality and what happens after death.

It's better to pretend you know all the answers than to admit you don't?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I believe that heaven doesn't have "logistics." It's up for interpretation by anyone who does (or does not) believe in it. There's no set way that it "works." If someone wants to believe that it's full of unicorns and dancing otters then more power to 'em.

 

[Raziek]

I'll address Sucumbio's response tomorrow when I have more time, but I can get to the other three quickly.

Vrael, I completely agree with that. I have no issues with other people choosing to believe what they want to believe. As part of a more broader response, including to Sucumbio, I did mention this was a brain-stream, so to speak. Obviously I cannot consider every concept of heaven that we would come up with.

My original post was more like me arguing with myself about the flaws in what I would perceive MY heaven to be, which is why I ended on the note that I did.

Pyle, I would have to agree with you that it is certainly better to admit you don't have the answers.

Insetick, I would agree that faith is a good thing for many. Everyone struggles with a fear of death, those who don't, are liars. Faith is a way for people to find comfort in an explanation for things they do not understand, that are not possible to understand.

Anyway, I'll get to the rest of your post tomorrow, Sucumbio.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Again, we have a debate over Religion and people's beliefs. *facedesk*

Heaven is a metaphysical realm of perfection, in the eyes of many in mostly Monotheistic Religions, however there are others that believe as well.

As it has never been reported by anyone, considering they have Paradise eternal up there, I find it difficult to believe that there should be any aspect of true logic surrounding it.

inb4tl;drpostabouthowIamwrong

 

[Raziek]

You're not wrong, but that doesn't invalidate discussing the topic. =/

 

[Levitas]

Let my preface this post by saying that I only read the OP, and therefore my comments will only pertain to it. Also, I would appreciate it if this post is only interpreted as a logical matter of course, as my beliefs are mine to share, or in this case, not share.

I noticed three major points that I will address:

1. Multiple heavens are necessary due to heaven (and therefore who is in heaven) being an optimal environment for each of its denizens.

2. How one appears in heaven is optimal on a per person basis, and therefore opinions could vary on a per-person basis, causing a similar contradicion (person 1 cannot appear to be 20 and 30 at the same time)

3. conduct in heaven cannot be regulated, but therefore may contain vice

4. people get bored of the same thing, especially forever.

Unfortunately for your argument, you neglected one very important point: the requirements to get into heaven. The issues that you present don't exist if you simply consider that those who are intolerant of other individuals worthy of heaven might be barred entry themselves. Or that if a person is superficial enough to require a specific individual to appear a certain way, they might be barred entry. Or that one who finds amusement in murder might not get in. Or one who is unsatisfied with heaven might not get in.

Really, Heaven cannot exist ONLY IF such a contradiction occurs if a person displays personality A and therefore cannot get in AND the same person could not get in if they were to not display that same personality A.

...assuming that logic holds (an assumption I rather like)

 

[Mewter]

Heaven, being a metaphysical paradise/state of being/whatever that happens after you die, shouldn't get boring.
Heck, it probably doesn't ever get boring, considering that it is Heaven, after all! It's not too much of a stretch.

That's just my thoughts, though.

 

[GOD!]

At OP, that was a very interesting read to say the least. Even though I believe in heaven, I guess I don't know the logistics of it after all.

Somehow I just see heaven as fulfillment of our souls. If we don't have physical bodies, we won't have physical needs. Soul needs such as companionship aren't satisfied well on earth at all: think about amazing relationships, kisses, marriage, and intimate times with people. Although they are great, they are so very temporal. If heaven is real and unchanging (cause it has to be perfect and therefore unchanging), then we will live in fulfillment if we are there.

That was just a response to the hugging comment I skimmed over. Just my opinion.

 

[Insetick]

It's better to pretend you know all the answers than to admit you don't?

It's not pretending to know everything since a religious person firmly believes it. Otherwise, I would say yes.

What do you know? If you've learned nihilism and existentialism, you end up thinking that there are no facts or truths at all. Now, compare the religious man who thinks he has answers to an existentialist that thinks there are no answers... faced with a moral dilemma like stealing, the religious man says "it's wrong" and moves on. The existentialist has no clue what he should because there is no right or wrong.

You tell me, who's happier in the end? The guy who dies thinking his life had meaning or the guy who thinks there is no meaning to his life? I'm not saying you have to be completely ignorant and religious to be happy; you just need to accept some things as true despite logic.

 

[Levitas]

WOAH easy there, Insetick. An existentialist, just as many other belief systems don't, doesn't deny morals. An existentialist by definition seeks to produce his/her own meaning in life, whatever that means. I don't recall seeking meaning having anything to do with a moral code or system.

As for nihilism, that's an entirely different beast. Usually nihilism is focused on one or several contained concepts, as it is impossible to hold a belief that beliefs cannot exist and maintain any form of coherence.

 

[Insetick]

Oh, I guess I don't understand existentialism very well.

My point still holds, I guess. On one hand, you can accept some things as true despite logic. On the other, you'll find that you really don't know anything, and that your own reason is questionable. No one really knows anything but we live on in a world of absurdity because we can create our own truths.

I believe most people would agree that accepting some things as true (things that shouldn't really bother us, like what happens after death) is easier than knowing your own ignorance of what is real and trying to create meaning.

 

[PassWurD]

Well for me "heaven" is just "outside my window".

When I take a look outside, and I see everything working together in conjunction. All the different kinds of animals that roam everywhere, all the different kinds of leaves tree's and plants produce, the sky as the clouds delicately flow across. Humans, we are so interesting in how different people do different things, and a smile from a human is like a beautiful picture mother nature painted for all of us to see.

To me, recognizing and cherishing what is right in front of me, and everything that is around me is more satisfying and brings me joy, rather than waiting until I die to be satisfied and "happy".