How Come People Think When They Die They Go To Heaven?

Oh Gee, how did I ever initially suspect that you were critical of science?

First off, I'm not extremely well versed in Christianity but are there any written documents from Jesus himself? Are there even any people who were around Jesus who wrote when he was alive? From my understanding, most, if not all the Bible documents were composed after his death.


I'm not posting this video for most people here just looking to describe the topic but in response to your statement. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it's supported by many lines of evidence:

https://youtu.be/Q-aGAX27SIo

 

I know that JW like to add and subtract words and subject matter from what most everybody (but the JW) call the bible...however, in the KJV of the bible, heaven is mentioned 327 times in the Old Testament and 255 times in the New Testament. I say this because I am quite aware that you are JW.

I have also read the Apocrypha as well as "The Lost Books of the Bible and Great Rejected Texts"....both books most certainly mention heaven. I'm only mentioning them so you will know I do not come to this discussion unaware or ignorant of the subject matter. At any rate, I highly doubt JW have read or even acknowledge either of the books I just mentioned, even though these books are most certainly considered biblical in nature.

I am not about to go into the many reasons I believe what I do or don't believe, since I don't really care to entertain people...especially since I've discovered telling (exposing) my beliefs and reasons for such do just that.

That being said, I believe what I do because I've read the KJV and experienced many many things - what people around here like to call anecdotal evidence. I most certainly believe in heaven and that I will go there. According to the KJV bible, the 144,000 you mention are those that will be saved after and during the rapture and scripture indicates to me those 144,000 will come from God's chosen people, the Jews.

Having a belief in an afterlife (going to heaven) boils down to having faith, I believe, and that is something that nobody can talk you into nor "make" you believe. Either you feel it or not.

I do believe that people can change or amend their beliefs as their life progresses and they begin experiencing things science can't explain - but again, that is just something I believe or think.

 

Don't you find it silly that they call it a theory of everything when it obviously can't explain everything. How overblown. Maybe it's just the best they could come up with though.

 

A Theory of Everything implies that it'll account for every single particle in the universe.

 

That's all? That's not everything. To me when someone says a "theory of everything" I take it literally to mean everything. To me it implies that if you account for every particle you'll have accounted for everything. I think they ought to call it something else...I think the "Theory of Everything" moniker is pretty egoistic.

 

That is the idea.

 

Well it's obviously incorrect, but it seems that everyone absolutely insists on being an ignoramus. Not sure if I'm helping anymore or if there's some secret need to be obtuse that I don't understand and shouldn't mess with.

 

I just think it's so silly. Like there's going to be some equation that satisfactorily figures everything out and we won't be completely lost anymore. How are your equations going to explain what it feels like to be me? How can anyone truly know that but myself, and is this not also a thing that must be known in order to have a theory that truly encompasses "everything"?

What will knowing the location and measurements of every particle tell you about any particles' true essence? Will knowing we exist in 47 dimensions explain to us whether this whole shebang is abstract or perfectly mundane? How do you tell?

Maybe it's hard to face up to...doesn't bother me at all. No matter what we figure out...and I sincerely doubt there ever will be a "Theory of Everything" (if people insist on calling it that)...we will always be baffled. We will never be able to look out on the universe and say "I know what this place is. I know what it means."

You can't explain this place because first and foremost it is an experience. An experience can't be dwindled down to a sentence or an equation no matter how hard you try. You would never have any way of telling which was most primal.

 

^thats kind of both the beauty and horror of existence though, no matter how much we think we understand there will always be so much we havent discovered or won't ever discover due to the limitations of the human mind

 

Non est ad astra mollis e terra via.

 

Thanks. I was really wondering that, and I never think about religion. I used to read up on it when I was younger. But, now... I do not read anything religion.

 

they do have another term and even an acronym;
GUT
or Grand Unified Theory

 

I'm sure some found Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity silly during the early 20th century and within a century that has yieled us instant communication across the world in personal computers, satellites in space that provide us navigation in GPS and an exponential understanding of the cosmos.

Granted this knowledge has also suggested an unfathomable scope to the universe, both large and small.

I find it ironic that you claim theoretical physicists egoistic in one breath and then in the next go "What about me?". I don't think a Theory of Everything is attempting to explain consciousness or qualia (your individual response to stimuli). However by default of resolving the fundamental forces at the Subatomic and account for all particles, perhaps it'll launch such areas of inquiry.

 

by definition a "Theory of Everything" must account for consciousness otherwise it is doesn't account for everything.
which would bring us back to an old thread I started long ago; is consciousness an emergent property of the universe or is it other?

 

Consciousness would be in the "Everything" but I don't see why it would necessarily need to be explained as part of the "Theory of Everything".

Assuming String Theory were accurate, then there would likely be a specialized field such as the String Theory Model of Consciousness.

 

I much prefer this. Or call it a Theory of Particles or something. If people see headlines "Theory of Everything Confirmed" they're going to get all confused and uppity for no reason. It really would seem to me a ploy by the scientific community to have more authority than it actually does.

It isn't the science that I find silly. I am highly respectful of science and scientists, which is part of the reason why I don't want them getting big heads, which is disrespectful to themselves and everyone else. It would be totally awesome if they could prove particles exist in eleven different dimensions, especially if it could prove of some use in further exploring the universe. What I find silly is this idea that science is our new God, able to answer all of the questions we'll ever have. It just isn't true, and for very easy to explain reasons.

One of those reasons being the unfathomable scope of the universe. It is unfathomable. And without the context of what the universe is, there is no way of precisely knowing what any of the things within it are truly like, their true nature.

I don't find it egoistic to have some objective concern for myself. I'm sure that I exist...am I just supposed to ignore this and pretend like some guy with a degree in math knows or can know everything about me, like he's God because I don't want to hurt his feelings or what?

It simply is not possible to explain qualia. Qualia isn't anything I think about it or anyone else thinks about it. Or at least there would be no way to prove that it was.

And it won't technically resolve anything because, as always, we'll have to put faith in our brain's capacity to accurately understand things, including itself. For all we really know we're just some abstract bit of information floating in a void somewhere and all of this is just how said information computes and seems. There is literally no way we'll ever be able to tell without a doubt where we are or what we are.

With all respect to science. It is an elegant method for exploring the universe as best as we can. It's just silly to confuse the best we can with absolute perfection.

 

Here is the thing, I accept that you need to have faith in your science belief. For evolution of humans to be true, that we evolved from apes there needs to be a link. There are missing links. They do not know. The imaginary land bridge does not exist. So if we evolved from apes and there is no land bridge, where are all these ape bones in North America and why are there no Neanderthals in africa?

The problem is that you don't question the science that you do not understand, while I on the other hand check the studies and check out the evidence research the science behind it or if someone is just saying what they think.

You said people like me. What exactly do you think I am?,

As for Jesus writing scriptures, perhaps he did and they have not been found. I don't know.

There is scriptures found regarding jesus that mention him, which are dated to that time period. The gospel of barnabus and the gospiel of Mary and Thomas found in 1945 which are not in the bible. Barnabus was one of jesus decyples and his scriptures were found in turkey. Carbon dating is accurate on these.

Did you question if Mohammed was an actual man too?

How about your great grandfather?

Do you believe in the theory of everything?

Do you believe there was a land bridge?

Do you believe mankind began in Africa?

What do you believe in anything at all and why? What evidence?

 

Dude... just because there are still missing links doesn't change that evolution is more than just a hypothesis Anybody with a brain who will sincerely verify this will come to the same conclusion.

Are you trolling?

You think it is more likely Mohammed was a woman?

 

Please cite a source for the land bridge being imaginary.

 

Asmo, are you trolling or is bedlam trolling? Bedlam referring to "people like me " is derrogatory and I responded in kind. He was looking for a reaction to it, I gave it willingly and knowingly, Should not have bothered, but it seems to me you only comment when you want to have a little pissing contest and match words or looking for a reaction. Good luck with that. Are you a troll? Did I give you what you want? Hope not. But yeah, Mohammed might have been someone's bitch for all I know.

M, I am sure you are aware of this, but the hypothetical, imaginary land bridge is obsolete amoungst scientists and has been for a long time. it was replaced with the hypothetical continental drift and then only to be replaced with the plate tectonic hypothesis.