But in an infinite amount of time, the survival of our species = 100% chances of being extinct.

So you can't fight for long time survival as a goal in itself.

As for the beauty of life, yeah I like the scenery but without an afterlife it means I'm experiencing it for no reason. So without an afterlife I wont remember my beautiful experiences.

So living life or not living life would both = 0.

Blink that was beautiful

Quote:


If you really believe the "only reason to survive is to find the mystery about the afterlife" then finding it would end that mystery and the reason to survive. 

I think you just made my point.

Taking it from there, "from that we will then be able to find other goals."  Yes, since the only mystery left had been solved, the only goal after that would be death, wouldn't it?

Quote:


Okay, I can accept that.  There remains an observation I must make about mysteries and roads that fits with the "just for you" part of that of that statement. 

Some of us need more road and road signs than others.  I live in the woods (literally, not figuratively), and prefer a trace of a trail.  That means, I don't need or ask for absolute proof - and that's an irrefutable fact. 

Perhaps that means I'm so immersed in my physical world that I have enough mystery in my life?  Perhaps it's my purpose to be so immersed.  If it weren't, why would I keep coming back for more?

Raphael said:
"If we found out about the after life, it means physical life would have a use."

This is an interesting statement to me.  Does a mountain have a use?  Do the stars have a use? Do we climb with no purpose?  There are so many ways to look at things....

It is good to have purpose, but it is also good to meander with no purpose in mind.

To meander with no purpose in mind MAY be humanity's destiny, and is that necessarily tragedy?  One outcome of our "purposeless" meanderings is our presence here on this forum.  Without it the chances are that none of us would have met.

To know is a worthy goal.  But to have passion, which you do, is what makes life truly worth living, in my opinion.  Useful or not

love, blink

I've been away for a day, but I'm delighted that my thread has sparked such a blizzard of reflection on basic questions of meaning.  Roger P., I first want to add the mundane point that in post 11 you correctly reworded my ambiguously worded point.  I made an assumption and asked what I regard as the most important question.  The assumption is this: our deceased loved ones would generally be desperate to reassure us of THEIR  wellbeing on the other side and of OUR glorious destiny.  Far from interfering with our quest, such paranormal encouragement would add a great incentive to pursue the awesome potential of spiritual development and insight.  I think Houdini's wife would have been thrilled and deeply inspired by contact from her deceased husband.  Instead, she was depressed by his failure to keep his promise.  Why did Willliam James keep his promise, but not Houdini?  If we could answer that question with certitude we'd achieve a true spriritual breakthrough.

It is important to recognize that astral exploration lacks widespread social approval and is therefore still more a cult than a science.  Methods of exploration like Hemi-Sync must be refined to facilitate greater OBE success and adepts, theologians, and philosophers must consult each other to devise better questions to pose to astral guides, questions that truly advance our knowledge of the afterlife and improve our capacity to explore it safely.  One of the best arguments against the afterlife is the infrequency with which astral guides offer ground-breaking insights that transcend the banal, the predictable, and the unverifiable.  None of the excuses I've heard for this failure are convincing.  But rather than act like martyrs, we must take the bull by the horns and elevate astral exploration as close as possible to the progressive capabilities of sciences like modern medicine.  This of course means a willingness to devise creative double-blind studies, to insist on independent replication of claims, and to finally acknowledge the importance of more and better academic conferences and debates on the key issues of astral exploration and survival.

We must also purge our minds of dogmatic assumptions that impede bracing but productive dialogue.   Let me give two examples.  (1) Bruce Moen apparently considers it a waste of time to debate other people's astral claims.  Bruce seems to assume that such debate never persuades anyone.  Of course, many people are close-minded.  But my experience has taught me just the opposite of Bruce's attitude.  It all depends on how one debates and the quality of the relationship between the interlocuters. 

(2) New Agers and Christians alike often unwittingly hamper each other's progress by assuming that it is in bad taste, even heretical, to ask disturbing or threatening questions.  For example, Christian clerics (but not lay people!) often get indignant when I ask questions like this in discussion groups: (a) How could loving Christians ever be content in Heaven, knowing that relatives, friends, and acquaintances were languishing in lower (perhaps hellish) planes?  Does PUL itself not require a quest to help everyone progress spiritually in the afterlife?   (b) How could a loving God ever permanently give up on anyone after one brief error-filled lifespan?

The problem is that most people are so protective of their current belief system.   So I never press anyone to worry about what they believe when I make the biblical case for soul retrievals and the truth that God's love never permanently abandons anyone after death.  I merely ask them to play with ideas by considering texts they've overlooked and reconsidering texts they may have misinterpreted.   I find that most people take great delight in playing  with exciting new ideas as long as they feel no external pressure to prematurely alter their belief system. 

What is really needed here are posts with titles like this: "Rules that Govern the Ideal Spiritual Quest."   I am currently asking myself what valuable rules are most often bypassed to the detriment of the honest seeker.   I may create such a post in the hope of prompting members to ask themselves what set of rules they might embrace.

Don   

Blink wrote:

" I disagree. We need absolute proof. Without proof it means the most probable explanation is that there is no afterlife. "

Why does proof have to be absolute? Think about this for a moment. Do we, individually, have absolute proof that humans have landed and walked on the moon? I know I don't. I wasn't there to see it and I possess none of the physical evidence. I haven't even seen those moon rocks, let alone had and tested them. Yet is it not reasonable to believe that this did occur and is not a Hollywierd production? We know that if we challenged the landings, proof would be forthcoming,. Otherwise we believe they occured largely because of our faith in the US Government, NASA, the scientists involved, the news media, et al.  Yet this faith is hardly absolute proof to us as individuals.

I don't think absulute proof is a reasonable critieria. Some things are reasonable to believe without an absolute standard of proof.

I suggest two other criteria:

Personal experience. If I see someone stab someone to death, I don't need proof of the murderer's action. I am an eyewitness. I am the proof from my own POV at a minimum. I don't have to believe because I actually saw it for myself. I don't believe; I know.

A preponderance of the evidence.  Ten witnesses saying essentially the same thing about the murder would be difficult to dismiss. It would be unreasonable to not believe them, although that is still belief and not knowledge because they saw it and I didn't.  I am still taking their word for it. But, again, it would be unreasonable not to believe them. Colloberate with physical evidence showing the same thing and you have proof beyond any doubt that is reasonable.  The line between believing and knowing here is so blurred that it is reasonable to say we know and not just believe.

We can't go through life expecting absolute proof for anything, really, because there is always room for at least a tiny bit of doubt, however unreasonable.

I think there is a preponderance of the evidence that there is an Afterlife and that this evidence is universal in both space (crossing physical and cultural/religious boundaries) and time (throughout history).  An Afterlife explorer has the additional personal experience that, with verification, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there is such a "place." 

I am tired, so if my points are flawed, please feel free to point them out.

Bob

Sorry, Blink.

Bob