Does an afterlife "currently" exist?

[shellytrokan]

My latest data on reality is that the point is power possessing itself; the source wants to be able to use itself, yet needs to experience reality in order to achieve that state, otherwise all the source is left with is the problem of difference fighting with the state of being both applier and appliance.
Would you agree with that premise: that reality is the means to the sources’ ability to use itself, and that because of this perfection is perhaps reality itself being the intent, just not relative to the source?

Well we could say that shape automatically confers utility. So perhaps it doesn’t require the ‘need’ as it just is the said occurrence happening. ‘power’ is what?
[/quote]
Could you just elaborate on that a bit, about shape allowing use? Shape allowing use implies division between the two: shape therefore is not use, but is it the user?
Power could be anything; I just mean the conundrum of the duplication of power, and its resolution. How can power have reason and yet be separate from reason?

[shellytrokan]

@Arcturus Descending

@shellytrokan

If the afterlife is true, is it a powerful thought that its existence is this very moment? You could be watching a sports game, or walking to some routine destination - or you could be in a queue at a train station, or perhaps reading a book.

I think that a more powerful thought would be in realizing that there is no afterlife (if that be true).

If shellytrokan believes in an afterlife, in what way does that influence his/her life NOW to make that knowledge more powerful than the belief in no afterlife?

The afterlife being true changes everything, doesn’t it? The logical conclusion of the afterlife being true means its being true amidst a workshift, or during any supermarket visit, or during any war in history. Naturally this feels preposterous, but then is the idea of an afterlife in of itself meant to be preposterous, given that there’s no way the afterlife can be true without its having been true during any part of existence on any planet?

[Arcturus_Descending]

I’m not understanding what you mean by any of this.
Can you clarify it for me.

[shellytrokan]

@Arcturus Descending

I’m not understanding what you mean by any of this.
Can you clarify it for me.

The afterlife being real means its existing during a day in Rhyl (a seaside town in Wales), or a day in any city in the world; is this concurrence meant to be referenced, or meant to change reality - or, because the lack of reference is the inability to change reality, is the afterlife being linked to reference but not to change coherent?

Is the afterlife meant to be referenced?

[Ierrellus]

So we exist in eternity now?

[Ierrellus]

@jerkey

That’s just it,. In the afterlife, there is no mutual exclusivity.

How can one know that is true?

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

If there is an afterlife then either I am the final reincarnation or solipism is true.

[Arcturus_Descending]

shellytrokan

Is the afterlife meant to be referenced?

The problem here for me is basically your use of the phrase “meant to be”.
What you seem to be saying - and I may be wrong because I don’t know how you express yourself - is that because there is human life, there has to also be an afterlife.

A lawyer during a criminal trial may reference or refer to or cite other cases which resemble his/her case in order to make a strong argument. But that is usually based on facts and reason.

I’m not so sure that the afterlife is necessarily “meant to be” referenced. But one may ask: Does it “make sense” to reference the after life? That would only depend on a person’s beliefs. There was a time that I believed in God and I also kind of intuited that there might just be reincarnation based on what I saw in nature, its cycles and rhythms, how nothing seemed to be wasted, et cetera and also based on how we all deserve a second chance. lol

That’s all I have for you unfortunately. Others can probably enlighten you a whole lot better than I can.
You might want to ask yourself why for you is that question so important.

[shellytrokan]

@Arcturus Descending

shellytrokan

Is the afterlife meant to be referenced?

The problem here for me is basically your use of the phrase “meant to be”.
What you seem to be saying - and I may be wrong because I don’t know how you express yourself - is that because there is human life, there has to also be an afterlife.

A lawyer during a criminal trial may reference or refer to or cite other cases which resemble his/her case in order to make a strong argument. But that is usually based on facts and reason.

I’m not so sure that the afterlife is necessarily “meant to be” referenced. But one may ask: Does it “make sense” to reference the after life? That would only depend on a person’s beliefs. There was a time that I believed in God and I also kind of intuited that there might just be reincarnation based on what I saw in nature, its cycles and rhythms, how nothing seemed to be wasted, et cetera and also based on how we all deserve a second chance. lol

That’s all I have for you unfortunately. Others can probably enlighten you a whole lot better than I can.
You might want to ask yourself why for you is that question so important.

You hit the nail right on the head, when saying “Does it “make sense” to reference the after life?”: yes, I think that’s what I mean. if the afterlife is meant to be referenced because doing so is the practical means to making reality better, can it being the desire of God ever be logical?
Can God wanting the life forms of the universe to reference external-universe be logical?