What, no Monty Python jokes yet?
“You come from nothing, you go back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!”
To me, and stating it to leave open the possibility of reincarnation.
1 - Not being conceived but in existence, a part/aspect of God (which is alive), but has not taken up a life of its own yet. So part of the Whole.
2- Conceived but now yet born, time with God, but time converting to a individual as well.
3- Born, becomes a human and a resident of this planet, has roots on earth and it’s society.
4 - Alive as human, a member of humanity for the advancement of the soul and to be a aspect of God within humanity (some people go the other way, however God will turn this for the greater good in time)
5a - Leave the body, end of human existence, but the experience gained will go to advance the soul on it’s journey
5b - Go into death, mainly for those who chose to cling to worldly things, they will experience death - as is their right to do so, the soul will still exist, but things will not be so nice, till they decide to leave that death behind.
This. Non existence has no attributes or characteristics. It’s simply nothingness and can’t be qualified.
I’m going to assume that “not being born” means “was never conceived”.
I think the fundamental difference between the two would be that never having been born means that you had ZERO impact on the universe- you aren’t even ‘you’, you’re just a statistical outcome that didn’t happen.
Being dead means that in some way, you affected the universe- you interacted with your surroundings- you breathed, you took up space, you metabolized food, etc… So you’re forever more than just a statistical outcome that didn’t come to pass.
That’s not even getting into the idea that there are souls and that never having existed means that your soul was never created, etc…
And a world in which you are trapped in a room with hyenas for your entire existence, and are able to experience pain and fear, but cannot die.
But if you never know life can be anything but eternal imprisonment with bloodthirsty hyenas, you dont know you even have it all that bad. /glass half full
I don’t know yet.
Regards,
Shodan
Does this rule out coming back as a zombie or a vampire?
But surely, if you believe in this “all possible worlds” hypothesis, you must also grant that there is such a world in which you are aware that it is possible for people other than you to experience better things? Not only ‘a’ world, but infinitely many such worlds.
I would argue that this would make some impact on the universe under some conditions. If the woman felt the loss of the pregnancy, there is a difference that will ripple through. Is there something uniquely ‘you’ in that? Perhaps or not, but there appears to me to be a bond between mother and unborn child.
Absolutely. But how would the lone eternal human living in the universe of only aggressive hyenas ever come to such an awareness? How would they be aware that reality could possibly ever be anything different in any way that what they have experienced as the uniform totality of existemce? How would the concept of “other” have any meaning at all?
Sure, but where’s the fun in that?
Only for the religious. Undead atheists could return somewhere. That certainly would reduce the crowding if all religions were true in this universe.
That’s one prospect, you know. All religions (Scientologists excluded; they’ll be devoured by Cthulhu) are true, all with their own paths to their own afterlives (if included). As the saying goes, “It’s YOUR bible! They’re YOUR rules! YOU go to Hell!”
Another prospect: Existence is suffering, therefore life is Hell. Pre-life and after-life may or may not be extensions of Hell. If not, then life is punishment. If so, then yikes. An optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is so.
What is existence before and after existence? A dance in the sun, at best.
Well, in answering this question, the soul and its dispensation make all the difference in the world how one answers this question. However, since you insist on eliminating that for consideration, the easy answer is, no, it makes no difference.
Same thing assuming you cease to exist at death.
These would be the hyenas from the lion kind, of course. Are you saying that a believer in the “all possible worlds” hypothesis would reject the hypothesis that talking/sentient hyenas, who are nevertheless vicious, would be impossible, but everything else in the incredibly contrived scenario wouldn’t be?
To the hyenas, it’s hilarious! Can’t you hear them laughing?
BT
On a dead serious level, reverting to my genuine skepticism towards the “all possible worlds” hypothesis, I would say the difference between not being born and being dead is that a dead person has been empirically demonstrated to have been capable of being born. A hypothetical person who has not been born has not been empirically demonstrated to have been capable of being born. Thus we can say that the dead person’s existence was at some non-zero (however negligible) period of time possible, whereas we cannot say the same for the unborn at this time.
But why make that assumption? Wouldn’t you be open to a lot more possibilities if you were, well, open to more possibilities?
But I see the OP made that assumption, too:
If there were any chance of post-existence then it’s much more fascinating. And a shit-ton more “potentiality for life”.
It sounds a bit like “Tell me about the lands across the sea (we’ll assume the world ends at the horizon)”.
I’d love to hear people’s conjectures about life before and after death, whether religious or not… if the OP would consider it.
You’re making the rather overt error of assuming that all these scenarios are possible. For example I have personally come to the conclusion that ‘have existed forever in the past’ is an incoherent concept and that nothing with that property can ever exist. If you don’t have a specific age at any given time, then you’re not real. The closest you can get would be to have been born (or otherwise come into existence) at the dawn of time.
Is there any difference between not being born and being dead?
That is the question, isn’t it?
To be, or not to be?
Frank Capra answered this question in 1946, It’s a Wonderful Life.