My Theory on why an afterlife exists.

aznman27

Newbie
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1
Gil
0
Well after much thought, i cam up with this little theory on why an afterlife exists but i want to see if it holds up. So i'm going to post it here and see if there are any major holes my mind didn't notice. Also, its rather difficult to explain in words so bear with me.

First, i will start off with a few points to build up my argument.

In a way, one can say we experience only what we remember, and are concious and percieve time for those moments. When we sleep and ahve dreams, we tend to forget all of that and time seems to skip forward, those 10-5 hours we slept we no longer percieve. So in a way, memory is perception of time.

So theoertically, what would happen if we wiped someones last 10 years from their mind? People with amnesia act as if it were still the 1990s, those ten years never happened, they never percieved them. It was in a way, all a blackness. One could liken it to a video recorder. If we delete parts, time will skip back and forwad and there will only be blanks at those moments.

Now i know that was confusing and strange but now here is the afterlife part. If we die, and turn into nothingness, then our memories would also turn into nothingness. That would be as if we erased the entire tape, we would move about and act, but we would not be concious, it would be as if we dreamed our entire life and we forgot, except there is no waking up. Life would be blank nothingess to our minds.

Now if we forget everything when we reach the eternal afterlife, then our lives would essentially start at that moment, our concious midns would be born when we die. But considering we are still concious and reading, that seems to not be the case.

So the only logically conclusion i can come up with is that our memories never truely fade, when we die, there is an afterlife we live in for all of eternity.

Is short without the drama,
Memory is perception of time and conciousness.
If there is no afterlife, then we go from nothing to nothing, there would be no memory so there would be no perception of time.
Therefore, our memories must be preserved in some way, probably through an afterlife.

Now theres debate whether an afterlife means god but i can't think beyond that at the moment.

Please criticize or help patch up holes.
 
Okay, let's examine your three propositions:

(1) Memory is perception of time and consciousness.
(2) If there is no afterlife, then we go from nothing to nothing, there would be no memory so there would be no perception of time.
(3) Therefore, our memories must be preserved in some way, probably through an afterlife.

Regarding proposition (1), there is plenty of debate in psychology as to what memory actually is. The classic model is one very much like the VHS tape analogy you have made: The idea is that the brain is a storage unit into which perceptions can pass and be retained. The other model is a behaviorist one: Memory isn't storage and retrieval in any material sense, but it is simply neural pathways that have been conditioned by experience to fire in similar directions in similar situations. Which theory of memory you subscribe to really doesn't have any direct consequences for your argument, but understanding each of the theories would prepare you to understand why the rest of your argument doesn't do the trick.

Regarding (2) and (3), it is somewhat hard for me to follow your thoughts, even with the aide of the extended version of the argument, so excuse me if I'm getting this wrong, but... I think that you are indulging in a hidden extra proposition (we might label it (4) ) that goes something like this: "It is inconceivable that we could ever cease perceiving time." I say that I think this proposition is there, because it is the only way that I can imagine that you have gotten from (2) to (3).

However, this is precisely what is at issue in the debate whether there is an afterlife: Is it conceivable that we could ever cease to perceive time? Or anything else? To say that it is not conceivable is basically to say that there is an afterlife -- that is, it the same as stating as an argument that you are trying to prove. The person who believes in no afterlife must necessarily think that it is possible to at least imagine what it is like to no longer exist, and he will not be impressed at all if you were to insist that it isn't imaginable.
 
Last edited:
Your argument has a hole because of your fallacy that time needs to be perceived in order for time to pass (it doesn't!). :)
 
Back
Top