What are we going to do forever?

[_bcspace]

Have religious people really thought about whether anyone wants to live forever?

Yes.

Seriously, what will you be doing after the first thousand years, the first million, the first billion, the first googleplex?

I wonder if perhaps we keep going through stages of existence where we don't remember the previous ones but carry forward ingrained personalities, thought processes etc. Evidence for that would be us not remembering the premortal life. Evidence against would be us "having a bright recollection of all our guilt" at the judgement but that doesn't necessarily mean we don't forget later. Also evidence against could be eternal marriage unless we simply happen to know that we are supposed to be together. Perhaps our direct afterlife is still part of this stage of existence and we pass to another at some point in the far future and not remember this one.

[_keithb]

To DO something requires that it occurs at a fixed point in time. If there is no fixed point in time, then one cannot DO something an infinite number of times.

Do I have this wrong, Keith?

Mathematically speaking? Yes.

To do something infinitely many times does NOT require a fixed point in time since all scales of time are arbitrary anyway.

For example, imagine a pendulum oscillating an infinite number of times with frequency f. The time scale of the reference frame could be based on the oscillations of the pendulum.

It doesn't matter what the particular values of f is, the pendulum will still oscillate infinitely many times (assuming no friction or external forces). f is relative, but the number of oscillations is infinite, even if f is arbitrarily long or short.

[_Fence Sitter]

Maybe first we should decide what "eternity" or "eternal" means in Mormon theology. Is eternal life constrained by time?

When you ask the average LDS person what eternal glory or progression is the response usually seems to be some vague notion of happily every after without much thought as to what that means. Every time I hear that sort of descriptions I think of the Stepford Wives.

Also interesting is the enthusiasm with which we LDS make eternal promises and covenants with little or no understanding of what that time frame means. It is like asking a 2 year old to choose a spouse and expect him/her to understand what the decision entails.

[_Nightlion]

And yet, God exists in eternity.

I think hoops is responding to me! Ahem, well, in the eternity that God exits in he says of himself that he did this one day, and then did this another and so on until he rested from all his labors.

I bugs the living crap out of me how Mormons can be familiar with stuff that they fail to even slightly comprehend. But youse guys on the other side of the fence are just as bad.

You imagined the other day a conversation between the Holy Spirit and Jesus. And said too that you ofter do this sort of thing. Which of course you really did not mean as you were only leading into your thought with reckless abandon, but anyways, in your defined theology a conversation between the HG and Jesus, or even between Jesus and His Father is impossible. Other than talking to yourself.......right? Mormons are often just as dumb with their supposed superior understandings.

[_Some Schmo]

To do something infinitely many times does NOT require a fixed point in time since all scales of time are arbitrary anyway.

For example, imagine a pendulum oscillating an infinite number of times with frequency f. The time scale of the reference frame could be based on the oscillations of the pendulum.

It doesn't matter what the particular values of f is, the pendulum will still oscillate infinitely many times (assuming no friction or external forces). f is relative, but the number of oscillations is infinite, even if f is arbitrarily long or short.

Hey keith,

This is far more explanation than is required for Hoops' idiotic comment. All we need to is follow it to its absurd conclusions:

- God exists in eternity, but since you can't do anything distinct in eternity, I guess god never created the universe, or he's still doing it
- If you can't wrap activity in time because time is eternal, that means activities never begin or end, so you're either always doing something or never doing something, and it also means that everything you're actually doing is done simultaneously

This is one of those cases where a religious person, with no supporting explanation (not to mention a marked lack of common sense) makes what he thinks is a deep sounding statement. When people break it down and find it to be utter nonsense, the religious person claims, "Well obviously, you just don't understand." And that's true; we don't understand, but people with common sense won't attempt to understand nonsense because they value their sanity.

[_just me]

All I know is that when I was a child I would cry myself to sleep with the thought of living forever. Scared the crap out of me.

[_Hughes]

Have religious people really thought about whether anyone wants to live forever?

Seriously, what will you be doing after the first thousand years, the first million, the first billion, the first googleplex?

Having "Celestial Sex" with your wife might sound fun, until you've done it 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 days in a row (all in the missionary position), and then it might start getting boring.

Similarly, almost all activities would likely get boring if they were repeated infinitely many times.

For us boredom results in the same old same old, every day the same sort of thing... What will make direct interaction with God and his domain not boring?

His love/power/energy running through us.

Ever consider flying to anywhere in the Universe? Ever consider learning every minute detail of something your interested in learning? From History to physics? And not having to deal with Entropy and forgetting what you just learned.

Reconnecting with the creator of all will be anything but boring.

[_Hoops]

Well, I apologize for causing such a ruckus. No, I'm simply saying that for one to get bored with an activity, there must a "before" time - when that activity was excitedly anticipated - and a "after" time - when that activity had been completed and looked back upon with some satisfaction. I don't see how that can occur if there is not time. Which is why I asked Keith the question.

[_Tarski]

Have religious people really thought about whether anyone wants to live forever?

Seriously, what will you be doing after the first thousand years, the first million, the first billion, the first googleplex?

Debating about formal logic?

[_Themis]

I wonder if perhaps we keep going through stages of existence where we don't remember the previous ones but carry forward ingrained personalities, thought processes etc. Evidence for that would be us not remembering the premortal life. Evidence against would be us "having a bright recollection of all our guilt" at the judgement but that doesn't necessarily mean we don't forget later. Also evidence against could be eternal marriage unless we simply happen to know that we are supposed to be together. Perhaps our direct afterlife is still part of this stage of existence and we pass to another at some point in the far future and not remember this one.

That looks a lot like reincarnation. Might be a good way to avoid betting bored for eternity.