3 ms·

A friend of mine (raised Jewish, but deist/agnostic) came to the conclusion that the most reasonable cosmology is one in which each person reincarnates as every

A friend of mine (raised Jewish, but deist/agnostic) came to the conclusion that the most reasonable cosmology is one in which each person reincarnates as every human ever to live before passing on to the next world or becoming a god. This probably rules out free will, but it gives hope that, maybe, we do get to experience at least the entire human world... we just don't have the luxury of perceiving it all at once. It also solves the karma/ethics problem neatly. This is a tough realization, in any case. Even a million-year lifespan wouldn't help, because all of the books we were reading now would be likely to fade if we were to live another million years. As humans, we're innately finite in all sorts of important ways (e.g. attention, memory) that have nothing to do with lifespan. I have to agree with the people who've said that "it's the journey, not the destination". It's all we can control, and it's what we actually experience. As a deist and Buddhist, I've often wondered why God wanted us to evolve in a world where lives are so short and death happens all the time, instead of one in which humans could get a more reasonable 10,000 years (or process information and experience 100 times faster, which would have the same effect). It's infinitely frustrating and reminiscent of Sisyphus (probably, in fact, a Greek metaphor for the reincarnation of the spiritually lazy, noting that ancient Greeks did believe in reincarnation) but it also has a certain beauty to it: getting to go through childhood and to re-learn all of the great things in this world again, and again, and again.

rgraham 16y ago
If you choose to believe that the world was created by an all-good, all-knowing God then you must believe that the world God created is the best possible of all worlds. God would be capable of nothing else in that scenario. Whatever your beliefs I've always thought that was an interesting concept to illuminate 'what if' discussions.
- narrator 16y ago
  Well even the most lenient interpretation of the old testament leads one to believe that God is angry and vengeful, especially if not respected. I think the idea that God only exists if he's a nice guy is a bit of a strawman argument promulgated by atheists.
  - michaelochurch 16y ago
    To a large extent, the "God of the Gaps" argument often made by skeptics is quite true. I say this as a deist who believes in a God. Nonetheless, it's obvious that throughout most of history, people have ascribed to God whatever they didn't understand (weather, geography, biology) and then removed "him" from the explanation once more precise understanding was available. In this light, it makes sense that people in the Bronze Age would believe in a God who's somewhat of a dick. If you believe that God is omnipotent and interventionist, and then watch innocent people get sick or trampled by elephants, you're going to think God is a jerk. We're more philosophically evolved than we were at that time, however, and can consider more possibilities that wouldn't have even occurred to people before the advent of modern philosophy circa 800-400 BC. I believe in a God who is omnibenevolent but electively non-omnipotent on account of deliberate non-interventionism. I believe that free will exists, and possibly at a very low level (even a quantum level, perhaps). Free will makes the future nondeterministic and therefore it makes sense that God would pursue an evolutionary plan that is robust no matter how that free will is exercised. And since all the suffering and "evil" we experience comes from being evolved organisms at a rather low point in our arc, this doesn't contradict the concept of a benevolent God, especially if "he" settles the score at some point in the future (e.g. by allowing us to reincarnate into better forms, either in this world after they are produced by evolution and technology, or in another).
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  >If you choose to believe that the world was created by an all-good, all-knowing God then you must believe that the world God created is the best possible of all worlds. What? Since when does an "all good, all knowing" entity get backed into a corner where it itself relinquishes free will? Said God could have easily created this world with the intent that it is far from perfect for a very specific reason. The pain one assumes in this world is evil and horrible is only accurate if one also assumes that it has no further purpose. It's like saying that all the difficulty in learning to ride a bike could not be allowed by a truly loving parent. That's clearly false.
  - rgraham 16y ago
    I think you missed the point. If the pain is to a higher purpose that in itself provides for a greater good (like riding a bike) then the net effect is a better world. The operative idea being that pain and struggle allow us to become better. God didn't relinquish free will here, but he can't or won't choose to make a shoddy world. It wouldn't be all-good or all-knowing. For a better explanation reference C.S. Lewis.
    - run4yourlives 16y ago
      >then the net effect is a better world. A child riding a bike can only see the failure and difficulty of learning, not them winning the Tour de France. If we are all in the process of learning, would we even know a "better world" if we saw it, and is a "better world" the outcome that matters?

rgraham 16y ago

If you choose to believe that the world was created by an all-good, all-knowing God then you must believe that the world God created is the best possible of all worlds. God would be capable of nothing else in that scenario. Whatever your beliefs I've always thought that was an interesting concept to illuminate 'what if' discussions.

narrator 16y ago
Well even the most lenient interpretation of the old testament leads one to believe that God is angry and vengeful, especially if not respected. I think the idea that God only exists if he's a nice guy is a bit of a strawman argument promulgated by atheists.
- michaelochurch 16y ago
  To a large extent, the "God of the Gaps" argument often made by skeptics is quite true. I say this as a deist who believes in a God. Nonetheless, it's obvious that throughout most of history, people have ascribed to God whatever they didn't understand (weather, geography, biology) and then removed "him" from the explanation once more precise understanding was available. In this light, it makes sense that people in the Bronze Age would believe in a God who's somewhat of a dick. If you believe that God is omnipotent and interventionist, and then watch innocent people get sick or trampled by elephants, you're going to think God is a jerk. We're more philosophically evolved than we were at that time, however, and can consider more possibilities that wouldn't have even occurred to people before the advent of modern philosophy circa 800-400 BC. I believe in a God who is omnibenevolent but electively non-omnipotent on account of deliberate non-interventionism. I believe that free will exists, and possibly at a very low level (even a quantum level, perhaps). Free will makes the future nondeterministic and therefore it makes sense that God would pursue an evolutionary plan that is robust no matter how that free will is exercised. And since all the suffering and "evil" we experience comes from being evolved organisms at a rather low point in our arc, this doesn't contradict the concept of a benevolent God, especially if "he" settles the score at some point in the future (e.g. by allowing us to reincarnate into better forms, either in this world after they are produced by evolution and technology, or in another).
run4yourlives 16y ago
>If you choose to believe that the world was created by an all-good, all-knowing God then you must believe that the world God created is the best possible of all worlds. What? Since when does an "all good, all knowing" entity get backed into a corner where it itself relinquishes free will? Said God could have easily created this world with the intent that it is far from perfect for a very specific reason. The pain one assumes in this world is evil and horrible is only accurate if one also assumes that it has no further purpose. It's like saying that all the difficulty in learning to ride a bike could not be allowed by a truly loving parent. That's clearly false.
- rgraham 16y ago
  I think you missed the point. If the pain is to a higher purpose that in itself provides for a greater good (like riding a bike) then the net effect is a better world. The operative idea being that pain and struggle allow us to become better. God didn't relinquish free will here, but he can't or won't choose to make a shoddy world. It wouldn't be all-good or all-knowing. For a better explanation reference C.S. Lewis.
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    >then the net effect is a better world. A child riding a bike can only see the failure and difficulty of learning, not them winning the Tour de France. If we are all in the process of learning, would we even know a "better world" if we saw it, and is a "better world" the outcome that matters?