Fear not, yoar life is not a waste.

If there is an eternity, then there seems little to fear. All this will happen again, and moar, and less. Within eternity there is space and time foar everything to happen. All yoar suffering. All yoar joy. All the suffering and joy that you can possibly feel. All the foarms of 'you' that can exist.

And throughout that continuum of what is possible, you must admit yoar roal lest she gives you the goatfinger.

Thanks.

>>1
modern cosmology says you're wrong

For the duration of this discussion I am dropping my RedCream persona.

>>3

modern cosmology says you're wrong

I seriously doubt that. We are limited about our universe from noting basic physical facts and then noting the limit of the 'observable universe'. Combine these and you can't rule out the concept of eternity.

About the only thing which is debatable is the concept of what is possible within meta-physical law over eternity. I use the term 'meta-physical' in the sense of universe formations in the hyperverse (which is itself speculation, since it can not be proven). All all possible permutations of physical law possible within the scope of this proposed eternity? As in entirely different universes blooming like flowers in the proposed hyperverse?

It is depressingly possible that our universe is the only one, ever, and shall always be. As it winds down, entropy approaches a maximum value, and all points of temperature approach absolute zero. And that will be it, forever.

What people tend to forget is that 'forever' or 'eternity' mean 'never ending'. All I proposed as >>1 is that there's an implication to 'never ending' that comprises more possibilities that otherwise suspected.

I simply want people to discuss the possibility that if our universe seems to have had a beginning (not a creation, but an origination event), then it's possible for things to begin again, and to have begun before. There's reason to suspect there's a hyperverse, although as I said before, this can't be proven, since our universe is a singularity.

>>1
What if there is no eternity?
What if the end of one's life is the end of one's entire existence?
What if death is the absolute final end?

If there turns out to be no eternity, then this life is all that one has, and one will never get it back. A second passed is a second lost forever, a day wasted is a day wasted forever. We slowly ticking to our eventual demise, and nobody can tell us for certain what will happen after.

There is no scientific evidence pointing to the existence of an eternity. While this does not rule out the existence of an eternity, it is also quite possible that the "beyond" is absolutely nothing.

What then? A life wasted would still be a life wasted, and it would be more prudent to make the best of one's remaining years than to assume the existence of an ideal eternity.

>>5

A life wasted would still be a life wasted, and it would be more prudent to make the best of one's remaining years than to assume the existence of an ideal eternity

There was simply no point to you stating that. One might find that making the best of one's existence involves reflecting on the possibility of an eternal / cyclical universe, or not. Your 'what ifs' are meaningless because those concepts simply don't fit into the limits of language-based thought. So one may as well choose to be intellectually-honest and admit that some form of eternity is very likely to exist.

But there can never be scientific evidence for things like "eternity" anyway, if you're using the traditional definition of scientific evidence. At best, mathematical equations could allow for the possibility of an infinite universe but that is simply a word game because mathematics isn't necessarily the final-word on reality despite what freshmen think.

To follow up: I must re-iterate that the seeming origination of our universe implies origination is possibly repetitive.

>>6

One might find that making the best of one's existence involves reflecting on the possibility of an eternal / cyclical universe, or not.

I'll concede that. You are correct that it's up to the individual to choose their direction in life.

... admit that some form of eternity is very likely to exist

How can you be confident in saying this?

But there can never be scientific evidence for things like "eternity" anyway, if you're using the traditional definition of scientific evidence

I just want to see anything that would give me confidence in the possibility of an eternity, whether that be an argument for eternity, a mathematical expression, or anything else.

If their is no scientific evidence for an eternity, if my what-ifs can't be answered by the constraints of language, then so be it. However, I will not accept the possibility of any eternity existing without seeing a good argument for one existing.

How can you be confident in saying this?

Because our conception of space and time has to be very limited, due to our scale and way of thinking. Eternity is just a way of acknowledging that -- nobody can actually conceive of "forever" so the term encompasses all the inconceivable implications of apparently existing within duration. Science just becomes religion (worshiping of equations) when dealing with such incomprehensible matters, but you can be confident that the incomprehensible definitely does exist. Therefore, our perceptions of space and time and existence and individuality etc. must be so flawed and limited as to be irrelevant. Therefore, eternity exists in some form.

>>9

Therefore, our perceptions of space and time and existence and individuality etc. must be so flawed and limited as to be irrelevant. Therefore, eternity exists in some form.

Isn't there an equally-likely possibility of there existing no form of eternity, since our perceptions don't matter anyways?

If there is a ball inside a closed box, and I have no perception about the color of the ball, I can't make any statement about whether the ball is green or red, right?
If the ball is in a closed box, I have no way of being able to say "it's probably red", when my perceptions are so limited that I can't discern the color of the ball.

Isn't the existence of an eternity the same way? If the nature of "eternity" is in the closed box, and we have no technology to measure the contents of the box, then we have absolutely zero indication that there is anything in the box in the first place. If Bob says that there is an eternity in the box, and Alice says that the box is empty, we have no way of knowing who is most likely to be correct.

Therefore, with our current knowledge, it is impossible to say that either the existence or nonexistence of an eternity is more probable than the other, as we have no knowledge of what's inside the closed box. If we have no indication one way or the other, then considering both possibilities and their implications would seem reasonable.

human intellect can't even confirm the existence of an objective reality. nice one, idiots!

>>10

it is impossible to say that either the existence or nonexistence of an eternity is more probable than the other

No, the existence of eternity is far more probable. Beginning and ending can only be meaningful when you have a reference point for them, so they probably can't be applied to an all-encompassing Everything. From that point of view, it is also likely that a cyclical emergence and disappearance and reemergence of the visible universe is afoot.