Well, there are two possibilities:
Either things need to be created to exist
Or things dont need to be created to exist.
Na, I can see a few more possibilities than these two. But I'll stick with these two for now because next you'll miss something pretty important anyways.
If we consider that things dont need to be created to exist... wouldnt the universe be taken by ultimate chaos, by an infinite number and variety of things coming into being?
No not necessarily. How can you even determine this? For all we know the universe in it's current form is just a byproduct, that we are existing within a mire moment of what the universe will eventually be as a result of what ever happened. Since time is irrelevant the scope of what is happening gets turned towards us instead, which in my opinion is a really bad way to look at the universe because the two time scales are incredibly lopsided. We assume that the universe is meant to be in it's current state, but who is to say that it is? This is a very poor assumption to make and if you are basing premises off of it then by that very fact alone, it is flawed.
I dont get where you went. I didnt say anything about the universe being meant to be where it is.
No. I mean that I know. Its you who thinks that I have convinced myself =)
I still see no basis for your claim.
People can be certain of things even then others look at the same evidence and think something else.
I have a lot of other "paths" that lead me to the conclusion of that never-ending life is not only real, but inevitable and inescapable, but they are all difficult and confusing to put into words.
You seem to be tied down to the idea of that I fear death, and thus fool myself into believing in afterlife. However, there is also the other side of the coin. Non-existance isnt a bad thing and in fact I believe many people kill themselves to reach non-existance, to end all suffering. But they cant, unless their suffering lies only in their humanity and not in their minds. Because no matter how many times and in how many lifes they kill themselves they will always live. I think that eternal existance is just as terrifying as eternal non-existance.
Well how about we switch gears a little here. If something about a person could continue to exist, how does that thing obtain energy to continue? Because everything in this universe requires energy to function. You can't have something that functions without some kind of energy intake. So how exactly does your consciousness or what ever you want to call it, gain energy to continue? If you don't know then what do you know about it? The only thing you seem to "know" if anything is that it does, but that says absolutely nothing. "It just does..."
How would I know? and, does it matter? We dont know everything about physics either. We dont know what is the fountain of energy of the most fundamental particles/waves of energy we know.
Here is another aspect. Which is the forerunner? The brain, or the consciousness? If the consciousness can exist without a brain then shouldn't it by default be unaffected by the brain? Yet when there is brain damage why is it the consciousness is effected? Seems a little silly that the consciousness would be so restricted by the brain while someone is alive but as soon as they die the consciousness is some how released and restored?
Well, I have never suffered brain damage, and my consciousness is the only one I know (I can see there are other people alive, but they are essentially ultra-complex biological machines from the point of view of the self). So I dont know what it would be like if I suffered brain damage. There is no reason to believe the consciousness is "released and restored" upon death, I have no idea of what comes next, of what its next restraint will be like.
So for example a person born blind at birth, has never experienced colors yet when they die, their consciousness will all of a sudden regain the ability of sight? Why is the consciousness so restricted then? It would seem that the body is a huge hindrance then for the consciousness if that is the case. However; I am not pointing this out because your claim has some validity to it, but instead it points out that consciousness is dependent upon the brain and is at the mercy of the brain. When the brain dies, so will the consciousness. If I am wrong, then existence will be a hell by definition.
Like I said above, I have no idea of what the next phase in existance is like, meaning there is no point in speculating about what senses it will have. And the fact that the consciousness follows the dance of the brain is, alone, no reason to believe it will be extinguished with it.
To live on and on with endless lives is probably the worse case that could possibly be. My simple dislike of that is not why I reject it. I reject it because it has no basis in reality. Nothing supports the claim that the consciousness continues or that some part of you will continue on into another life after this one ends. Show me something and perhaps I will have to reevaluate my position.
Indeed, there is no proof of that observable in the physical reality. If you want physical evidence, then im afraid I cannot give you that. And yes, existance is hell, but nothing can be done about that.